That link went to an Op-Ed, which is, er, an EDITORIAL. Here's a definition for you: "A leading article in a newspaper or magazine; an editorial article; an article published as an expression of the views of the editor."
Expression of the views of the editor! Oh My! I'm all for fact-checking the New York Times, but editorials are opinion-pieces, not unbiased reporting.
Not an eco-sphere, but a sphere nonetheless... I want a human hamster ball, like the one in Operation Condor (Jackie Chan? C'mon guys...). Now I *know* the company that rents them (and only rents them):( has been posted on/. several times, but I can't seem to find the link... Oh well...
Not to sound arrogant, but no. Backwards compatability is a baaaaaaad idea. Way back when, when color television was being developed SMPTE (the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers) and the IEEE went to the FCC and said, "Look, we can give you a really really good picture with this signal that is not backwards compatible, or we can give you this other one, which is of the same quality as the B&W NTSC you have now, but is backwards compatible." The FCC said, "Do the latter." SMPTE has been cursing ever since. So, when the time came for a new standard, this time SMTPE and IEEE told the FCC (or got them to agree) to this digital signal that was not backwards compatible. What does all this mean? It means that within the next 5-10 yrs. everyone will have to buy an HDTV television. There will be a grace period during which Stations will be REQUIRED to broadcast both the NTSC and HDTV signals, but after that is up, it's gonna be pure HDTV. Now, why not the backwards compatibility? Well, I hate doing this, but unless you want a (several hundred pages long) explanation of A/D conversion, block and channel encoding, Y/C video and lots of other stuff it will have to suffice to say that the cost of making a digital signal usable by analog equipment is astronomical for the television stations. So, we get our grace period, they get to not go bankrupt, and everybody goes home happy.
I'd be interested to know just how long ago this was. See, several weeks ago, I interviewed for a Summer-Intern Job at Microsoft (in my defense, at 18 years of age that is, however you look at it, good experience and GREAT looking on a resume) and while talking to the recruiter about Linux vs. NT, he mentioned that this past year, they hired a Unix guru who actually started a Linux Special Interests Group at Microsoft, and it has really taken off...
Yes, we know this has been done, we've visited Professor Mann's web site many a time. I believe though that Prof. Mann's webcam is a refreshing image, which, while considered, was not what we are going for. We wanted streaming video. Not just a periodically refreshed.jpg. But please, tell me if i am wrong. We've also visited MIT's and The Wearable Computing Homepage, and all their ilk.
As for the design, it is based loosely around the Lizzy design from MIT.
And as for the media, we know perfectly well that we in no way invented wearable computing, and have NEVER made claims otherwise. We have always taken the utmost care to give credit exactly where it it due, and in this case, I believe that most of the inspiration would go to the MIT Media Lab group. However, having little or no control over the finished, published product, we can never guarantee that exactly what we emphasize is included.
In defense, let's say that wired approaches you and says, "Hey, we wanna do an article." What do you think is the correct thing to say? It is in no way our fault/responsibility that this is news to the general public. Hell, even if it is the "Awww... isn't that cute. Look honey! These kids built a small computer!" factor, why should that matter? Publicity is publicity, and being a privately funded program, WDHS needs the evidence (read; media mentions, television spots, newspaper articles, awards) it can get that the students are working on "cool", "noteworthy" "educational" projects. This way we say, "Look, see what we've done?" and whammo! We have the money to expand, and create a better program and learning environment for the students.
Actually, we got the money from the Dearborn Cable Communications fund, a business venture set up by Mr. Gibb (our instructor) and a partner of his 17 years ago when WDHS first started.
Who manufactured your wavelan? And where and when did you buy it?
If i'm not mistaken, I believe a number of manufacturers use the wavelan architecture, including Digital and Lucent Technology. However, when we went to order, they told us that there was currently an extreme shortage of cards and we could have ended up waiting anywhere from 2 weeks to 2 months for them to become available again.
Seeing as that did not fit into our timeline, we went with a Proxim Rangelan/2 card and access point.
As for the wintv board, Aitech makes it correct? If i am not mistaken, it is not of the PC/104 form factor, effectively canceling that one out right away.
Ok, so I am the kid mentioned in the Wired Article.
Now about those questions.
Cost; approximately $5800. Yeah, i know, it's steep, and a wearable can be made for much less. But what can i say? Wireless LAN equipment is !?#@*ing expensive.
The amount of RAM was a misquote. It really has 128MB. Yes, windows can only cache the first 64MB, but Linux works beautifully with all the supported hardware.
This leads me to the OS choice(s).
It was with a heavy heart, (and not a small number of expletives) that we decided to run Linux and Win98. The original plan was Linux only, but when confronted with what we wanted to do, and the hardware needed to do it, we were forced to run 98 also. Linux just did not have the drivers necessary for all our hardware. Yet. But you should all be please to know that bit by bit, as Linux support grows, we will completely phase microsoft out of the picture altogether.
Finally, please, if any of you HAVE run a web cam off a linux box, please, do email. Any other questions, comments, suggestions, whatever, just send 'em my way.
Slashdot Mirror
That link went to an Op-Ed, which is, er, an EDITORIAL. Here's a definition for you: "A leading article in a newspaper or magazine; an editorial article; an article published as an expression of the views of the editor."
Expression of the views of the editor! Oh My! I'm all for fact-checking the New York Times, but editorials are opinion-pieces, not unbiased reporting.
Not an eco-sphere, but a sphere nonetheless... I want a human hamster ball, like the one in Operation Condor (Jackie Chan? C'mon guys...). Now I *know* the company that rents them (and only rents them) :( has been posted on /. several times, but I can't seem to find the link... Oh well...
Not to sound arrogant, but no. Backwards compatability is a baaaaaaad idea. Way back when, when color television was being developed SMPTE (the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers) and the IEEE went to the FCC and said, "Look, we can give you a really really good picture with this signal that is not backwards compatible, or we can give you this other one, which is of the same quality as the B&W NTSC you have now, but is backwards compatible." The FCC said, "Do the latter." SMPTE has been cursing ever since. So, when the time came for a new standard, this time SMTPE and IEEE told the FCC (or got them to agree) to this digital signal that was not backwards compatible. What does all this mean? It means that within the next 5-10 yrs. everyone will have to buy an HDTV television. There will be a grace period during which Stations will be REQUIRED to broadcast both the NTSC and HDTV signals, but after that is up, it's gonna be pure HDTV. Now, why not the backwards compatibility? Well, I hate doing this, but unless you want a (several hundred pages long) explanation of A/D conversion, block and channel encoding, Y/C video and lots of other stuff it will have to suffice to say that the cost of making a digital signal usable by analog equipment is astronomical for the television stations. So, we get our grace period, they get to not go bankrupt, and everybody goes home happy.
I'd be interested to know just how long ago this was. See, several weeks ago, I interviewed for a Summer-Intern Job at Microsoft (in my defense, at 18 years of age that is, however you look at it, good experience and GREAT looking on a resume) and while talking to the recruiter about Linux vs. NT, he mentioned that this past year, they hired a Unix guru who actually started a Linux Special Interests Group at Microsoft, and it has really taken off...
Yes, we know this has been done, we've visited Professor Mann's web site many a time. I believe though that Prof. Mann's webcam is a refreshing image, which, while considered, was not what we are going for. We wanted streaming video. Not just a periodically refreshed .jpg. But please, tell me if i am wrong. We've also visited MIT's and The Wearable Computing Homepage, and all their ilk.
As for the design, it is based loosely around the Lizzy design from MIT.
And as for the media, we know perfectly well that we in no way invented wearable computing, and have NEVER made claims otherwise. We have always taken the utmost care to give credit exactly where it it due, and in this case, I believe that most of the inspiration would go to the MIT Media Lab group.
However, having little or no control over the finished, published product, we can never guarantee that exactly what we emphasize is included.
In defense, let's say that wired approaches you and says, "Hey, we wanna do an article." What do you think is the correct thing to say? It is in no way our fault/responsibility that this is news to the general public. Hell, even if it is the "Awww... isn't that cute. Look honey! These kids built a small computer!" factor, why should that matter? Publicity is publicity, and being a privately funded program, WDHS needs the evidence (read; media mentions, television spots, newspaper articles, awards) it can get that the students are working on "cool", "noteworthy" "educational" projects. This way we say, "Look, see what we've done?" and whammo! We have the money to expand, and create a better program and learning environment for the students.
questions? comments?
mike
Rats, you've found us out.
Yup, we sold dope to raise the cash.
Actually, we got the money from the Dearborn Cable Communications fund, a business venture set up by Mr. Gibb (our instructor) and a partner of his 17 years ago when WDHS first started.
Who manufactured your wavelan?
And where and when did you buy it?
If i'm not mistaken, I believe a number of manufacturers use the wavelan architecture, including Digital and Lucent Technology.
However, when we went to order, they told us that there was currently an extreme shortage of cards and we could have ended up waiting anywhere from 2 weeks to 2 months for them to become available again.
Seeing as that did not fit into our timeline, we went with a Proxim Rangelan/2 card and access point.
As for the wintv board, Aitech makes it correct?
If i am not mistaken, it is not of the PC/104 form factor, effectively canceling that one out right away.
Mike
Ok, so I am the kid mentioned in the Wired Article.
Now about those questions.
Cost; approximately $5800. Yeah, i know, it's steep, and a wearable can be made for much less. But what can i say? Wireless LAN equipment is
!?#@*ing expensive.
The amount of RAM was a misquote. It really has 128MB. Yes, windows can only cache the first 64MB, but Linux works beautifully with all the supported hardware.
This leads me to the OS choice(s).
It was with a heavy heart, (and not a small number of expletives) that we decided to run Linux and Win98. The original plan was Linux only, but when confronted with what we wanted to do, and the hardware needed to do it, we were forced to run 98 also. Linux just did not have the drivers necessary for all our hardware. Yet.
But you should all be please to know that bit by bit, as Linux support grows, we will completely phase microsoft out of the picture altogether.
Finally, please, if any of you HAVE run a web cam off a linux box, please, do email. Any other questions, comments, suggestions, whatever, just send 'em my way.
Mike Sassak