Getting rid of the wireless network also gets rid of the $1/mo access charge the company is charging for providing the "content". The glowing balls are useless without a signal to drive them.
Actually you can get 12 "output" channels out of a parallel interface if you really want to... the 8 data channels, plus the "strobe", "autofeed", "init", and "select-in" channels (pins 1, 14, 16, 17, but 1, 14, and 17 are "inverted" watch out).
I use the parallel port to drive three stepper motors. Pretty easy to do, and your circuit would be just as easy. You could actually use the same circuit, but simply change the +12V input to the correct voltage, and hook the LED's in where the motor phases would be.
FYI, you can also get 4 "input" channels from the parallel port at the same time, I use them for limit switches to set the position of the steppers to "home". (see diagram)
The whole point is that they went OVERBOARD on the default XP gui, adding eye-candy that added nothing to usability while detracting from the cleanliness of the interface. They're trying to do a "me too" cute interface in competition with Mac, and NOT succeeding.
Yes, I know you can switch to "classic" mode, making it work just like W2k... but then you have the W2k gui. My comment is not that XP itself is worse, but that the GUI is worse. Switching the gui back DOES solve the problem (in my eyes), but does not address how bad the XP UI is in the first place.
Karma whoring? You can't get any better than "excellent" anyways, dufus. Check those things out before you sling insults randomly next time.
And lastly, it DOES relate to the article directly because they're trying to emulate the XP gui... I personally think they'd be better off emulating the W2k gui. Yes, that's MY opinion... I'm fully willing to consider others, but simply saying "you're wrong" and calling me a karma whore is NOT in any way constructive, and contributes NOTHING to the discussion, sorry. Go away now. q:]
Personally, I think the MS GUI peaked at Windows 2000, and went decidedly downhill with XP. That's not to say that it was "ideal" with W2k, but certainly isn't the Fisher-Price-inspired-nightmare that the XP interface is.
Gee, why would someone be so stupid to sue to get their job BACK? Usually, the case would be to sue for compensation, or even punative damages for wrongful dismissal. Sorry, THAT's how the "real world" works.
Having something on record that shows that they could have dismissed you for refusing to do something illegal (even if they create another plausable excuse to fire you) WILL get you extra severance, and lots of it.
Companies will pay a lot to keep ugly lawsuit cases from happening.
I'd add that you should refuse to do it, and make it ABUNDANTLY CLEAR why IN WRITING. Make sure that a copy of that is available in some official form if you're fired for it. The HR manager can be your friend too, it's not a bad idea to bcc them on the email to make sure everyone knows that you have "legitimate" reasons for not doing as you're told.
Their options at that point would be to drop it, provide some "real" backing that it really is legal, or fire you for not doing your job.
In that case, you have a good document to back you up if it comes to a legal fight for unlawful dismissal (or constructive dismissal if they just choose to make your life hell until you quit).
>> It comes down to marketing. AOL/TW has wayyy more marketing power than Matsushita (ReplayTV) or TiVo.
Nobody thinks that McDonald's has the greatest hamburgers in the world, yet they are the number 1 hamburger-based fast food chain in the world
Um.... not quite. McDonalds is successful due as much to CONVENIENCE as anything else. They're everywhere, fast, cheap, and you basically know what you're going to get at any one of them.
By adding such limitations as letting the networks decide what programs you can timeshift, and adding in commercials, they're removing the "convenience" factor that makes Tivo successful in the first place. Marketing or not, useless gadgets don't live long in a connected marketplace.
MadCow.
Better yet, if the mouse was sensitive to 700nm movements, I'd be impressed if he could actually USE the thing...
Let's see... 700nm would have to equal one pixel movement, right? That means that for a full 1280-pixel travel across the screen, he'd only have to move the mouse 0.896mm (I think). That's some pretty impressive motor skills!
The minute that this becomes "commonplace", surveillence cameras will suddenly come equipped with 633-635 and 650nm filters (then 532nm for green, etc). Sure these are a little expensive, but it's not difficult to do.
Lasers are easy to block this way... by definition they only put out one frequency of light. With a good enough filter you could filter out that wavelength and never really notice the difference to the final image (except for scientific purposes of course).
Depending on how many different images it could show under each parallax barrier, you could easily generate volumetric displays.
I do this all the time with Lenticular Images. The trick is that the parallax barrier (or lens in the case of lenticular) blocks more than 50% of the display beneath at a time. If it blocks 80%, and shows 20% to each eye, there's room for 5 separate "views". By moving your head side-to-side, you see different stereo pairs, effectively seeing "around" objects on the screen.
By blocking 90%, showing 10% to each eye, you suddenly allow 10 views.
The problem is that by blocking 90% and showing 10%, your screen is now only 10% as bright as it used to be.
There's a difference... 200 pixels per inch is just that... a pixel can be any shade of any color.
200 dots per inch can only really render about 25 pixels per inch (with full 24-bit color) because it takes an array of 8x8 "dots" OF EACH COLOR INK (on a printer) to be able to represent 256 shades of each color.
So, to equal 200ppi resolution on an inkjet printer, you need somewhere around 1600dpi resolution (ok, there's some "tricks" that newer inkjets do to make it look higher with fewer dots, but that's besides the point).
So, to answer your own question, a 200ppi monitor is much HIGHER resolution than a 1000dpi printer.
At 200 pixels/inch, you could very nicely use this with a "lenticular lens screen" to display 3-D images without the need for special glasses or other accessories.
Remember those cool little "flip cards" you got in Cracker-Jacks, where the image changed when you rotated the card? Well, that's lenticular imaging. This technology is also used for 3-d imagery because the image that you see depends on the angle at which you view the image. Because your eyes each see the same point on the screen from a slightly different angle, the screen shows each eye a different image (allowing proper 3-D).
Using this screen (200ppi) and a 40-line-per-inch lenticular screen, you could see 5 different images depending on the angle you are viewing from... not bad at all.
(BTW, I write "shareware" to produce lenticular images... http://www.lenticularshareware.com)
The explanation as to why it can only play back 103 frames is QUITE clear... the chip has 103 "on-chip" memory buffers per sensor, and they get cyclicly overwritten with the last 103 frames.
This overcomes the bottleneck of trying to transfer data off the CCD at such high frame rates in real time, but limits you to "downloading" the last 103 frames after-the fact from the chip.
Well, if it is 12-bit color PLUS some funky "frame-rate control" and "dithering", they can claim 58k in an underhanded way.
The question is... can they control the frame-rate for each pixel individually, or only for the whole screen at a time? With dithering, you're relying on the adjacent pixel color to "fool" your eye into seeing a color that's not there. With only 160x160 pixels on the screen, the pixels are too coarse and too few to make that work effectively.
The real question is: how many colors can you display on the screen AT THE SAME TIME? Seeing as there's only 25,600 pixels, I'd expect they should be able to display 25,600 colors at the same time if they were going to make their claims above with a "clear conscience".
Then again, I'm in marketing myself... and having a clear conscience is not always possible... q:]
Um, I hate to burst your bubble, but diamond products (rings, earrings, etc.) usually DO appraise for double the price you pay, unless you get screwed over.
I've bought a few things over the years (earrings, engagement ring, pendant, bracelet, etc.), and they've ALL appraised for about double. You'll even see stores (retail stores) ADVERTISE that your purchase is guaranteed to appraise for double.
I think it's part of the cartel syndrome... the appraisers are in that loop too so that prices stay high.
Slashdot Mirror
One setup is for a webcam... pan/tilt (currently packed, I'm moving, otherwise I'd give you a link to move it).
The other setup is a half-finished robotic arm... this will one day be in front of the webcam, and you'll be able to move shit around on the desk.
I get bored sometimes... ok? q:]
MadCow.
Getting rid of the wireless network also gets rid of the $1/mo access charge the company is charging for providing the "content". The glowing balls are useless without a signal to drive them.
Hook it to your computer, save the $$$.
MadCow.
sorry, you can get 5 input channels... I only use 4 though, hence my confusion. The diagram shows all 5 though.
MadCow.
Actually you can get 12 "output" channels out of a parallel interface if you really want to... the 8 data channels, plus the "strobe", "autofeed", "init", and "select-in" channels (pins 1, 14, 16, 17, but 1, 14, and 17 are "inverted" watch out).
c uit.jpg
I use the parallel port to drive three stepper motors. Pretty easy to do, and your circuit would be just as easy. You could actually use the same circuit, but simply change the +12V input to the correct voltage, and hook the LED's in where the motor phases would be.
See my crude circuit diagram here:
www.lenticularshareware.com/downloads/stepper_cir
FYI, you can also get 4 "input" channels from the parallel port at the same time, I use them for limit switches to set the position of the steppers to "home". (see diagram)
MadCow.
The whole point is that they went OVERBOARD on the default XP gui, adding eye-candy that added nothing to usability while detracting from the cleanliness of the interface. They're trying to do a "me too" cute interface in competition with Mac, and NOT succeeding.
Yes, I know you can switch to "classic" mode, making it work just like W2k... but then you have the W2k gui. My comment is not that XP itself is worse, but that the GUI is worse. Switching the gui back DOES solve the problem (in my eyes), but does not address how bad the XP UI is in the first place.
Karma whoring? You can't get any better than "excellent" anyways, dufus. Check those things out before you sling insults randomly next time.
And lastly, it DOES relate to the article directly because they're trying to emulate the XP gui... I personally think they'd be better off emulating the W2k gui. Yes, that's MY opinion... I'm fully willing to consider others, but simply saying "you're wrong" and calling me a karma whore is NOT in any way constructive, and contributes NOTHING to the discussion, sorry. Go away now. q:]
MadCow.
sorry to break this, but if you like winxp gui, then you obviously don't know that much about computers.
Great argumentative skills... hurray for you. Get beat up much as a kid?
q:]
Personally, I think the MS GUI peaked at Windows 2000, and went decidedly downhill with XP. That's not to say that it was "ideal" with W2k, but certainly isn't the Fisher-Price-inspired-nightmare that the XP interface is.
MadCow.
Gee, why would someone be so stupid to sue to get their job BACK? Usually, the case would be to sue for compensation, or even punative damages for wrongful dismissal. Sorry, THAT's how the "real world" works.
Having something on record that shows that they could have dismissed you for refusing to do something illegal (even if they create another plausable excuse to fire you) WILL get you extra severance, and lots of it.
Companies will pay a lot to keep ugly lawsuit cases from happening.
MadCow.
I'd add that you should refuse to do it, and make it ABUNDANTLY CLEAR why IN WRITING. Make sure that a copy of that is available in some official form if you're fired for it. The HR manager can be your friend too, it's not a bad idea to bcc them on the email to make sure everyone knows that you have "legitimate" reasons for not doing as you're told.
Their options at that point would be to drop it, provide some "real" backing that it really is legal, or fire you for not doing your job.
In that case, you have a good document to back you up if it comes to a legal fight for unlawful dismissal (or constructive dismissal if they just choose to make your life hell until you quit).
MadCow.
Man I love that place... anyone know of anything even REMOTELY similar in Vancouver?
MadCow.
Um... where have you BEEN, man?
q:]
MadCow. (sorry... hate to nit-pick, but it's been a slow night!)
Um.... not quite. McDonalds is successful due as much to CONVENIENCE as anything else. They're everywhere, fast, cheap, and you basically know what you're going to get at any one of them.
By adding such limitations as letting the networks decide what programs you can timeshift, and adding in commercials, they're removing the "convenience" factor that makes Tivo successful in the first place. Marketing or not, useless gadgets don't live long in a connected marketplace. MadCow.
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\IllegalMicrosoftStuff\ BillGatesVISAnumber\8605412399653153
h Da te\2003.06.21
.... hey, why not have some fun with it? q:]
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\MSKillerVirus\Launc
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Linux\"format c:\; install Linux"
MadCow.
Better yet, if the mouse was sensitive to 700nm movements, I'd be impressed if he could actually USE the thing...
Let's see... 700nm would have to equal one pixel movement, right? That means that for a full 1280-pixel travel across the screen, he'd only have to move the mouse 0.896mm (I think). That's some pretty impressive motor skills!
MadCow.
We have... it's called "DOS-a-server-randomly", and we solve that problem several times daily.
q:]
MadCow.
The minute that this becomes "commonplace", surveillence cameras will suddenly come equipped with 633-635 and 650nm filters (then 532nm for green, etc). Sure these are a little expensive, but it's not difficult to do.
Lasers are easy to block this way... by definition they only put out one frequency of light. With a good enough filter you could filter out that wavelength and never really notice the difference to the final image (except for scientific purposes of course).
MadCow.
Depending on how many different images it could show under each parallax barrier, you could easily generate volumetric displays.
I do this all the time with Lenticular Images. The trick is that the parallax barrier (or lens in the case of lenticular) blocks more than 50% of the display beneath at a time. If it blocks 80%, and shows 20% to each eye, there's room for 5 separate "views". By moving your head side-to-side, you see different stereo pairs, effectively seeing "around" objects on the screen.
By blocking 90%, showing 10% to each eye, you suddenly allow 10 views.
The problem is that by blocking 90% and showing 10%, your screen is now only 10% as bright as it used to be.
MadCow.
There's a difference... 200 pixels per inch is just that... a pixel can be any shade of any color.
200 dots per inch can only really render about 25 pixels per inch (with full 24-bit color) because it takes an array of 8x8 "dots" OF EACH COLOR INK (on a printer) to be able to represent 256 shades of each color.
So, to equal 200ppi resolution on an inkjet printer, you need somewhere around 1600dpi resolution (ok, there's some "tricks" that newer inkjets do to make it look higher with fewer dots, but that's besides the point).
So, to answer your own question, a 200ppi monitor is much HIGHER resolution than a 1000dpi printer.
madCow.
At 200 pixels/inch, you could very nicely use this with a "lenticular lens screen" to display 3-D images without the need for special glasses or other accessories.
Remember those cool little "flip cards" you got in Cracker-Jacks, where the image changed when you rotated the card? Well, that's lenticular imaging. This technology is also used for 3-d imagery because the image that you see depends on the angle at which you view the image. Because your eyes each see the same point on the screen from a slightly different angle, the screen shows each eye a different image (allowing proper 3-D).
Using this screen (200ppi) and a 40-line-per-inch lenticular screen, you could see 5 different images depending on the angle you are viewing from... not bad at all.
(BTW, I write "shareware" to produce lenticular images... http://www.lenticularshareware.com)
MadCow.
The explanation as to why it can only play back 103 frames is QUITE clear... the chip has 103 "on-chip" memory buffers per sensor, and they get cyclicly overwritten with the last 103 frames.
This overcomes the bottleneck of trying to transfer data off the CCD at such high frame rates in real time, but limits you to "downloading" the last 103 frames after-the fact from the chip.
MadCow.
Well, if it is 12-bit color PLUS some funky "frame-rate control" and "dithering", they can claim 58k in an underhanded way.
The question is... can they control the frame-rate for each pixel individually, or only for the whole screen at a time? With dithering, you're relying on the adjacent pixel color to "fool" your eye into seeing a color that's not there. With only 160x160 pixels on the screen, the pixels are too coarse and too few to make that work effectively.
The real question is: how many colors can you display on the screen AT THE SAME TIME? Seeing as there's only 25,600 pixels, I'd expect they should be able to display 25,600 colors at the same time if they were going to make their claims above with a "clear conscience".
Then again, I'm in marketing myself... and having a clear conscience is not always possible... q:]
MadCow.
Um, I hate to burst your bubble, but diamond products (rings, earrings, etc.) usually DO appraise for double the price you pay, unless you get screwed over.
I've bought a few things over the years (earrings, engagement ring, pendant, bracelet, etc.), and they've ALL appraised for about double. You'll even see stores (retail stores) ADVERTISE that your purchase is guaranteed to appraise for double.
I think it's part of the cartel syndrome... the appraisers are in that loop too so that prices stay high.
Just my $0.02.
MadCow.
It's a quote, dummy... from a movie... from a VERY GOOD AND FAMOUS movie... Glengarry Glen Ross (Alec Baldwin, Ed Harriss, et al).
Probably before your time though, kiddo. Go to blockbuster, get the DVD, and watch it. q:]
MadCow.
Have a coding contest...
1st place is a new Cadillac
2nd place is a set of steak knives
3rd place is "you're fired"...
It's worked before...
q:]
MadCow.
Well, it was either that, or fix their math algorithms... "Excellent" turned out easier than trying to fix "49 + 3 - 2 = 48".
q:]
MadCow.