You've got the best reply by far. I think you hit on a really good point - the operating system. With a Pi, I'm running standard linux. With Android/iOS I'm using their SDK. It could be good or bad. It's somethign to learn.
I'm comparing it against a RasperryPi because I'm aware of the Ardruino and the Pi and they are made for the hacking community. But the cellphones aren't and given the fact that we're returing these devices every two years there is a _HUGE_ market of very capable hardware out there.
I have several projects - from OBD2 projects to water control (on/off with a flow meter). I can do the water control except for configuring the device flow amounts. So add on some way, and with WIFI I can rig up some rudimentary web interface and write a file on the Pi. The ODB2 project needs GPS and WIFI and a display. I've been shopping around and I keep having to buy more and more addons and I realize, I have 2 iPhones and and Android (2.3.5). So why am I just not using them? Oh right, no hardware pins...
Others have suggested something called an IOIO, which looks to be exactly what I'm looking for.
My question isn't flamebait at all. If you're threatened by outdated cellphones being superior to hardware you like, then that's your problem. The irony here is that a six year old device with multiples of computing power and storage is going for $0.99/$1.25 on eBay (iphone 1g/Aria). The only thing it's missing are the IO pins and the open OS... The irony is that IO pins are cheap.
So let me as you this, wouldn't it be far better for you to get the IOIO and an Aria for your projects? You wouldn't be limited by your hardware. You could give a GUI, even a basic status one.
(Admittedly the IOIO is a bit expensive. I'd figure it'd run about $5, but there's a considerable amount of implementation to bring in USB OnTheGo, and all that to work around the manufacturers not implementing host mode in phones from 6 years ago...)
No, I'm not. I understand what the Pi is, But my point is that is if far better displaced by a used cell phone. How many people do you think are passing over a 1g to buy new hardware with less bells and whistles?
It is not written, but it is heavily implied. It is enforced in the courts, where their charter of handing out more or less "equitable" judgments takes place. Generally the scientific data (theory, test, examination, wash rinse repeat) trumps unsubstantiated claims because courts are evidence based and science is all about evidence.
Meanwhile, claimant of "She turned me into a newt!... I got better" would need to provide evidence. Of course there would be no evince of such claim being true. It is the mere lack of evidence favoring irrational decisions that produces the scientific bias.
Our government is required to provide logical, reality-based legislation. Not legislation and mandates built on superstition, witchcraft and rumor. It maybe fine for a short time to prohibit certain things out of an abundance of caution until an answer can be found but now we've had more than enough time, and we have no scientific evidence of any interplay between avionics and solid state mobile devices. All the evidence is anecdotal in nature. This is not sufficient for limiting the freedoms of people.
I am just imagining (like everyone else) 3D printers of this stuff that create rigid blimp sections which are assembled (interlocking) and provide a permanent no-gas lighter-than-air rigid support structure. You only need to maintain vacuum, which is far more easy and desirable than having to lug a fixed amount of compressed buoyant gas around.
We recently discovered that human hearing beats the linear response assumptions used in lossy codecs. So yes, their criticisms are scientifically founded.
helping trigger this week's move from the Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, or FinCen." to what? oh you meant "by": helping trigger this week's move by the Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, or FinCen."
While congress may have the power to regulate commerce, any revision to "No Tax or duty shall be laid" would require a constitutional amendment in addition to what ever legislation congress enacts.All acts of congress are subordinate to the constitution, and where they disagree, the constitution wins.
"No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State." - Article 1, US Constitution.
It seems to me, that any such legislation would be a tax being exported from one state to another. I don't believe a distinction can be made from those being exported and those being imported, since it is only matter of perspective. A tax on imports to a state is a tax on the same article being exported from another. There is no limit to the prohibition. It could also read: "All taxes and duties are prohibited on all articles being exported from any State."
None of QtCore, QtSQL, Qt Network, Qt...need I continue? Only QtGUI presumes a GUI. QtCore is just datatypes, of which they have advanced storage classes and signals and slots (and event loops) and threading.
I'm talking about forward compatibility, not backward. It's easy for some new project to get the latest compiler, but this is not the way software development is done. Real people on real projects develop code bases which must be maintained for a decade or more. Sometimes we can just pick a new compiler, sometimes we can't due to regressions and such. Meanwhile new features are being developed in the real world, features like XML parsing, JSON, etc. The libraries for these, if developed in C++0x11-17/5*pi won't benefit a significant part of the C++ user base which is already dwindling, thanks to.NET and Java.
The specific thing I was talking about Boost and Qt signals/slots. If you have any hybrid program, you're not going to be able to implement that without some kind of chimera class.
Then you're not making the most of it, or not doing anything sufficiently complicated to warrant use of such a library.
That's fin. You're not the target of these things. But maybe you are. But be aware by using a best-of breed toolkit:
- Common operations are always done by 'best-practices'. Your employment and talent pool are 'standard' meaning finding talent that knows how to work in your code base is not a problem. As well as you knowing how to work in other's code.
- simple stuff like foreach() and other iterators eliminate off-by-1 errors and boundary conditions.
- you can increase code complexity, while assuring yourself that there are no non-standard approaches going on. Things like signals/slots from tool kits help enforce standards for callbacks and such. Including thread safety.
We had decent (not perfect) C++ support. Now we go and fragment the industry by inventing a new standard. Code developed to the 0x11 standard won't work on legacy systems with legacy compilers.
Meanwhile boost and Qt worked around the C++ limitations without introducing any compiler differences. I think that was the right approach. True not all things could be delivered without messing with the compiler, but a good many were.
Now my only problem is that Qt (the leading C++ library aside from stl) and boost are not compatible. Boost has the more permissive license, but it is its own license, and boost additions can be under their own license. The Qt library is now LGPL (or commercial), and as of Qt5, Qt is divided into even smaller modules.
I hope the community does not fork again (C++ vs 0x11) with boost vs Qt. I cannot decide whose library should be adopted. But whatever comes to pass, I hope either Qt adopts boost or boost adopts Qt, to prevent further fracturing of C++ community.
I did a tranpositional error. The weight of a loaded civic (including driver+gas) is ~3000lbs. Not 3400. So the civic works out to be slightly better per wight but it still sucks compared to biking.
2012 Honda civic CO2 emmision rating: 200g/mi (Note, converted to mi from km) Daily Human CO2 (no excercise, 60bpm:) 900g/day (38g per hour)
Now we do some math here: assume we cycle for an hour, reaching a peak of 3x consumption (180bpm vs resting rate of 60), that's 113g. My average biking in 1hr is about 12mi, so my exercising is 9.4 grams per mile. Now contrast that with the 200 grams per mile...
Efficency wise, my car is 3400lbs, I am 180lbs. It is 19 times heaver than I am. It's CO2 g/mi is 21 times mine per mile, meaning I am slightly more efficient per pound than the car. (Note: I did not include my bike weight.) The car's downfall is all t he additional weight.
Dominating? No. It wasn't until 2.5/6 that Linux got to be embedded friendly. 2.4 was starting to make inroads but you needed the MontaVista kernel with the SMP spinlock pre-emption points to get good regular behavior (2001). Before that it was way too unpredictable to ever be used in any "embedded" device. Since 2.6 things have gotten a lot better and the interests of the embedded market have always been taken into account.
But not dominating. VXWorks was and still is dominant. Around 2.6 era (2005), you could finally get VXWorks apps to run on 2.6 without a whole lot of work. Again MonstaVista had shims for porting from VX to Linux. The shims were ok, though the preemption handling was not all there so there were still challenges.
I'd say linux is now the dominant OS, but that's only since about 2008ish, with the rise of Android.
Slashdot Mirror
You've got the best reply by far. I think you hit on a really good point - the operating system. With a Pi, I'm running standard linux. With Android/iOS I'm using their SDK. It could be good or bad. It's somethign to learn.
I'm comparing it against a RasperryPi because I'm aware of the Ardruino and the Pi and they are made for the hacking community. But the cellphones aren't and given the fact that we're returing these devices every two years there is a _HUGE_ market of very capable hardware out there.
I have several projects - from OBD2 projects to water control (on/off with a flow meter). I can do the water control except for configuring the device flow amounts. So add on some way, and with WIFI I can rig up some rudimentary web interface and write a file on the Pi. The ODB2 project needs GPS and WIFI and a display. I've been shopping around and I keep having to buy more and more addons and I realize, I have 2 iPhones and and Android (2.3.5). So why am I just not using them? Oh right, no hardware pins...
Others have suggested something called an IOIO, which looks to be exactly what I'm looking for.
My question isn't flamebait at all. If you're threatened by outdated cellphones being superior to hardware you like, then that's your problem. The irony here is that a six year old device with multiples of computing power and storage is going for $0.99/$1.25 on eBay (iphone 1g/Aria). The only thing it's missing are the IO pins and the open OS... The irony is that IO pins are cheap.
So let me as you this, wouldn't it be far better for you to get the IOIO and an Aria for your projects? You wouldn't be limited by your hardware. You could give a GUI, even a basic status one.
(Admittedly the IOIO is a bit expensive. I'd figure it'd run about $5, but there's a considerable amount of implementation to bring in USB OnTheGo, and all that to work around the manufacturers not implementing host mode in phones from 6 years ago...)
I have an Arduino. I need way more things than that can handle. Wifi for example.
No, I'm not. I understand what the Pi is, But my point is that is if far better displaced by a used cell phone. How many people do you think are passing over a 1g to buy new hardware with less bells and whistles?
It is not written, but it is heavily implied. It is enforced in the courts, where their charter of handing out more or less "equitable" judgments takes place. Generally the scientific data (theory, test, examination, wash rinse repeat) trumps unsubstantiated claims because courts are evidence based and science is all about evidence.
Meanwhile, claimant of "She turned me into a newt! ... I got better" would need to provide evidence. Of course there would be no evince of such claim being true. It is the mere lack of evidence favoring irrational decisions that produces the scientific bias.
Our government is required to provide logical, reality-based legislation. Not legislation and mandates built on superstition, witchcraft and rumor. It maybe fine for a short time to prohibit certain things out of an abundance of caution until an answer can be found but now we've had more than enough time, and we have no scientific evidence of any interplay between avionics and solid state mobile devices. All the evidence is anecdotal in nature. This is not sufficient for limiting the freedoms of people.
Yay, you finally said it right!
I am just imagining (like everyone else) 3D printers of this stuff that create rigid blimp sections which are assembled (interlocking) and provide a permanent no-gas lighter-than-air rigid support structure. You only need to maintain vacuum, which is far more easy and desirable than having to lug a fixed amount of compressed buoyant gas around.
Didja read the article? Some people can tell the difference down to one oscillation per second. That's not theoretical.
We recently discovered that human hearing beats the linear response assumptions used in lossy codecs. So yes, their criticisms are scientifically founded.
helping trigger this week's move from the Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, or FinCen." to what?
oh you meant "by":
helping trigger this week's move by the Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, or FinCen."
While congress may have the power to regulate commerce, any revision to "No Tax or duty shall be laid" would require a constitutional amendment in addition to what ever legislation congress enacts.All acts of congress are subordinate to the constitution, and where they disagree, the constitution wins.
"No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State." - Article 1, US Constitution.
It seems to me, that any such legislation would be a tax being exported from one state to another. I don't believe a distinction can be made from those being exported and those being imported, since it is only matter of perspective. A tax on imports to a state is a tax on the same article being exported from another. There is no limit to the prohibition. It could also read: "All taxes and duties are prohibited on all articles being exported from any State."
Bzzzt.
None of QtCore, QtSQL, Qt Network, Qt...need I continue? Only QtGUI presumes a GUI. QtCore is just datatypes, of which they have advanced storage classes and signals and slots (and event loops) and threading.
I'm talking about forward compatibility, not backward. It's easy for some new project to get the latest compiler, but this is not the way software development is done. Real people on real projects develop code bases which must be maintained for a decade or more. Sometimes we can just pick a new compiler, sometimes we can't due to regressions and such. Meanwhile new features are being developed in the real world, features like XML parsing, JSON, etc. The libraries for these, if developed in C++0x11-17/5*pi won't benefit a significant part of the C++ user base which is already dwindling, thanks to .NET and Java.
The specific thing I was talking about Boost and Qt signals/slots. If you have any hybrid program, you're not going to be able to implement that without some kind of chimera class.
Again, more confusion created by crappy naming scheme.
They are transitioning to CMake.
Then you're not making the most of it, or not doing anything sufficiently complicated to warrant use of such a library.
That's fin. You're not the target of these things. But maybe you are. But be aware by using a best-of breed toolkit:
- Common operations are always done by 'best-practices'. Your employment and talent pool are 'standard' meaning finding talent that knows how to work in your code base is not a problem. As well as you knowing how to work in other's code.
- simple stuff like foreach() and other iterators eliminate off-by-1 errors and boundary conditions.
- you can increase code complexity, while assuring yourself that there are no non-standard approaches going on. Things like signals/slots from tool kits help enforce standards for callbacks and such. Including thread safety.
We had decent (not perfect) C++ support. Now we go and fragment the industry by inventing a new standard. Code developed to the 0x11 standard won't work on legacy systems with legacy compilers.
Meanwhile boost and Qt worked around the C++ limitations without introducing any compiler differences. I think that was the right approach. True not all things could be delivered without messing with the compiler, but a good many were.
Now my only problem is that Qt (the leading C++ library aside from stl) and boost are not compatible. Boost has the more permissive license, but it is its own license, and boost additions can be under their own license. The Qt library is now LGPL (or commercial), and as of Qt5, Qt is divided into even smaller modules.
I hope the community does not fork again (C++ vs 0x11) with boost vs Qt. I cannot decide whose library should be adopted. But whatever comes to pass, I hope either Qt adopts boost or boost adopts Qt, to prevent further fracturing of C++ community.
PETA should be all over this! Imagine passing a molar through your tiny mouse urethra!
No, 22,000. This is the upswing. You forgot to include the down-swing.
Don't talk to he police I was shocked when I watched this.
I did a tranpositional error. The weight of a loaded civic (including driver+gas) is ~3000lbs. Not 3400. So the civic works out to be slightly better per wight but it still sucks compared to biking.
2012 Honda civic CO2 emmision rating: 200g/mi (Note, converted to mi from km)
Daily Human CO2 (no excercise, 60bpm:) 900g/day (38g per hour)
Now we do some math here: assume we cycle for an hour, reaching a peak of 3x consumption (180bpm vs resting rate of 60), that's 113g. My average biking in 1hr is about 12mi, so my exercising is 9.4 grams per mile. Now contrast that with the 200 grams per mile...
Efficency wise, my car is 3400lbs, I am 180lbs. It is 19 times heaver than I am. It's CO2 g/mi is 21 times mine per mile, meaning I am slightly more efficient per pound than the car. (Note: I did not include my bike weight.) The car's downfall is all t he additional weight.
Dominating? No. It wasn't until 2.5/6 that Linux got to be embedded friendly. 2.4 was starting to make inroads but you needed the MontaVista kernel with the SMP spinlock pre-emption points to get good regular behavior (2001). Before that it was way too unpredictable to ever be used in any "embedded" device. Since 2.6 things have gotten a lot better and the interests of the embedded market have always been taken into account.
But not dominating. VXWorks was and still is dominant. Around 2.6 era (2005), you could finally get VXWorks apps to run on 2.6 without a whole lot of work. Again MonstaVista had shims for porting from VX to Linux. The shims were ok, though the preemption handling was not all there so there were still challenges.
I'd say linux is now the dominant OS, but that's only since about 2008ish, with the rise of Android.
I checked a few weeks ago and no place in the US had any to sell. I'd love one, but i had to go with arduino instead.
Correct!
Also, this XKCD applies as well.