I am about the same age as you, and I know what you mean. However, most of my stuff worked together. My parents went the opposite way one year, though - they bought me a *more expensive* set: one of the super insane Darda Demons track and a couple of cars. These kits were not cheap (still aren't, last time I saw one) - but boy were those cars lightning quick! Tons of loops, jumps, etc - crazy crap to keep you entertained for hours. The best part was that my other normal cars would work on the track, so it was fun using the Darda car as a "booster" vehicle for the non-powered cars (though usually they wouldn't even make it thru the first loop!)...
The best par was you cuold wack your sibling with them!
For me, the worst part of Hotwheels track was getting hit with it by my mom! If it wasn't that, it was a switch off the tree (no, I didn't have to pick my own!).
Let's just say that didn't happen very often for me - you tend to learn not to talk back and do your chores after the first couple of whacks with a piece of Hotwheel track.
It really is too bad that computers are like they are, today.
I (and I am sure, many other/.'ers) was born in the early 70's and grew up in the 1980's, and I had a computer - a TRS-80 Color Computer 2 with 16k of RAM. Friends had assorted other computers, and there wasn't much that you could do with them "out of the box". A few cartridge games (or games on tape) was about it, unless you had a floppy drive. Even so, most of us would play with BASIC, writing "games" and other software. It was a challenge. It was fun to swap code and attempt to convert it (port it) to run on your hardware (going from a Commie to a Trash80 was always a blast, but conversion between a Trash80 and an Apple IIe wasn't bad - unless the Apple game used sprites). These exercizes led many (most?) of us to careers in programming.
I recently (just last weekend) got a big box of floppies for conversion to emulator formats from a guy who was "throwing out" all of his Color Computer stuff. He gave me around 300 floppies, a few tapes (long since converted to floppy, but having the tapes is cool), some manuals, etc. My goal is to convert it all over to file formats for emulator use, then upload what I legally can somewhere to share it with others (that was the condition of the "gift"). Another guy I know got another 100 or so copy protected floppies (mostly games) to convert as well (he has the hardware - something called a CatWeasel - that can handle it). Most of the stuff that is copy protected or whatnot is in the public domain anyway (most of the authors of the old CoCo stuff have long ago given their permission).
Just going through this stuff, I realize how much I missed (and I had my own sizeable collection that I converted a few year back after building a complete CoCo emulator to complement my real system). Even so, as I go through the collection, there is a sense of nostalgia and knowledge of just what I gained from "hacking" on that system. I still have all of my old code, some of it printed out, and I laugh at my former naiveness, while at the same time seeing just what level of knowledge I had (in one piece of code I was looking at this morning, I had put a comment after a line where I referred to an array index as a pointer - which is what it was - I was 13 at the time).
Kids today just can't have that same experience - the closest they can come to it (out of the box, so to speak) is by playing with javascript, dhtml, and css (or, if on a windows box, some form of vbscript), if they even have a clue what any of that means. If they want to go further, they need to get on the internet and download compilers. Even if all they do is javascript (or vbscript), they still need to hit sites on the internet, because no manual comes with the computer telling you how to do any kind of programming on it. I still have all my old manuals, with the fun and cute "CoCo Guy" cartoons (I also have an OS-9 book from Falsoft Publishing that has the CoCo Cat character through it). They are what ultimately started me and taught me how to program. This isn't possible for a kid on today's machines.
I know that there will be programmers in the future, and I know that kids today program. But is it the same kind of experience? It might be close, but it is likely different, and that may be a good thing in the long run. It might lead to some amazing things in 10 years time. However, I tend to wonder how many kids who might have enjoyed programming, and made a career and/or contributions to the field, aren't (or won't be) programmers - simply because they didn't have an easily available way to program on their systems...
What happened to the solid metal cars that could last and only have a few chips of paint missing after 20 years?
They're all down at your local (or not so local?) antique mall/consignment/store!
Seriously - that is where all the good (and somewhat abused) Hotwheels and Matchbox (personally, I preferred Matchbox over Hotwheels, they were a much better product) cars of old have gone. If you want to go and pick some up, though, prepare to bring a bit a money. I have personally seen Hotwheels from the 1970's go for anywhere from $15.00-$35.00 per car - and these were *not* in "mint condition" - they were in "played with" condition. Mint condition (as in, still in box/bubble wrap) are extremely rare to find, and when you do, depending on the age of the item (among other factors), you might be looking at a lot of money.
Don't even get me started on the old Matchbox RoadKings series - those will really set you back. My only consolation to the whole thing is the fact that I have (well, they are at my mom's house) four cases (over 100 cars from the 1970's) of the things, many in great condition (not mint, but way better than crap I have seen at antique shops). Plus, all of the cases are "vintage" branded Hotwheels and Matchbox cases, plus several of the other accessory toys as well (various "city" cases Matchbox produced in the late-1970's, the Hotwheels "Criss-Cross-Crash!" set, the Matchbox car wash, etc). I played with all them, so none are in perfect condition, but they still have a lot of collector market value. I tended to also collect (when I was a kid - I collect computers, now) the "real life" models, not the specialty "fun" models - which makes my collection even more valuable, as least to another collector. Finally, somewhere I have Matchbox Model-T car that Matchbox made in the early-1970s, which holds a lot of sentimental value (actually, all of them do - so I am likely never going to sell them), because my Dad gave it as a gift to my Mom (don't remember the story behind it). I remember she sat it on her dresser for many years and would barely let me hold it (probably a good thing, I might have tried pitting it against my RoadKing tractor hauler!). Finally, once I was in high school (and long past playing with them), she gave it to me to put in my collection - so it is "safe" in a case.
So - if you really want a surprise, and see the Matchboxes and Hotwheels of "yesteryear", you can do no better than to head to whereever they keep the antiques in your locality. You are sure to find many, and most of them will be for sale. Just bring your checkbook...
I have seen two different prices for this 14 inch tall device - one price was listed in another article as "$7000.00" (no indication if it was US dollars or what), while another poster here on/. indicates "$14000.00" (wow - double?!). My questions are, how is this in any way "cheap", and furthermore, just what is that money going towards?
I mean, seriously - it can't be the servos, sensors, mechanical linkages, or plastic "body parts". Lynxmotion's Robonova only costs $1000.00 for a kit, and that includes digital feedback servos. I know for a fact that the accellerometers, force sensors, and electronic gyros don't cost that much, we could probably safely say another $1000.00 (and that would likely be a high estimate, although I haven't been able to find pricing on miniature 3-axis force sensors, but they are nothing more than fancy small strain gauges). If you wanted vision, you could add on a cheap CMUCam system from Parallax - something which doesn't seem to be a part of the HRP-2m. For an SBC of the size and power quoted (240MHz SH-4 processor, 32MB of RAM, business card sized, linux capable), I was able to find a few examples after a bit of googling for dev kits (of similar spec) for around $1200.00 (personally, I would stick with a cheapo desktop communicating with the 'bot via bluetooth or a similar wireless link, coupled to a servo controller, and maybe a Parallax Stamp or Propeller for management). Software is "open" (though not really "open source" - you need to license it), and free to download (for non-commercial use), so there isn't any cost there (unless, as another poster pointed out, there is a firmware issue - which I didn't research).
I just don't see how there could be justification for $7000.00, let alone $14000.00! As I attempted to describe, a similar robot with similar capabilities can be picked up almost "off-the-shelf" (albeit, from a few different vendors instead of just one) for almost half the price of the "low" estimate, while being generous with my estimated pricing. Likely, you could do even better - for example, using Lynxmotion's servo brackets plus lower-cost non-digital servos, you might able to build something like the Robonova for about 2/3's or so of the cost. If you made your own brackets from cheap alluminum, you could knock even more off the cost (though you will still pay for it in time to machine those brackets).
You ultimately "get what you pay for", so I wouldn't go too cheap - the Lynxmotion servo brackets and cheaper non-digital hi-tec servos would probably be the lowest cost (in terms of money, time, and aggravation) that I would be willing to spend, personally. However, there comes a point where you are just spending money to spend money - and for something like this, that point is about $3000.00 (give or take a few hundred), unless your biped is a fair amount taller than 14 inches or so. So, where is the price increase coming from for this machine? The answer is right in the article:
Much of the technology behind Choromet was originally developed for the HRP-2 Promet (pictured at right), a life-sized research robot marketed by Kawada, and costing tens of millions of yen (upwards of $170,000).
Can you say "recovery of invested funds" (by overcharging buyers of a 'toy')?
They can be fantastic at acting, pretending to be sorry, but see society as nothing more than a game to win, at any cost.
Hell - this could be used to describe just about any corporation. It could easily be applied to describe the United States government. Quite a few politicians would also fit this definition.
In short, when major elements of society act in a way to "get ahead", then punish others for doing the same, it is nothing more than hypocrisy (stemming from a need for self-preservation and greed, most likely), plain and simple.
Actually, at the described size, it may (big IF here) be small enough to fall under the wavelength the magnetron produces. I suppose one way to try would be to try nuking a grain of rice, or a single popcorn kernel, and see what happens (remember to put in a cup of water inside the microwave to avoid frying the magnetron).
That's about as smart as wanting to use UMSDOS for your root.
Late to this, but I had to reply: have you ever heard of "MonkeyLinux"? That was the first form of Linux I played around with (oh, back in 1995/96 timeframe) - it pretty much does (more or less) exactly what you said.
Hey, if you get that working, let me know - I have an Altair that is in serious need of restoration (plus its missing its top - trying to get one from the manufacturer of the Optima case), and I would love to add it to my network just for S&G - of course, even if I got everything entered (toggled in?), I have nowhere to save it to (didn't get any drives, but I do have a controller card)...
...Didn't Douglas Englebert demonstrate such dual mouse input in his demo in 1968? I know there was dual-handed input (a mouse in one hand and a chorded-keyboard in the other), in addition to footpedals - but I could have sworn there was also a dual-mouse input system to allow two-handed resize and rotation of windows and other widgets.
Also, dual-input (if not dual cursors) handling by X is available today - I once hooked a serial mouse and a PS/2 mouse up at the same time to one of my Linux boxen, and by tweaking the xconfig just right I was able to use one mouse for the cursor, but read and utilize either mouse from inside Python (I was playing with an OpenGL app I was developing where I needed both inputs)...
Unless I am reading your post wrong, I don't see where you consider "zombied" machines, except perhaps case number one. However, in the case of a zombie network, you have potentially tens of thousand of machines spread all over the internet, and none would have to click multiple times in a short time period to rack up the clicks - they would just have to click randomly (as in "at randomly spaced time periods) and constantly, whenever the machine it connected to the internet. If the majority of those 0wn3d boxes are on broadband connections, so much the better...
...you buy and maintain a vehicle which nobody wants to break into and steal.
I will never have to worry about my 1994 4-banger Ranger being stolen, even if left unlocked with the keys in it (plus, it is paid off and insurance/registration is really, really low)...
What has caused this? Is it purely computer / internet related, or have employees been wasting absurd amounts of company time for several decades?
The vast majority of businesses either have an organically "developed" set of processes to run the business, or no real processes at all. By "process", I mean a structured and understood (by all necessary staff) flowchart of who does what when, and how thier outputs affect other's inputs. Even if the set of processes has come about organically (ie, trial and error over many, many years and employees, turnovers, etc), it is likely that no one person understands the actual "logical" flow behind thier (or anyone else's) decisions, and the effects of those decisions.
The reality is that, even in those businesses which seem to run well using an organic approach, inevitably there will be waste and errors. If you tried to flowchart the business process of any one area, you would find all manner of strange results, just like you find in any other organically evolved system. While they do "work", they can also break very easily - indeed, it may be this one person who seems to take no input or produce no output, who is actually necessary (in some weird manner) for the functioning of the company - eliminate him (by thinking he is unnecessary), and the company could implode (there are many concrete examples of this in organically developed "evolved" circuitry and neural network systems to illustrate this point).
The processes which define how a business runs is merely the systems-level view of the business as a logical computational machine, whose function is to take the input of customers, produce some form of output to them, as well as profit. In most businesses, the processes are defined poorly or not at all. Those that are defined poorly tend to be those companies who recognize that there are processes that define the business, but don't flowchart and fix the irregularities (and/or inefficiencies) of their organically developed processes, and instead opt to graft on to the existing processes developed and defined processes, without understanding what those defines processes will do to the overall organic process (ultimately, though, this is just another example of an organically defined system). Those businesses that have processes that are not defined at all tend to have nothing but organically defined processes and are loath to look at or change them, for fear of the business imploding. The ole' "It'll break if you look at it crosseyed" syndrome.
Businesses (and the people who run them and are employed by them) are sometimes fearful to look at and understand them as the complex logical machinery that they are. It is the same fear (although at a much larger scale) which keeps most people from understanding how computers work. Most humans see logical and rational processes (whether a business, a computer, or their own within their own self) as dehumanizing or wrong for some insane reason, even though humanity is more than capable of thinking in this manner, since it is required to start a business, build a computer, or merely to exist (without dieing in the short term). However, if they want the system as a whole to last longer than a generation (tops), they need to understand and know the underlying processes which guide that system, if they want those systems to stay homogeneous. Otherwise, the only other method (known to work, although highly inefficient) is to follow nature's path - somehow introduce reproduction into the system (spinoffs and corporate restructure/mergers come to mind as methods which have been tried with mixed success). This is the model most businesses seem to be following, despite the massive amounts of inefficiencies that result from such systems.
So - what is the result of all this? Well, the inefficiencies and waste can cause any number of symptoms, the least problematic of which is employee "downtime" (and employee turnover). High product failure rates (before or after shipping), deadline slippage, and budgetary wast
Seriously, what is holding you back? How difficult is it to select some parts, buy a case and power supply, and put it together with some screws? I mean, this isn't the days of an Altair 8800 where you need to know something about soldering (btw - that's a good skill to pick up, too).
Ok - so maybe you don't have the skill, and are a bit afraid to try your hand with brand new stuff bought for a lot of mullah - I can certainly understand that. So, what to do about getting the skill? Simple:
Buy an old computer.
Heck, you might not even need to buy one, people throw out their "old" computers seemingly every day. If you don't want to scrounge the trash, though, go down to your local thrift store and scrounge there. You should be able to scare up an old 486 or pentium box for not too much (this weekend I bought at goodwill a Linksys 4-port router/firewall for $3.00 - works fine).
Take it home, get yourself a few screwdrivers (you will need at least a couple of phillips-head screwdrivers of two different sizes), and start!
First, take the cover off, and make sure the CPU, RAM, cards, etc - are all "seated" and connected properly, and that you have a hard drive, floppy drive, etc in the case. You might want a friend with you who knows what is what and how things go together to help you along. Once you have verified this, power it up, and see what happens. Hopefully, you will actually boot and won't run into any real problems. Basically, you want to get the system to boot all the way into an OS (DOS is fine here - you just want to know that it works somewhat OK). Write down what you see, how it works, what it recognizes, etc. Then turn it off.
Now for the "fun and learning" part. Start taking it apart (if you are paranoid here, use a wrist grounding strap)! Keep track of what goes where, what screw fits in what hole (important tip - if you think you might have a screw that only fits in one area, screw it back into the part after you remove it, so you don't lose it - this tip works wonders for automobile maintenance!), how things are oriented (especially cable ends if they aren't keyed!), where things are located, etc. If you have to, take pictures or draw diagrams on paper. Keep a lot of notes - this is your first time out - you wouldn't hike without a map, would you? Once you have it completely apart, stripped to an empty case, a few boards, cards, CPU (yeah, take the CPU and RAM out of the sockets), etc - take a rest. Get a sammitch and some soup. Relax. Don't look at it for a few hours. Play some Playstation or whatever.
Once you are rested, go back and put it back together (have your friend over, make it a learning experience he/she can help with). Remember to put everything back like you found it: CPU and heatsink together properly and oriented in the socket/slot right (you will need some new heatsink grease for this, unless the heatsink has been bonded to the CPU). Put the cards in, the cables connected back properly, the power supply hooked up, everything screwed down right. Check and double-check everything. You might want to take the opportunity to clean everything up with a spray can-'o'-air (do this outside if things are really dusty - trust me - and don't spin the fans with the air, you ruin bearings that way). Have your friend help you to make sure you are doing things right, etc.
Once you have it back together, and are sure of everything, power it up, and see what happens! Hopefully, you will boot into the same screen/status that you had before, and everything will look the same. If so - congratulations - you just "built" your first PC! If not, then you (and your poor friend - give him another beer) have some troubleshooting to do. Ultimately, you want the machine to boot just the same as it did before.
If you get through this crash course, try to repeat it, for good measure. Do it without your friend nearby, or wait a day or two between pulling it apart and putting it back together. Go back and buy a
That's the thing - I don't think webos.com was the company behind the demo that I remember seeing oh-so-long-ago - from what I remember, that demo (whereever it was hosted) was some kind of slick (for the time) javascript/dhtml/cgi application (it only ran on Netscape Navigator, IIRC) - looked like a Win95 desktop. From what I recall, I seem to remember that it was only developed by one or two guys, and I think they were just doing it as a "hack" or something. I have to dig out the code I saved, to see what it was at the time...
Such systems do exist - they are mainly used in warehousing and other industrial buildings to track machinery, supplies and (sometimes) workers. But they tend to be very expensive technology (mainly because of the niche market they are in, but the technology figures in to it). Barcodes and simple cameras and/or laser scanners are way cheaper to develop and deploy...
IIRC, the guy behind one of the early 3D modelling apps (Lightwave? Real3D? I forget) started out making 3D animated movies *by hand*. That is, by applying matrix transforms (using a calculator) to each point on each frame, plotting the transformed coordinates on graph paper, photographing the paper and arranging the photographs into a movie.
You must be remembering wrong...
While I can believe this to be possible, I can't imagine why somebody would do this. It isn't like 3D graphics, transforms, etc is anything new. I was playing around with wireframe and solid modeling 3D graphics in BASIC back in highschool on an Apple IIe and a Color Computer 3 (ie, late 1980s), and I was far from the only person doing this. Wireframe 3D (in computer simulation) dates to far earlier - mid to late 1960s (though possibly even earlier than this - I do know of some really early animated 3D computer graphics being done on a plotter and then assembled into a film frame-by-frame - I think one was of a 2-axis sattelite orbit simulation) - with projects for flight simulation and early virtual reality (Sutherland's Sword of Damocles, anyone?).
Since people have been dealing with 3D graphics for so long prior to the development of a desktop microcomputer (let alone a "personal computer"), I can't imagine why anyone would go to the trouble of creating a movie, by hand calculating transforms, after about 1977 or so (when the Apple II was introduced, thus making "high resolution" graphics more easily accessible to the masses - though hobbyists had long adapted S-100 bus computers for this task long before the Apple II), unless it was an art project or something. It isn't like such an exercise would likely lend itself to revealing any new insights into the art or math of 3D computer graphics, that couldn't be found out by simply plugging it all into a computer in the first place.
So, no, they don't make graphics geeks like they used to - but on the other hand, they don't make geeks period like they used to, either - back when geeks used to remember history, instead of repeating it like they seem to do today...
In America, the receipt of purchase is also meant to prove ownership of physical items purchased, in addition to "proof of licensing". Where this gets "interesting" (and most people have no clue about it) is when it comes to automobiles. Do you have the receipt of purchase for your automobile?
Most likely, you don't. What you probably have, if you have anything, is receipt of purchase from the dealer - not the receipt of purchase from the manufacturer. This document is known as the "Manufacturer's Statement of Origin" (MSO).
Most people "purchase" their vehicles through a dealer, via a loan or credit. A payment schedule is set up, a down payment is made, and the new "owner" drives off with the vehicle and a dealer "receipt". The MSO (among other documents) is transferred to the Motor Vehicle Department of the owner's state of residence. When the loan is paid off, the owner may get a copy of the MSO sent to him, but more likely he just gets a note and/or receipt saying the loan is paid in full. The state still has the original MSO. The dealer receipt is not valid proof of ownership of the vehicle - only the MSO is. If you don't have the MSO, and the state does, guess who really owns your vehicle?
The only way (that I know of) to get the MSO of a vehicle is to buy the vehicle directly from the manufacturer, and not the dealer. You can pay cash, credit, or have a private loan to do this, but you will need a trailer to move the vehicle, since it isn't licensed in any way. Actually, this is somewhat false - in theory, you can drive it, without insurance or a license, under the doctrine of "Right to Travel" - but you must have that MSO with you to have any chance of beating this in court when you are hauled in.
As far as I have been able to research, this is all true. It is simply way more obscure than even the whole FIJA (fully informed jury) issue. "Right to Travel" is yet another one of those areas of law which make judges and the states seethe at the mere mention of it, because it is a Constitutionally protected sovereign right of a free man who owns property. At a certain level, it removes control of the state from an otherwise law-abiding person. This angers the state, but they are (currently) unable to do anything about it.
What has been done about it is a nearly institutionalized form of slavery of perpetual indebtedness of citizens via "easy credit" and loans, among other measures (such as the separation of selling mineral rights from property rights, for instance). If a man does not actually own his own property - is he really free, or is he merely another form of a slave?
Licenses, DRM, the DMCA, etc - it is all a part of a very real pattern to control the populace via removal of property ownership rights. Unfortunately, most of the citizens - er, consumers - are playing right along. It is even at a point now where people look at you strangely when you tell them you are paying off your credit, or you use cash, etc - a form of peer pressure to conform to economic slavery. You are suspected if you don't play along, or if you play differently (such as by "living within your means" instead of racking up credit debt). These are sad times we Americans live in - what is pathetic is that most people aren't even aware of what is happenning, and nearly ostracize you if you so much as suggest it...
I remember seeing WebOS back in the late 90s when PCs and storage were so expensive.
Do you remember that demo, too? I can't remember the URL (it may have simply been http://www.webos.com/ for all I know), but I know that I saved a copy of the system because the javascript behind it was so interesting, if complicated. I do know it was written by one or two guys, the system was slow, but it was a very interesting demo - kinda like a preview of tommorow (which is now today).
Today, with the rise of buzzwords like "AJAX", "Web 2.0", and discussion on browser-based operating systems, I tend to wonder if those guys are still around, what they are doing, and what they think about the "new" stuff coming around today? I wonder if they just stay silent, seeing what is happenning - or if they constantly prattle on about "I did something like that way back in the late 1990's, but nobody cared much"? Or (I would like to hope), are they behind (in some way) any of the "new technologies" we are now seeing emerge?
This is what bothers me about computers in general, and the internet in particular - the whole non-permenance of data. In an ideal world, you would be able to simply point to the site and say "yeah, here is what they did a long time ago", and show the historical basis. The wayback machine helps, but I wonder if it archived that site before it was pulled, and if it did, how complete was the image? Similar examples of this loss abound. Another one/.'ers might be familiar with is that spinning spherical projection "3d monitor" device - which is now a company, but back when it started they had tons of photos of the original prototype (parts everywhere, wires strewn, multimeters and oscilloscopes abounding - looked like your typical "I hacked this together" homebrew page, in a way) - which are nowhere to be found on the current site (I tried emailing them about it, never heard anything back from them).
With a simple click of a mouse - history can be easily obliterated - is this "legacy of willful forgetfulness" what we really want to leave our children and heirs?
We HAD a war with Iraq. War's over (though the violence will no doubt continue for decades).
Are you sure about that? No doubt something happenned over there (that was called by the media and others "the Gulf War"), but was what we were shown on television the same as what actually happenned over there?
We live in a world where what is real is filtered through so many different forms of media and messengers, or worse, outright made up and presented as "real" (for example, what is the flavor of Gatorade Frost?) - that our minds, in an effort to maintain stability and sanity, begin to accept everything as "real", and stop questioning what is hyperreal. Even when we do question it, some of us just "go along" and pretend that the actions in the hyperreal landscape have no bearing on what we perceive as "real" (which is why places like Las Vegas and Disneyland "work" - that is, make money).
Explore the concept of hyperreality. Convince me we aren't living in a weird, Bladerunner-esque dystopia. We may not have fembot replicants running around trying to convince everyone they are humans, but just give it some time...
Have you seen a braille reader? That is almost precisely how they are designed, except instead of a "tough membrane", the pins just stick up out of the surface (they are rounded, not pointed, and only stick up a millimeter or so above the surface of the reading area). Yes, they are located on "one long pad", so many characters wide.
Also, have you ever looked at an entire dot-matrix print head? While the area where the pins meet to print is fairly small, the solenoid driver end is actually pretty large - typically a circular case around two inches or so in diameter and about 3/4" thick. Plus, it tends to get very hot depending on how much it is used (sometimes it can get so hot it can jam). Now, imagine packing all of that, times 30 or 40, into a case for the braille pad. Yes, it can and has been done, but it isn't easy, and it doesn't turn out to be cheap, either (that, and the whole "niche market" thing).
GPS doesn't work well in situations where there isn't a fairly clear line of sight - I just started doing geocaching, and while I realized this long before I started, I didn't really have a feel for it until I tried it. Even out in the clear sky where the device could see four satellites, your best average fix is still +/-3 meters - regardless of the GPS unit you are using. For full disclosure, I was using a cheap Garmin Etrex bought used off of Craigslist, but from what research I have done, this limit applies to all standard commercial GPS units.
To get better positional accuracy, you need to move to differential GPS (DGPS), which is GPS coupled with precisely located ground-based transponders (LORAN and others) to get a differential positioning which is used to average and reduce the error level of standard GPS to something much more precise. Depending on the equipment used, this can be very accurate (in +/- X centimeters, in some cases).
I would imagine if you wanted to do something like this for a home or other indoor location, you wouldn't do it with standard GPS but rather with some other localized positional transponder system just for the area in question. Even so, it seems like it would take a lot of relatively expensive equipment which may or may not work all the time, possibly leaving "dead spots" and such which might make interior navigation more difficult (and not to mention, more expensive to install).
The choice to use barcodes is actually a very sound and wise decision, in my opinion. It is easy to deploy (need a new barcode to tag a new description to? Print it out and stick it up!), and it is something that, given a high enough resolution camera with a wide enough field of view (or multiple cameras, more likely), coupled with enough processing power (to decode and read barcodes from a distance and/or at an angle and under different lighting conditions), becomes very easy to use. For a sighted person, seeing barcodes everywhere might not make good asthetic sense, but to a blind or otherwise visually impaired person, they probably don't care.
It isn't that you are wrong, you are just falling for the fallacy that "new and high-tech" means "better and cheaper", which can sometimes be the case, though in many cases another choice (of a mature, reliable, time-tested, and inexpensive technology), might be the better solution for the problem at hand.
Have you ever played with a solenoid or a bare relay? If you had, you would know just how weak they are, and how size matters when it comes to these devices.
To form the 2 x 3 cell pattern for a braille character, you have only a limited amount of space to put it in, because a single cell needs to fit in the area of a adult's fingertip, or about 1 cm^2. Furthermore, when the tips of the rods are pushed up, they need to stay up under the light pressure of the users fingers. It won't be great pressure, but it will exist (if they get pressed down and aren't sensed, the character might be misread). Finally, the rods need to be big enough for the user to sense them - too small of diameter, they won't be read, too big, and they won't fit in the area.
Now, the solenoids that activate the rods, in order to accomplish this, may end up being wider than the rods themselves. There are ways around this mechanically and design wise, but you still need to deal with the fact that the coil of the solenoid has to be large (compared to the diameter of the rod tip) and composed of many windings to get the strength needed. Then there is internal spacing of the coils (I would imagine the coils to be packed in a staggered manner with the rods being flexible shafts - in other words, rod position and coil position would not be the same internal to the device to minimize final size of the product). These are only some of the considerations to take into account.
Finally, realize that the market for these devices is what is called a "niche market", and thus market forces allow the seller to set a fairly high price for these devices as well (not too mention that the government picks up part of the tag via disability payments and such - ah, subsidies - but in this case, it is a worthwhile use of my taxes since it is for disabled citizens).
That last little bit should tell you something: if you can develop a better a device for helping people with disabilities, you too might be able to become rich (warning: tons of government regulations ahead - not to mention a patent jungle). Therefore, can you develop a better braille reader for blind people? I will even give you a hint, which might lead to a new device: ferromagnetic fluids. Please note that I am probably not the first to think of this...
Remember, these devices are to be used by blind people, not by sighted people who can see where to place the reader.
Given this constraint, you now have a bigger problem on the software side: How much of the "material" to be "read" is visible? Are there letters and words on the paper? What if the media the words are written on is non-planar (ie, wrinkled reciept, curved or bent menu, etc)? What if the media has contrast issues (lighting, shinyness of laminate, etc)? What if the media to be read is presented upside down to the reader (furthermore, can you detect this and let the blind user know)?
These are all just a few of the possibilities that I can see causing the price to be high. Sure, it is all in software, but you must be aware the Kurzweil has just about dedicated his and his company's life on developing solutions to all of these issues. It started with his reading machine, I imagine it won't end until eye implants are available (I could also envision a smaller version of this as a monocle or headset style device in which the camera sits, coupled via bluetooth or similar to a belt-mounted computer, plus a pair of headphones - such a device might be helpful to read pedestrian signage in a city or park environment, to aid in navigation, perhaps also coupled with some "Steve Mann" inspired wearable recognition software in which it could "recognize" and store familiar faces and audio notes about them - the possibilities are immense).
Yes, it seems like such a device should be easy to develop, simple to use, and cheap to sell - but the reality of it is that it isn't, mainly because of the constraints of its primary user - a blind person.
You make good points, but I do wonder about what you are saying regarding adult stem cells vs. fetal stem cells - that is, differentiation?
While not a problem in the short term, I would think that an adult stem cell would be inferior to a differentiated fetal stem cell, mainly in regards to apparent age (shortened telemeres, for example?). In other words, wouldn't a differentiated fetal stem cell be younger than an (obviously differentiated) adult stem cell?
If so (and I am not a biologist or geneticist, so for all I know, it could be false), then tissue grown from differentiated fetal stem cells would ultimately be younger and last longer (from an aging standpoint) than the same tissue grown from adult stem cells, would it not?
Like I said, I could be wrong - I probably am - but you seem to have a better handle on this than I do, so I am asking. Also, I realize that researcher are looking into how to extend telemeres and such in an effort to slow or reverse aging, thus maybe such research could be applied to adult stem cells, make my argument (even if it is correct) moot...
Slashdot Mirror
I am about the same age as you, and I know what you mean. However, most of my stuff worked together. My parents went the opposite way one year, though - they bought me a *more expensive* set: one of the super insane Darda Demons track and a couple of cars. These kits were not cheap (still aren't, last time I saw one) - but boy were those cars lightning quick! Tons of loops, jumps, etc - crazy crap to keep you entertained for hours. The best part was that my other normal cars would work on the track, so it was fun using the Darda car as a "booster" vehicle for the non-powered cars (though usually they wouldn't even make it thru the first loop!)...
For me, the worst part of Hotwheels track was getting hit with it by my mom! If it wasn't that, it was a switch off the tree (no, I didn't have to pick my own!).
Let's just say that didn't happen very often for me - you tend to learn not to talk back and do your chores after the first couple of whacks with a piece of Hotwheel track.
I (and I am sure, many other
I recently (just last weekend) got a big box of floppies for conversion to emulator formats from a guy who was "throwing out" all of his Color Computer stuff. He gave me around 300 floppies, a few tapes (long since converted to floppy, but having the tapes is cool), some manuals, etc. My goal is to convert it all over to file formats for emulator use, then upload what I legally can somewhere to share it with others (that was the condition of the "gift"). Another guy I know got another 100 or so copy protected floppies (mostly games) to convert as well (he has the hardware - something called a CatWeasel - that can handle it). Most of the stuff that is copy protected or whatnot is in the public domain anyway (most of the authors of the old CoCo stuff have long ago given their permission).
Just going through this stuff, I realize how much I missed (and I had my own sizeable collection that I converted a few year back after building a complete CoCo emulator to complement my real system). Even so, as I go through the collection, there is a sense of nostalgia and knowledge of just what I gained from "hacking" on that system. I still have all of my old code, some of it printed out, and I laugh at my former naiveness, while at the same time seeing just what level of knowledge I had (in one piece of code I was looking at this morning, I had put a comment after a line where I referred to an array index as a pointer - which is what it was - I was 13 at the time).
Kids today just can't have that same experience - the closest they can come to it (out of the box, so to speak) is by playing with javascript, dhtml, and css (or, if on a windows box, some form of vbscript), if they even have a clue what any of that means. If they want to go further, they need to get on the internet and download compilers. Even if all they do is javascript (or vbscript), they still need to hit sites on the internet, because no manual comes with the computer telling you how to do any kind of programming on it. I still have all my old manuals, with the fun and cute "CoCo Guy" cartoons (I also have an OS-9 book from Falsoft Publishing that has the CoCo Cat character through it). They are what ultimately started me and taught me how to program. This isn't possible for a kid on today's machines.
I know that there will be programmers in the future, and I know that kids today program. But is it the same kind of experience? It might be close, but it is likely different, and that may be a good thing in the long run. It might lead to some amazing things in 10 years time. However, I tend to wonder how many kids who might have enjoyed programming, and made a career and/or contributions to the field, aren't (or won't be) programmers - simply because they didn't have an easily available way to program on their systems...
They're all down at your local (or not so local?) antique mall/consignment/store!
Seriously - that is where all the good (and somewhat abused) Hotwheels and Matchbox (personally, I preferred Matchbox over Hotwheels, they were a much better product) cars of old have gone. If you want to go and pick some up, though, prepare to bring a bit a money. I have personally seen Hotwheels from the 1970's go for anywhere from $15.00-$35.00 per car - and these were *not* in "mint condition" - they were in "played with" condition. Mint condition (as in, still in box/bubble wrap) are extremely rare to find, and when you do, depending on the age of the item (among other factors), you might be looking at a lot of money.
Don't even get me started on the old Matchbox RoadKings series - those will really set you back. My only consolation to the whole thing is the fact that I have (well, they are at my mom's house) four cases (over 100 cars from the 1970's) of the things, many in great condition (not mint, but way better than crap I have seen at antique shops). Plus, all of the cases are "vintage" branded Hotwheels and Matchbox cases, plus several of the other accessory toys as well (various "city" cases Matchbox produced in the late-1970's, the Hotwheels "Criss-Cross-Crash!" set, the Matchbox car wash, etc). I played with all them, so none are in perfect condition, but they still have a lot of collector market value. I tended to also collect (when I was a kid - I collect computers, now) the "real life" models, not the specialty "fun" models - which makes my collection even more valuable, as least to another collector. Finally, somewhere I have Matchbox Model-T car that Matchbox made in the early-1970s, which holds a lot of sentimental value (actually, all of them do - so I am likely never going to sell them), because my Dad gave it as a gift to my Mom (don't remember the story behind it). I remember she sat it on her dresser for many years and would barely let me hold it (probably a good thing, I might have tried pitting it against my RoadKing tractor hauler!). Finally, once I was in high school (and long past playing with them), she gave it to me to put in my collection - so it is "safe" in a case.
So - if you really want a surprise, and see the Matchboxes and Hotwheels of "yesteryear", you can do no better than to head to whereever they keep the antiques in your locality. You are sure to find many, and most of them will be for sale. Just bring your checkbook...
I mean, seriously - it can't be the servos, sensors, mechanical linkages, or plastic "body parts". Lynxmotion's Robonova only costs $1000.00 for a kit, and that includes digital feedback servos. I know for a fact that the accellerometers, force sensors, and electronic gyros don't cost that much, we could probably safely say another $1000.00 (and that would likely be a high estimate, although I haven't been able to find pricing on miniature 3-axis force sensors, but they are nothing more than fancy small strain gauges). If you wanted vision, you could add on a cheap CMUCam system from Parallax - something which doesn't seem to be a part of the HRP-2m. For an SBC of the size and power quoted (240MHz SH-4 processor, 32MB of RAM, business card sized, linux capable), I was able to find a few examples after a bit of googling for dev kits (of similar spec) for around $1200.00 (personally, I would stick with a cheapo desktop communicating with the 'bot via bluetooth or a similar wireless link, coupled to a servo controller, and maybe a Parallax Stamp or Propeller for management). Software is "open" (though not really "open source" - you need to license it), and free to download (for non-commercial use), so there isn't any cost there (unless, as another poster pointed out, there is a firmware issue - which I didn't research).
I just don't see how there could be justification for $7000.00, let alone $14000.00! As I attempted to describe, a similar robot with similar capabilities can be picked up almost "off-the-shelf" (albeit, from a few different vendors instead of just one) for almost half the price of the "low" estimate, while being generous with my estimated pricing. Likely, you could do even better - for example, using Lynxmotion's servo brackets plus lower-cost non-digital servos, you might able to build something like the Robonova for about 2/3's or so of the cost. If you made your own brackets from cheap alluminum, you could knock even more off the cost (though you will still pay for it in time to machine those brackets).
You ultimately "get what you pay for", so I wouldn't go too cheap - the Lynxmotion servo brackets and cheaper non-digital hi-tec servos would probably be the lowest cost (in terms of money, time, and aggravation) that I would be willing to spend, personally. However, there comes a point where you are just spending money to spend money - and for something like this, that point is about $3000.00 (give or take a few hundred), unless your biped is a fair amount taller than 14 inches or so. So, where is the price increase coming from for this machine? The answer is right in the article:
Much of the technology behind Choromet was originally developed for the HRP-2 Promet (pictured at right), a life-sized research robot marketed by Kawada, and costing tens of millions of yen (upwards of $170,000).
Can you say "recovery of invested funds" (by overcharging buyers of a 'toy')?
Hell - this could be used to describe just about any corporation. It could easily be applied to describe the United States government. Quite a few politicians would also fit this definition.
In short, when major elements of society act in a way to "get ahead", then punish others for doing the same, it is nothing more than hypocrisy (stemming from a need for self-preservation and greed, most likely), plain and simple.
Actually, at the described size, it may (big IF here) be small enough to fall under the wavelength the magnetron produces. I suppose one way to try would be to try nuking a grain of rice, or a single popcorn kernel, and see what happens (remember to put in a cup of water inside the microwave to avoid frying the magnetron).
Late to this, but I had to reply: have you ever heard of "MonkeyLinux"? That was the first form of Linux I played around with (oh, back in 1995/96 timeframe) - it pretty much does (more or less) exactly what you said.
Yeah - it sucked...
Hey, if you get that working, let me know - I have an Altair that is in serious need of restoration (plus its missing its top - trying to get one from the manufacturer of the Optima case), and I would love to add it to my network just for S&G - of course, even if I got everything entered (toggled in?), I have nowhere to save it to (didn't get any drives, but I do have a controller card)...
Also, dual-input (if not dual cursors) handling by X is available today - I once hooked a serial mouse and a PS/2 mouse up at the same time to one of my Linux boxen, and by tweaking the xconfig just right I was able to use one mouse for the cursor, but read and utilize either mouse from inside Python (I was playing with an OpenGL app I was developing where I needed both inputs)...
Unless I am reading your post wrong, I don't see where you consider "zombied" machines, except perhaps case number one. However, in the case of a zombie network, you have potentially tens of thousand of machines spread all over the internet, and none would have to click multiple times in a short time period to rack up the clicks - they would just have to click randomly (as in "at randomly spaced time periods) and constantly, whenever the machine it connected to the internet. If the majority of those 0wn3d boxes are on broadband connections, so much the better...
I will never have to worry about my 1994 4-banger Ranger being stolen, even if left unlocked with the keys in it (plus, it is paid off and insurance/registration is really, really low)...
The vast majority of businesses either have an organically "developed" set of processes to run the business, or no real processes at all. By "process", I mean a structured and understood (by all necessary staff) flowchart of who does what when, and how thier outputs affect other's inputs. Even if the set of processes has come about organically (ie, trial and error over many, many years and employees, turnovers, etc), it is likely that no one person understands the actual "logical" flow behind thier (or anyone else's) decisions, and the effects of those decisions.
The reality is that, even in those businesses which seem to run well using an organic approach, inevitably there will be waste and errors. If you tried to flowchart the business process of any one area, you would find all manner of strange results, just like you find in any other organically evolved system. While they do "work", they can also break very easily - indeed, it may be this one person who seems to take no input or produce no output, who is actually necessary (in some weird manner) for the functioning of the company - eliminate him (by thinking he is unnecessary), and the company could implode (there are many concrete examples of this in organically developed "evolved" circuitry and neural network systems to illustrate this point).
The processes which define how a business runs is merely the systems-level view of the business as a logical computational machine, whose function is to take the input of customers, produce some form of output to them, as well as profit. In most businesses, the processes are defined poorly or not at all. Those that are defined poorly tend to be those companies who recognize that there are processes that define the business, but don't flowchart and fix the irregularities (and/or inefficiencies) of their organically developed processes, and instead opt to graft on to the existing processes developed and defined processes, without understanding what those defines processes will do to the overall organic process (ultimately, though, this is just another example of an organically defined system). Those businesses that have processes that are not defined at all tend to have nothing but organically defined processes and are loath to look at or change them, for fear of the business imploding. The ole' "It'll break if you look at it crosseyed" syndrome.
Businesses (and the people who run them and are employed by them) are sometimes fearful to look at and understand them as the complex logical machinery that they are. It is the same fear (although at a much larger scale) which keeps most people from understanding how computers work. Most humans see logical and rational processes (whether a business, a computer, or their own within their own self) as dehumanizing or wrong for some insane reason, even though humanity is more than capable of thinking in this manner, since it is required to start a business, build a computer, or merely to exist (without dieing in the short term). However, if they want the system as a whole to last longer than a generation (tops), they need to understand and know the underlying processes which guide that system, if they want those systems to stay homogeneous. Otherwise, the only other method (known to work, although highly inefficient) is to follow nature's path - somehow introduce reproduction into the system (spinoffs and corporate restructure/mergers come to mind as methods which have been tried with mixed success). This is the model most businesses seem to be following, despite the massive amounts of inefficiencies that result from such systems.
So - what is the result of all this? Well, the inefficiencies and waste can cause any number of symptoms, the least problematic of which is employee "downtime" (and employee turnover). High product failure rates (before or after shipping), deadline slippage, and budgetary wast
Seriously, what is holding you back? How difficult is it to select some parts, buy a case and power supply, and put it together with some screws? I mean, this isn't the days of an Altair 8800 where you need to know something about soldering (btw - that's a good skill to pick up, too).
Ok - so maybe you don't have the skill, and are a bit afraid to try your hand with brand new stuff bought for a lot of mullah - I can certainly understand that. So, what to do about getting the skill? Simple:
Buy an old computer.
Heck, you might not even need to buy one, people throw out their "old" computers seemingly every day. If you don't want to scrounge the trash, though, go down to your local thrift store and scrounge there. You should be able to scare up an old 486 or pentium box for not too much (this weekend I bought at goodwill a Linksys 4-port router/firewall for $3.00 - works fine).
Take it home, get yourself a few screwdrivers (you will need at least a couple of phillips-head screwdrivers of two different sizes), and start!
First, take the cover off, and make sure the CPU, RAM, cards, etc - are all "seated" and connected properly, and that you have a hard drive, floppy drive, etc in the case. You might want a friend with you who knows what is what and how things go together to help you along. Once you have verified this, power it up, and see what happens. Hopefully, you will actually boot and won't run into any real problems. Basically, you want to get the system to boot all the way into an OS (DOS is fine here - you just want to know that it works somewhat OK). Write down what you see, how it works, what it recognizes, etc. Then turn it off.
Now for the "fun and learning" part. Start taking it apart (if you are paranoid here, use a wrist grounding strap)! Keep track of what goes where, what screw fits in what hole (important tip - if you think you might have a screw that only fits in one area, screw it back into the part after you remove it, so you don't lose it - this tip works wonders for automobile maintenance!), how things are oriented (especially cable ends if they aren't keyed!), where things are located, etc. If you have to, take pictures or draw diagrams on paper. Keep a lot of notes - this is your first time out - you wouldn't hike without a map, would you? Once you have it completely apart, stripped to an empty case, a few boards, cards, CPU (yeah, take the CPU and RAM out of the sockets), etc - take a rest. Get a sammitch and some soup. Relax. Don't look at it for a few hours. Play some Playstation or whatever.
Once you are rested, go back and put it back together (have your friend over, make it a learning experience he/she can help with). Remember to put everything back like you found it: CPU and heatsink together properly and oriented in the socket/slot right (you will need some new heatsink grease for this, unless the heatsink has been bonded to the CPU). Put the cards in, the cables connected back properly, the power supply hooked up, everything screwed down right. Check and double-check everything. You might want to take the opportunity to clean everything up with a spray can-'o'-air (do this outside if things are really dusty - trust me - and don't spin the fans with the air, you ruin bearings that way). Have your friend help you to make sure you are doing things right, etc.
Once you have it back together, and are sure of everything, power it up, and see what happens! Hopefully, you will boot into the same screen/status that you had before, and everything will look the same. If so - congratulations - you just "built" your first PC! If not, then you (and your poor friend - give him another beer) have some troubleshooting to do. Ultimately, you want the machine to boot just the same as it did before.
If you get through this crash course, try to repeat it, for good measure. Do it without your friend nearby, or wait a day or two between pulling it apart and putting it back together. Go back and buy a
That's the thing - I don't think webos.com was the company behind the demo that I remember seeing oh-so-long-ago - from what I remember, that demo (whereever it was hosted) was some kind of slick (for the time) javascript/dhtml/cgi application (it only ran on Netscape Navigator, IIRC) - looked like a Win95 desktop. From what I recall, I seem to remember that it was only developed by one or two guys, and I think they were just doing it as a "hack" or something. I have to dig out the code I saved, to see what it was at the time...
Such systems do exist - they are mainly used in warehousing and other industrial buildings to track machinery, supplies and (sometimes) workers. But they tend to be very expensive technology (mainly because of the niche market they are in, but the technology figures in to it). Barcodes and simple cameras and/or laser scanners are way cheaper to develop and deploy...
You must be remembering wrong...
While I can believe this to be possible, I can't imagine why somebody would do this. It isn't like 3D graphics, transforms, etc is anything new. I was playing around with wireframe and solid modeling 3D graphics in BASIC back in highschool on an Apple IIe and a Color Computer 3 (ie, late 1980s), and I was far from the only person doing this. Wireframe 3D (in computer simulation) dates to far earlier - mid to late 1960s (though possibly even earlier than this - I do know of some really early animated 3D computer graphics being done on a plotter and then assembled into a film frame-by-frame - I think one was of a 2-axis sattelite orbit simulation) - with projects for flight simulation and early virtual reality (Sutherland's Sword of Damocles, anyone?).
Since people have been dealing with 3D graphics for so long prior to the development of a desktop microcomputer (let alone a "personal computer"), I can't imagine why anyone would go to the trouble of creating a movie, by hand calculating transforms, after about 1977 or so (when the Apple II was introduced, thus making "high resolution" graphics more easily accessible to the masses - though hobbyists had long adapted S-100 bus computers for this task long before the Apple II), unless it was an art project or something. It isn't like such an exercise would likely lend itself to revealing any new insights into the art or math of 3D computer graphics, that couldn't be found out by simply plugging it all into a computer in the first place.
So, no, they don't make graphics geeks like they used to - but on the other hand, they don't make geeks period like they used to, either - back when geeks used to remember history, instead of repeating it like they seem to do today...
Most likely, you don't. What you probably have, if you have anything, is receipt of purchase from the dealer - not the receipt of purchase from the manufacturer. This document is known as the "Manufacturer's Statement of Origin" (MSO).
Most people "purchase" their vehicles through a dealer, via a loan or credit. A payment schedule is set up, a down payment is made, and the new "owner" drives off with the vehicle and a dealer "receipt". The MSO (among other documents) is transferred to the Motor Vehicle Department of the owner's state of residence. When the loan is paid off, the owner may get a copy of the MSO sent to him, but more likely he just gets a note and/or receipt saying the loan is paid in full. The state still has the original MSO. The dealer receipt is not valid proof of ownership of the vehicle - only the MSO is. If you don't have the MSO, and the state does, guess who really owns your vehicle?
The only way (that I know of) to get the MSO of a vehicle is to buy the vehicle directly from the manufacturer, and not the dealer. You can pay cash, credit, or have a private loan to do this, but you will need a trailer to move the vehicle, since it isn't licensed in any way. Actually, this is somewhat false - in theory, you can drive it, without insurance or a license, under the doctrine of "Right to Travel" - but you must have that MSO with you to have any chance of beating this in court when you are hauled in.
As far as I have been able to research, this is all true. It is simply way more obscure than even the whole FIJA (fully informed jury) issue. "Right to Travel" is yet another one of those areas of law which make judges and the states seethe at the mere mention of it, because it is a Constitutionally protected sovereign right of a free man who owns property. At a certain level, it removes control of the state from an otherwise law-abiding person. This angers the state, but they are (currently) unable to do anything about it.
What has been done about it is a nearly institutionalized form of slavery of perpetual indebtedness of citizens via "easy credit" and loans, among other measures (such as the separation of selling mineral rights from property rights, for instance). If a man does not actually own his own property - is he really free, or is he merely another form of a slave?
Licenses, DRM, the DMCA, etc - it is all a part of a very real pattern to control the populace via removal of property ownership rights. Unfortunately, most of the citizens - er, consumers - are playing right along. It is even at a point now where people look at you strangely when you tell them you are paying off your credit, or you use cash, etc - a form of peer pressure to conform to economic slavery. You are suspected if you don't play along, or if you play differently (such as by "living within your means" instead of racking up credit debt). These are sad times we Americans live in - what is pathetic is that most people aren't even aware of what is happenning, and nearly ostracize you if you so much as suggest it...
Do you remember that demo, too? I can't remember the URL (it may have simply been http://www.webos.com/ for all I know), but I know that I saved a copy of the system because the javascript behind it was so interesting, if complicated. I do know it was written by one or two guys, the system was slow, but it was a very interesting demo - kinda like a preview of tommorow (which is now today).
Today, with the rise of buzzwords like "AJAX", "Web 2.0", and discussion on browser-based operating systems, I tend to wonder if those guys are still around, what they are doing, and what they think about the "new" stuff coming around today? I wonder if they just stay silent, seeing what is happenning - or if they constantly prattle on about "I did something like that way back in the late 1990's, but nobody cared much"? Or (I would like to hope), are they behind (in some way) any of the "new technologies" we are now seeing emerge?
This is what bothers me about computers in general, and the internet in particular - the whole non-permenance of data. In an ideal world, you would be able to simply point to the site and say "yeah, here is what they did a long time ago", and show the historical basis. The wayback machine helps, but I wonder if it archived that site before it was pulled, and if it did, how complete was the image? Similar examples of this loss abound. Another one /.'ers might be familiar with is that spinning spherical projection "3d monitor" device - which is now a company, but back when it started they had tons of photos of the original prototype (parts everywhere, wires strewn, multimeters and oscilloscopes abounding - looked like your typical "I hacked this together" homebrew page, in a way) - which are nowhere to be found on the current site (I tried emailing them about it, never heard anything back from them).
With a simple click of a mouse - history can be easily obliterated - is this "legacy of willful forgetfulness" what we really want to leave our children and heirs?
Are you sure about that? No doubt something happenned over there (that was called by the media and others "the Gulf War"), but was what we were shown on television the same as what actually happenned over there?
Some people don't think so...
We live in a world where what is real is filtered through so many different forms of media and messengers, or worse, outright made up and presented as "real" (for example, what is the flavor of Gatorade Frost?) - that our minds, in an effort to maintain stability and sanity, begin to accept everything as "real", and stop questioning what is hyperreal. Even when we do question it, some of us just "go along" and pretend that the actions in the hyperreal landscape have no bearing on what we perceive as "real" (which is why places like Las Vegas and Disneyland "work" - that is, make money).
Explore the concept of hyperreality. Convince me we aren't living in a weird, Bladerunner-esque dystopia. We may not have fembot replicants running around trying to convince everyone they are humans, but just give it some time...
Also, have you ever looked at an entire dot-matrix print head? While the area where the pins meet to print is fairly small, the solenoid driver end is actually pretty large - typically a circular case around two inches or so in diameter and about 3/4" thick. Plus, it tends to get very hot depending on how much it is used (sometimes it can get so hot it can jam). Now, imagine packing all of that, times 30 or 40, into a case for the braille pad. Yes, it can and has been done, but it isn't easy, and it doesn't turn out to be cheap, either (that, and the whole "niche market" thing).
To get better positional accuracy, you need to move to differential GPS (DGPS), which is GPS coupled with precisely located ground-based transponders (LORAN and others) to get a differential positioning which is used to average and reduce the error level of standard GPS to something much more precise. Depending on the equipment used, this can be very accurate (in +/- X centimeters, in some cases).
I would imagine if you wanted to do something like this for a home or other indoor location, you wouldn't do it with standard GPS but rather with some other localized positional transponder system just for the area in question. Even so, it seems like it would take a lot of relatively expensive equipment which may or may not work all the time, possibly leaving "dead spots" and such which might make interior navigation more difficult (and not to mention, more expensive to install).
The choice to use barcodes is actually a very sound and wise decision, in my opinion. It is easy to deploy (need a new barcode to tag a new description to? Print it out and stick it up!), and it is something that, given a high enough resolution camera with a wide enough field of view (or multiple cameras, more likely), coupled with enough processing power (to decode and read barcodes from a distance and/or at an angle and under different lighting conditions), becomes very easy to use. For a sighted person, seeing barcodes everywhere might not make good asthetic sense, but to a blind or otherwise visually impaired person, they probably don't care.
It isn't that you are wrong, you are just falling for the fallacy that "new and high-tech" means "better and cheaper", which can sometimes be the case, though in many cases another choice (of a mature, reliable, time-tested, and inexpensive technology), might be the better solution for the problem at hand.
To form the 2 x 3 cell pattern for a braille character, you have only a limited amount of space to put it in, because a single cell needs to fit in the area of a adult's fingertip, or about 1 cm^2. Furthermore, when the tips of the rods are pushed up, they need to stay up under the light pressure of the users fingers. It won't be great pressure, but it will exist (if they get pressed down and aren't sensed, the character might be misread). Finally, the rods need to be big enough for the user to sense them - too small of diameter, they won't be read, too big, and they won't fit in the area.
Now, the solenoids that activate the rods, in order to accomplish this, may end up being wider than the rods themselves. There are ways around this mechanically and design wise, but you still need to deal with the fact that the coil of the solenoid has to be large (compared to the diameter of the rod tip) and composed of many windings to get the strength needed. Then there is internal spacing of the coils (I would imagine the coils to be packed in a staggered manner with the rods being flexible shafts - in other words, rod position and coil position would not be the same internal to the device to minimize final size of the product). These are only some of the considerations to take into account.
Finally, realize that the market for these devices is what is called a "niche market", and thus market forces allow the seller to set a fairly high price for these devices as well (not too mention that the government picks up part of the tag via disability payments and such - ah, subsidies - but in this case, it is a worthwhile use of my taxes since it is for disabled citizens).
That last little bit should tell you something: if you can develop a better a device for helping people with disabilities, you too might be able to become rich (warning: tons of government regulations ahead - not to mention a patent jungle). Therefore, can you develop a better braille reader for blind people? I will even give you a hint, which might lead to a new device: ferromagnetic fluids. Please note that I am probably not the first to think of this...
Given this constraint, you now have a bigger problem on the software side: How much of the "material" to be "read" is visible? Are there letters and words on the paper? What if the media the words are written on is non-planar (ie, wrinkled reciept, curved or bent menu, etc)? What if the media has contrast issues (lighting, shinyness of laminate, etc)? What if the media to be read is presented upside down to the reader (furthermore, can you detect this and let the blind user know)?
These are all just a few of the possibilities that I can see causing the price to be high. Sure, it is all in software, but you must be aware the Kurzweil has just about dedicated his and his company's life on developing solutions to all of these issues. It started with his reading machine, I imagine it won't end until eye implants are available (I could also envision a smaller version of this as a monocle or headset style device in which the camera sits, coupled via bluetooth or similar to a belt-mounted computer, plus a pair of headphones - such a device might be helpful to read pedestrian signage in a city or park environment, to aid in navigation, perhaps also coupled with some "Steve Mann" inspired wearable recognition software in which it could "recognize" and store familiar faces and audio notes about them - the possibilities are immense).
Yes, it seems like such a device should be easy to develop, simple to use, and cheap to sell - but the reality of it is that it isn't, mainly because of the constraints of its primary user - a blind person.
While not a problem in the short term, I would think that an adult stem cell would be inferior to a differentiated fetal stem cell, mainly in regards to apparent age (shortened telemeres, for example?). In other words, wouldn't a differentiated fetal stem cell be younger than an (obviously differentiated) adult stem cell?
If so (and I am not a biologist or geneticist, so for all I know, it could be false), then tissue grown from differentiated fetal stem cells would ultimately be younger and last longer (from an aging standpoint) than the same tissue grown from adult stem cells, would it not?
Like I said, I could be wrong - I probably am - but you seem to have a better handle on this than I do, so I am asking. Also, I realize that researcher are looking into how to extend telemeres and such in an effort to slow or reverse aging, thus maybe such research could be applied to adult stem cells, make my argument (even if it is correct) moot...