Every post I have read here is along the lines of 'She does X and Y happens', which is the blazingly obvious answer to the question, but obvious is not always best and simplest. Why not look at this from a different perspective, in fact the opposite apporach. Imagine a solution where she STOPS doing something to trigger the alarm. This approach has many benefits.
First a minor description of the device. Imagine a switch, or a pair of contacts that her finger rests on, and the default is that the contact is made. When she moves her finger OFF the switch, and breaks the contact, the alarm is triggered. If you have a simple circuit with 2 wires and a battery, she doesn't have to move much, a wire's breadth to trigger it. By selecting the contacts, you can also set sensitivity.
A benefit to this is you can set it up so she has to exert effort to keep the switch closed, for example setting the switch on the side of her finger. If she relaxes, her finger drops, the circuit breaks, and the alarm goes off. This would be usefull if she passes out, or stops breathing. When she looses control, wether or not she is able to move, the alarm goes off.
The downside is that you would have to have a second setup for times when she is asleep, or otherwise not able to exert the effort on the switch, but that can be easily dealt with.
Another benefit of this type of switch is that when the battery dies, it goes off. Granted, that can get annoying, but if there is a problem, and the battery has no juice, she dies. Not good. (Before you say something like 'but we will always change the batterys regularly', I am an admin. People are stupid forgetfull sheep, and don't do things even when thier lives, or that of thier loved ones depend on it. Think system backups, there is a reason they are automated.).
The alarm this type of thing is connected to is irrelevant, the trick how it is triggered. By its very nature, incapacitation generally leaves you incapacitated possibly unable to trigger the alarm. Think dead man's switch, and you have your answer. Cheap, easy, and rather foolproof.
The canopy system is designed to give 10Mbps to 200 user at a time, or 2Gbps per access point. If you lessen the number of connections, you can up the per user bandwidth. Of course this means the CPE stuff becomes more expensive.
Generally, in this context, notification is defined by them posting a notice on the relevant web page. Like the cable companies who also use the same tactic, the page is almost impossible to find, even if you know it exists, and know what to look for. By updating that web page, they change the EULA that you are bound by. You do know where the web pages for all your EULAs are, don't you?
All three firms are losing money on their consoles, though exactly how much is difficult to say.
Wrong again! Microsoft is the only one doing this!
Actually, the PS2 sells for about cost of manufacturing, but when you factor in retailer profit, sony loses a little per box, but it is not thought to be a major problem to sony. From what I hear, it is recouped in 2-3 games.
I read the intel/rambus/warrants thing a few when it was posted, and it just didn't ring right to me. Here's why. The warrants issued have a value of about $160 Million. While this is not chump change, it doesn't mean ALL that much to intel. Even if the value doubles to about $300M, it still isn't enough to sway intel from a technical path that they see as 'right'. If you search back through the news, early in 1999, intel spent a LOT of money greasing the palms of Ram makers to kickstart RDRAM production. These 'gifts' came to a LOT more than $160M, I seem to recall them giving one manufacturer about $500M to get started (I am to damn lazy and tired to look up the links right now). They spent WAY more to jumpstart RDRAM production that they will EVER get from the value of the rambus warrants. In my mind this discounts the money theory in my mind. This leaves us with the question of why is intel proceding along such a STUPID path. They could switch over to PC133 at any time. If VIA can make a chipset that does it, intel can do it in half the time, and better (no matter what you say about intel, they have a LOT of tallented engineers. Look at the BX chipset. Nothing comes close. If they do the same thing with PC133 memory, and all the bells and whistles, look out world, and via). The only question is wether management will let them do it, and why not? I only have one theory here, control. Intel has long been, like MS, a company that controlls standards. If you control standards, you can shape the market and reap HUGE profits be being first and best at everything. Intel made the PC66 standard, and was, for a long time, the best vendor of PC66 based chased chipsets. They bobbled with PC100, and other vendors took over the technology lead. Intel quickly caught up, but WAS behind for a while. They are not in the ballpark now with PC133, and it is hurting them. They went from nearly 100% of the chipset market a few months ago to about 60% now. That has to hurt. And until they get thier production act together (september-ish?), the situation will not get much better. Couple this with the fact that they were collectively bitch-slapped be the DRAM vendors recently, and the future doesn't look to good for them. One thing that will get them back into the lead quick is owning the standards. They can then produce the best chipsets first, and set direction. $160M isn't enough for them to stick with a losing technology. Controlling the marketplace is. THAT is why I think intel is sticking with rambus.
Slashdot Mirror
Every post I have read here is along the lines of 'She does X and Y happens', which is the blazingly obvious answer to the question, but obvious is not always best and simplest. Why not look at this from a different perspective, in fact the opposite apporach. Imagine a solution where she STOPS doing something to trigger the alarm. This approach has many benefits.
First a minor description of the device. Imagine a switch, or a pair of contacts that her finger rests on, and the default is that the contact is made. When she moves her finger OFF the switch, and breaks the contact, the alarm is triggered. If you have a simple circuit with 2 wires and a battery, she doesn't have to move much, a wire's breadth to trigger it. By selecting the contacts, you can also set sensitivity.
A benefit to this is you can set it up so she has to exert effort to keep the switch closed, for example setting the switch on the side of her finger. If she relaxes, her finger drops, the circuit breaks, and the alarm goes off. This would be usefull if she passes out, or stops breathing. When she looses control, wether or not she is able to move, the alarm goes off.
The downside is that you would have to have a second setup for times when she is asleep, or otherwise not able to exert the effort on the switch, but that can be easily dealt with.
Another benefit of this type of switch is that when the battery dies, it goes off. Granted, that can get annoying, but if there is a problem, and the battery has no juice, she dies. Not good. (Before you say something like 'but we will always change the batterys regularly', I am an admin. People are stupid forgetfull sheep, and don't do things even when thier lives, or that of thier loved ones depend on it. Think system backups, there is a reason they are automated.).
The alarm this type of thing is connected to is irrelevant, the trick how it is triggered. By its very nature, incapacitation generally leaves you incapacitated possibly unable to trigger the alarm. Think dead man's switch, and you have your answer. Cheap, easy, and rather foolproof.
-Charlie
>Why there aren't/never were coin-op iD games.....arcade play against others all over the world.....
Mainly because, at $.50/3 frags, it would break even Bill Gates's bank.
-Charlie
It is probably safer to put your genitalia in the plutonuim, but Kobe Tai is definately better to look at. Overall, it is rather a tossup.
-Charlie
The canopy system is designed to give 10Mbps to 200 user at a time, or 2Gbps per access point. If you lessen the number of connections, you can up the per user bandwidth. Of course this means the CPE stuff becomes more expensive.
-Charlie
Generally, in this context, notification is defined by them posting a notice on the relevant web page. Like the cable companies who also use the same tactic, the page is almost impossible to find, even if you know it exists, and know what to look for. By updating that web page, they change the EULA that you are bound by. You do know where the web pages for all your EULAs are, don't you?
-Charlie
All three firms are losing money on their consoles, though exactly how much is difficult to say.
Wrong again! Microsoft is the only one doing this!
Actually, the PS2 sells for about cost of manufacturing, but when you factor in retailer profit, sony loses a little per box, but it is not thought to be a major problem to sony. From what I hear, it is recouped in 2-3 games.
Yeah, but if you run an MS OS on it, it will feel like 2MHz.
-Charlie
(sorry, I had to)
I read the intel/rambus/warrants thing a few when it was posted, and it just didn't ring right to me. Here's why. The warrants issued have a value of about $160 Million. While this is not chump change, it doesn't mean ALL that much to intel. Even if the value doubles to about $300M, it still isn't enough to sway intel from a technical path that they see as 'right'. If you search back through the news, early in 1999, intel spent a LOT of money greasing the palms of Ram makers to kickstart RDRAM production. These 'gifts' came to a LOT more than $160M, I seem to recall them giving one manufacturer about $500M to get started (I am to damn lazy and tired to look up the links right now). They spent WAY more to jumpstart RDRAM production that they will EVER get from the value of the rambus warrants. In my mind this discounts the money theory in my mind. This leaves us with the question of why is intel proceding along such a STUPID path. They could switch over to PC133 at any time. If VIA can make a chipset that does it, intel can do it in half the time, and better (no matter what you say about intel, they have a LOT of tallented engineers. Look at the BX chipset. Nothing comes close. If they do the same thing with PC133 memory, and all the bells and whistles, look out world, and via). The only question is wether management will let them do it, and why not? I only have one theory here, control. Intel has long been, like MS, a company that controlls standards. If you control standards, you can shape the market and reap HUGE profits be being first and best at everything. Intel made the PC66 standard, and was, for a long time, the best vendor of PC66 based chased chipsets. They bobbled with PC100, and other vendors took over the technology lead. Intel quickly caught up, but WAS behind for a while. They are not in the ballpark now with PC133, and it is hurting them. They went from nearly 100% of the chipset market a few months ago to about 60% now. That has to hurt. And until they get thier production act together (september-ish?), the situation will not get much better. Couple this with the fact that they were collectively bitch-slapped be the DRAM vendors recently, and the future doesn't look to good for them. One thing that will get them back into the lead quick is owning the standards. They can then produce the best chipsets first, and set direction. $160M isn't enough for them to stick with a losing technology. Controlling the marketplace is. THAT is why I think intel is sticking with rambus.