Maybe it was a Milton Bradley Big Trak (and your memory is fuzzy - 'cause I don't remember the red beam - blue beam yes, red - no). Or maybe it was another toy?
I am wondering if anyone remembers the Brain Buggy - made by some off-brand toy maker (can't remember the name). Came out at the same time as MB's Big Trak - looked almost like a Hummer.
I somehow got lucky enough to get both for Xmas - but I always liked my Big Trak more...
Yeah, I got an Omnibot 2000, with the tray - but no base mat. I picked up a copy of the instructions from a dealer on EBay (he was selling a 2000, and for the cost of copying and postage, made a copy of the manual for me). I also own a Verbot, and a Chatbot - and a couple of Armatrons. I hope to get a regular Omnibot sometime. I would love a complete Tomy 'bot collection - but some of the 'bots are collectors items, and are tough to get, or expensive (two of the top of my head I can think of that meet this criteria are the 'bot that looks like an owl, and the one that can roam your desk vacuuming up bits of paper).
Anyhow, the cool thing about the Omnibot 2000 was the number of I/O ports on the back of the 'bot. According to my copy of the manual, these were meant for future expansion options (ultrasound sensors, and computer interfacing) that never materialized (AFAIK).
The Armatrons are also neat. One motor, two joysticks, and a helluva transmission to perform really complex tasks - there was an interfacing article in one of the summer issues of Radio-Electronics, in 1986 or so. Hooked up to a C=64...
Sadly, TOMY knows hardly anything of its past - Armatron was the height of TOMY in the 80's, and they sold the repro rights to Tandy - it is VERY difficult to find a TOMY Armatron - most are the Radio Shack branded ones (same tech - no prob there, but not the same if you collect 80's TOMY toys)...
You have a point - but as an operator of the server, it would be my responsibility to limit the number of users/bandwidth to something reasonable, so that it wouldn't be hogged. In addition, @Home should provide sufficient bandwidth at those local nodes so that such flooding is less of a problem for others, as well as providing tools to see how much bandwidth you are using out of the "pool", so that you can throttle back as needed.
I have thought about running on high ports, but that isn't quite the same as how I have my site right now, where anyone who clicks the link above can see it, and search engines can see it easily as well. IOW, I would rather run on standard ports for http.
Now, high non-standard ports would be OK for me to do some other work I have thought about (setting up a personal, my use only, FTP server - to xfer files between my work and home - etc), but I still would rather be able to do this legally, than skirting the edges and getting my contract canceled because I ran a telnet daemon on my box that I used occasionally...
I started thinking about what I wrote earlier, and realized that using a motor with an ecentric (to produce the vibration), means that the motor is actually (if left loose, say) vibrating in a "circular" pattern (wobbling in a circle). For my idea to work, you would have to be able to impart the force in a single direction - so I wondered how it was being done in the model I saw. I began to think about it...
IIRC - the model used a motor, with the shaft extending through the center of a circular thin can (like a chewing tobbacco tin). Attached to the end of the shaft was a "vane" - a thin piece of metal - that extended to the side of the can, but didn't touch it. Inside the can was a loose bearing, then the lid was put on. The tin/motor combo was mounted on it's side.
Now, when the motor spun the vane, it would push the bearing - throwing the weight forward (and maybe even up and around the side), but at the top, the bearing would fall to the bottom - to continue the cycle as the vane came back around.
Now, this could be totally wrong (unfortunately I don't have that particular encyclopedia - I only saw it at the library as a kid). The thing that shoots the whole in my memory of the device is that toy mouse I described - it don't rattle, which it should if if had a loose bearing in it. I might open the thing up tonight, and see how it works...
Why? I currently have @Home service (yeah, I know it sucks, but it is all I can get right now), but in order to stay legit, I am not allowed to run servers. I am also capped on my upload bandwidth (and probably capped on the download, but at several times what the upload cap is).
Before I signed up for the service, I repeatedly tried to get them to offer me more bandwidth and the ability to run a server (hey, I am not wanting to so I can run an MP3 or p0rn server - I just would like to host my site at home, instead of through HE), even offering to pay more for any extra bandwidth I use, etc. They suggested I look into @Work - but since this is a hobbiest site with low hit counts, I can't afford that kind of access.
I was even willing to keep the cap, and just allow me to run a server, but they wouldn't do it (they wouldn't even let me negotiate the contract)...
Bleh...
Anyhow, if we could get metered service for those who want it, and allow us to run servers and pay for what is used, then maybe we can get out of these stuffy contracts that disallow you from reselling the service or using it to run a server or whatnot, and get back to just providing a pipe to use.
Actually, I believe there was one terminal, long time ago, that did have such a key (ADDS ViewPoint keeps popping into my head, but it may be another, even more obscure terminal). I remeber seeing an ad or an article about it in a very old BYTE magazine...
It's a tradgedy that something like this occurred to you, but the root of the problem is:
The individuals in our society (American, mostly) do not want to take responsibility for their own actions.
They want to blame it on somebody else, or disregard issues that affect them in a detrimental way. It is a form of greed and selfishness.
Until each and every one of us wakes up and realizes that we are not in our own little world, and that the world doesn't revolve around us, such tradgedies will continue to occur.
I find it hard to believe what they are asking for these machines. Sure, they are new surplus, possible still in the original boxes, so that has something going for them. And they are arguably worth it as a computer kit. Plus, there is always the nostalgia factor...
I can understand wanting to buy one to learn more about how a computer is actually built - learning about microprocessors, bus interfacing (for RAM, ROM and peripherals), and digital electronics. There aren't many kits out there that would let you do this at that price, and none as simple, I would wager. I find it strange that someone would want to use these as microcontrollers, though - as it would be cheaper to buy Basic Stamps, or for the assembler freak, PICs (and these are real cheap - $5-6 each). Not as much memory, but much more compact.
I am reading a book right now call "Build Your Own Self Programming Robot" (I think that is right) by David L. Heisserman (sp?) - about a building a robot he calls Rodney (he has another book, which I may have the titles mixed up, about a system named Buster - Buster came before Rodney). The systems computer is built around an 8085 microprocessor, and a bit of RAM chips, and a bunch of glue logic. Data is entered into the system via toggle switches - one bank sets the address (12 bits), and the other bank the data (8 bits), then there are toggles for load, reset, and run/program. It is pretty clearly laid out.
I gave thought to actually building this thing, as diagrammed in the book, but after reading about it, I realized that most of such a system could be built using a cheap 486 laptop (which I have one with a busted screen) and the parallel port, plus a little bit of addressing logic on the parallel port. Then some custom coding, and there's Rodney. Still, it was fun reading that 80's robotics book, and realizing how far we have come, yet how so far we have to go (the books author was real optimistic about robots and what they could/should be able to do)...
I had one given to me several years back - of course, it was already put together. I think before I would spend $100 on one of these, I would buy a PIC stamp kit or something.
They sell a book on the site - something like "The INS and OUTS of the ZX81" or something. It has a full schematic, as well as interfacing info (or at least that is what the writeup says).
Well, I just remember a device (described for the DIY'er to build) that was (is?) in the old (from the 50's or 60's) Popular Mechanic's Do-It-Yourself Encyclopedia set. It was a toy that vibrated, and scooted along in one direction. I actually have a toy "mouse" (for your pet cat) that does this when you pull the ring/string thing out it's butt (I am serious here - that is where they positioned it - I guess it is it's tail). The little bugger scoots along the ground, presumably your cat will chase it, and pounce (don't have a cat to try this with, but hey - if they like lasers, they should like this!)...
Anyhow, I was thinking three of these things - if they were all turned on (all three, space at 120 degrees apart on a circular platform), the platform wouldn't go anywhere, but by varying the speed, you could get diferent motion vectors (sorta like a vibrating holonomic device) - or at least that is the theory...
Personally, I don't think it is so much as a world definition format (such as VRML) that is needed to get us there, but instead a new physical interface for displaying the content.
Intermediate steps of displaying the 3D on a 2D screen work well for many apps, such as games. However, most games suffer from mainly dealing with movement on a plane. These games allow for a full 6DOF movement, but such movement tends toward being tricky for most people (which is why we don't have a ton of Descent clones). Only good gamers excel in these areas, and learn the control necessary to navigate in the environments effectively. This won't cut it with the normal "joe".
We (people) can easily navigate in a real 3D space. Most of us played on the jungle jim when we were kids, some of us did flips on trampolines, others did cartwheels. We could probably still do these things today (with a little practice), and not get too disoriented. Why? Because we arn't keeping our head still, and we can sense (with our eyes mainly) the world around us, without this "frame" around it (like on a monitor).
For the average person to be able to effectively explore and work in a 3D enviroment, that person needs to be "in" the environment - the term known as "immersion". With current "mainstream" systems (like games and such), there is no immersion. Increasing the monitor size helps, but becomes prohibitive (in cost) for most people after a point (about 21" for most). Even then, it is still a monitor. So, what are the options?
Shutter glasses can add depth, but still only to the boundries of the largest affordable size monitor you buy. A projection system with shutter glasses can be really nice, esp. when coupled with a zero-force chair. However, the cost becomes quite high for the projector (because of the refresh rate needed for the shutter glasses) - let's not even talk about the chair.
You could conceivably build your own chair, and position it close to the screen, so that the projected image encompasses your whole FOV. This is even better (in fact, this is essentially what simulators do - they may do it with a single projection, or a multi-monitor approach, with each monitor representing a window in the "vehicle" - multi-head X could do this quite nicely). However, unless you are pretending you are in a vehicle (like in Descent), problems arise when you want to turn your head, and look around.
These problems can be overcome with an HMD - to do to full immersion. However, until you spend large amounts of $$$, HMD's tend to be low-res, small FOV affairs (though playing Quake in the low-cost VFX-1 is quite fun). This is the tradeoff for full immersion.
Navigation then becomes another issue. Gloves have been tried, but they tend to be a pain (until you move up to say, a VPL Dataglove with a Polhemous tracking system). A cheaper method might involve some sort of 3D "puck" navigation device you could hold in one hand, with a few buttons on it to select options and such with.
Feedback still has to be dealt with (cheap motion platforms are available), and the final bugaboo (at least in a full immersion setup) - simulator sickness (affects a lot of people).
I think immersion is the key to getting a lot of people using 3D environments. It just needs to be cheaper to be accessible to more people (actually, it can be fairly cheap now - but most people won't take the time to implement it - still takes a bit of elbow grease).
I am wondering - could a few permanent "feet" be attached to the top of the thing, flip it upside down, then you might have this vibrating robot platform-like thing, able to move in any direction (at least on a smooth surface). Imagine - an ultra-cheap holonomic drive (provided you used, say, pager motors, and such to build it).
I guess I am wondering if it would be possible to build such a platform this way, with say three vibrating motors, set @ 120 degrees apart...?
Perhaps then instead of getting rid of the assignee system, only allow the individual to assign the patent to another individual (and not a large organization)?
As far as patenting an invention multiple times, I would think in this day and age we should be able to have a database set up to allow key words or something entered so that one could take the application, and find out real quick if the invention has already been patented (BTW, isn't this what the patent office is supposed to do - make sure an invention can't be patented twice, either by the same individual, or another individual?). Some kind of safeguards and checks would have to be allowed so that the patent could still be extended with another patent (I am not sure I am putting this right - my friend's other two patents illustrate this, though - they both look very similar, but the second is an improvement on the first, in which he adds a remote/electric control feature to the idea of the first)...
1. Algorithms - I mean anything that can be reduced to a mathematical sequence of steps. I don't think a process (how to make a better butter) is the same as the RSA algorithm (which I do think was quite ingenious, getting the idea to work, but it still involved natural mathematics - BTW, I wouldn't have a problem with a patent on say a chip using the RSA algorithm, just the patent on the algorithm itself).
2. That is what I meant - getting rid of the assignee system (in addition). I don't mind the number of submissions, and the courts should hear any grievances, etc - if it causes headaches, so be it - at least it will be heard (or maybe a better system could be come up with to lessen the court problems).
4. Yeah, this is one I have a problem with to - as to how you assure that the examiners will be trustworthy (impartial and objective) if they are a third party. Maybe some kind of representational election system (instead of a bid process, or something)?
5. You got a point there - however, perhaps such a model could be done in a computer (ie, a virtual model - in fact such models are being used more and more before an actual model is built by the inventor, and it has been proposed that the vmodel may actually suffice for a real model in some circumstances). The virtual model could then be presented (along with relevant paperwork).
In the case of such a network - I tend to wonder if it would be patentable at all (under my suggested guidlines). Sticking an attenna up in the air and flashing data between nodes is old hat, so anything patentable would have to be hardware related (new transceivers, new antenna designs, perhaps new method of layout of the antenna nodes), as software couldn't be patented (because it can be reduced to a series of unpatentable algorithms). These bits of hardware or layout could be modeled (at normal or smaller size, or virtual) for presentation...
Yes, there was a bit a hand waving - I'll admit to that.
But I still believe that $50.00 a month isn't too much. When I got out of high school, I came here to Phoenix and started working at an Osco Drug Store, earning minimum wage. At the time, you couldn't easily get net access (I didn't get a dial up shell until 93 - I came to phx in 91), so I did a lot of BBSing. Where did that $50.00 a month go? Well, $25.00 went to the phone, and the rest - I spent on books! Actually, truth be told, I spent that much on books every week.
You could say I had skewed priorities, but I enjoyed reading - and through reading, one could learn what they needed to (esp. today) in order to get on the net cheap - plus, they could simply ask people how to do it. Really - how hard is it to log onto a text shell account? We did it before, others did it as well - what, have people gone stupid (don't answer that)?
I wasn't really arguing with the whole article, merely the one point in it stating that it was difficult to get on the net because of cost (and the article isn't the first to broadcast this idea - for some reason people think you need an ultra-PC w/broadband to get on, when all that is really required is a used VT100 terminal and a cheap 2400 baud modem).
This bill sounds like it will be a step in the right direction, but I feel that more could be done, specifically:
1. Disallow the patenting of algorithms and business methods (and possibly naturally occuring things - like DNA/genes).
This actually used to be the way it was - but not anymore, for some reason. All was (mostly) well before the commercialization of the internet, then suddenly business methods done in the real world for years could be patented merely by adding "using a network" or similar language to the patent application.
2. Disallow large organizations (companies, conglomerates, corporations, non-profits, etc) from patenting, holding patents, or being assigned rights to patents after the fact. Only allow individuals to patent inventions, and only allow the individuals to license the patents to larger organizations.
This would help return the system back to allowing "the lone inventor" to actually invent things, be able to patent them, and then profit from the patents (hopefully spurring him to invent more!). As it is today, companies can build large patent portfolios and use them defensively and offensively, like they were weapons in a war.
3. Lower the costs for patenting, and streamline the process.
What? You want them to do what? Yes - you heard me: Make it easier to get a patent. Right now, even for a simple patent, one nearly has to go broke just to afford the lawyers and various fees needed to patent an invention (take a look into it someday - I have had several good ideas that I would love to patent, many are improvements on existing products - none are in the computer sector - but I can't afford it on my salary. Most people can't). I have a friend who patented 3 inventions - and it has since cost him well over $75,000! One of the inventions is something you probably see almost everyday: In some pickups (I have seen them in Toyotas and Dodges), they have a little drink holder - in front of the air conditioner vents - to keep hot drinks hot in the winter, cold ones cool in the summer. My friend patented that device in the mid-'70's. He hasn't seen a dime from anyone, because he can't afford to fight the automakers. In fact, it isn't only the automakers, but other companies are making ones that clip on to the vents (his patent covers all these options). It doesn't matter much now, since the patent is expired - but I hate to see people getting screwed like this.
4. Hire competent patent examiners, or allow for an outside agency(s) to act/provide competent patent examiners.
This one is pretty self-defining.
5. Provide a working model or implementation of the idea to the patent examiners.
This requirement got dropped a long time ago, but it should be reinstated. Requiring a working implementation or model would show 100% that the individual patenting the device KNOWS what he is doing - plus it would show the validity of the device for patenting. In addition, it would eliminate the ability to patent things which don't quite work now, but someone gets working later, then they fall under scrutiny because this "ye-ole-ancient" patent is there blocking them.
Those are my ideas. Please expand on them, or tear them apart. I would very much enjoy seeing what everyone thinks...
Just because you are emailing a friend something that you believe is perfectly innocent, yet because of the totalitarian, conservative, fundamentalist laws we have, which number in the thousands (if not higher), most of which you cannot even begin to know, due to the convoluted nature of the language they are drafted in (notwithstanding the sheer number) - what you sent is actually somehow against the law (perhaps it was a letter explaining how to reverse engineer the new Captain Crunch decoder ring, and you fell afoul of the DMCA), and thus you should be brought up on criminal charges.
Re:Ever heard of MFC wizard?
on
KBasic
·
· Score: 2
To be honest, the last I saw of this was in version 4.2 - I have not seen what is in the current version of VisualC. But can you simply click on say a text box, (or pop the wizard) and have a new method of Text1_Change() appear?
Might have to investigate it further (though I am doing less and less on my doze box as time goes by - been having a real fun time lately patching my kernel to 2.2.14 to get my Zip drive working properly)...
While you wouldn't get an extremely accurate measurement this way, you would get close enough for a tabletop environment:
Measure the IR light level (which is all I bet these "sensors" actually do - but I might be wrong here) with the IR LED/Transistor pair at various distances to an object, and build a table of thresholds to know roughly how close the sensor is to an object (on your tabletop environment). It might even be possible to calculate this with ratios (probably have to factor in the square root of distance thing as well).
I also noted that the Palm could be left off the cost of the complete robot, because it was useful and could be used for other things in its own right.
What, at the minimum, is needed for anyone to go online?
1. Access 2. Interface
Access would be a phone, and a local dial-up ISP. Almost everyone has a phone. Only the extreme poor don't have a phone (why, I cannot understand, since a phone - for local calls only - costs about $30.00 a month - surely one can budget for that amount). Local dial-up ISPs can be found that charge less than $20.00 a month for access. What are we at now, $50.00 a month? Have several people chip in on a single account (yeah, I know most contracts prohibit this, but it could be done anyway) and phone, and you might be looking at $10.00 a month for 5 people.
Now, the interface. Computers are expensive you say? NONSENSE. I can go down to my local trash bin and damn near pull a complete system from the garbage. If I wanted to actually shop for something, I could go down to a local electronics recycling place, and buy an old 486 and a modem for about $100 - or a VT100 terminal and a modem for less. Heck, for even less - go to a garage sale, pick up an old TRS-80 or Commie, hook up a cheap 2400 baud modem, some comm software, and your TV (everyone has a TV - even if they don't have a phone, they have a TV).
THAT IS ALL THAT IS REQUIRED.
Provided all you are seeking is information - information that might (just maybe) help you out of your situation, and into something more profitable. Get a simple shell account, use Lynx to browse the web (hell, it is healthier for you that way, anyhow), and Pine/Elm for email.
If all you are wanting is porn, or some other consumer crap, then you are SOL.
The internet can help everyone - and anyone can join the discussion. For plain information, it doesn't take anything (much of anything) to use.
Unfortunately, it is getting harder to find plain dial-up shell accounts...
You can't just send copies of physical paper book out over the Net, you know, someone has to have a big pile of books in a warehouse so your non-existent staff can take a copy, wrap it up and mail it.
And this is where I think Amazon went wrong (aside from the 1-click stuff). You know (but the poster you replied to obviously doesn't) that Amazon has HUGE warehouses to take the books, stick a little bookmark in them, wrap 'em up in plastic, then stick them in a box emblazoned with Amazon's logo, then ship them out (and when I mean huge, I mean DAMN BIG - some of the largest warehouses on the planet, things that make Costco look like a side store). These are what costs Amazon it's money (heck, it probably would have been cheaper to buy that aircraft carrier they had on a commercial a long while back).
All to get their logo in front of the consumer.
What would have been cheaper would have been to instead drop-ship the books directly from the publisher (ie, work out deals with the publisher to blow the bookmark in at time of manufacture, then add the Amazon logo to the shipping boxes). However, in the long run this would have backfired as soon as the publishers realized they could do this themselves, and set up web sites to directly sell the books to the public, bypassing the middleman. It would be tough for publishers to set up the infrastructure to handle the number of consumers, but they already have most of it in place.
This is why Amazon is fighting Barnes and Noble - the 1-click patent is peanuts. Why? Because Barnes and Noble is a publisher. That's right - they not only sell books in brick and motar stores, and on the net, they also act as a publisher of books as well (which is kinda scary in it's own right, because by owning the press and the means of distribution, they can conceivably control public opinion in subtle ways - or maybe that is me in conspiracy mode). In effect, they do exactly what I outlined above. Eventually, other publishers will as well (and I am sure other publishers are doing it - anyone know which ones?)...
When the middleman is fully cut out, Amazon will die. They may then either decide to fade away - or they may take the other route: Become a publisher as well (and suffer a profit cut anyway, but possibly still remain in business).
I say they should become a publisher now, and solicit for books and short articles (to be collected in a yearly "Annotated Amazon Collection" or something) by unknown authors on the net. These authors would then have a platform from which to publish in a paper form, while still maybe being able to distribute electronically (perhaps all those adult erotica authors could make some money then).
If the watermarks are different for each copy (not likely in the case of a CD, but maybe for online distribution, which could be marked at time of download with the purchaser's information), all you would need is two copies of the music.
Think of the music as a carrier signal, and the watermark as the actual signal you want to isolate. With two seperate copies, you can do a differencing process on the files, leaving behind the watermark, which can then be further analysed.
Hey, I agree that the holonomic drive is a cool part, but for making a cheap table top robot, it is kinda overkill (now, if they were touting a cheap holonomic drive robot - hey, no contest!).
I would admire the whole thing more if they told you how to build your own holonomic drive wheels from scratch (they don't seem like a very hard part to build - I bet you could make some out of drill saw rounds and a few wooden beads, with proper application of a Dremel).
Your right AC in that he did say he tried another drive - though he doesn't say whether it was the only drive in the system (though more than likely it was).
I am sure that what I sugested wasn't the case, and I wasn't tring to stir the pot (ok, maybe I was a little - my paranoia gear just kicked in, is all). I appologise to all on/. if this was taken wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe it was a Milton Bradley Big Trak (and your memory is fuzzy - 'cause I don't remember the red beam - blue beam yes, red - no). Or maybe it was another toy?
I am wondering if anyone remembers the Brain Buggy - made by some off-brand toy maker (can't remember the name). Came out at the same time as MB's Big Trak - looked almost like a Hummer.
I somehow got lucky enough to get both for Xmas - but I always liked my Big Trak more...
I support the EFF - do you?
Yeah, I got an Omnibot 2000, with the tray - but no base mat. I picked up a copy of the instructions from a dealer on EBay (he was selling a 2000, and for the cost of copying and postage, made a copy of the manual for me). I also own a Verbot, and a Chatbot - and a couple of Armatrons. I hope to get a regular Omnibot sometime. I would love a complete Tomy 'bot collection - but some of the 'bots are collectors items, and are tough to get, or expensive (two of the top of my head I can think of that meet this criteria are the 'bot that looks like an owl, and the one that can roam your desk vacuuming up bits of paper).
Anyhow, the cool thing about the Omnibot 2000 was the number of I/O ports on the back of the 'bot. According to my copy of the manual, these were meant for future expansion options (ultrasound sensors, and computer interfacing) that never materialized (AFAIK).
The Armatrons are also neat. One motor, two joysticks, and a helluva transmission to perform really complex tasks - there was an interfacing article in one of the summer issues of Radio-Electronics, in 1986 or so. Hooked up to a C=64...
Sadly, TOMY knows hardly anything of its past - Armatron was the height of TOMY in the 80's, and they sold the repro rights to Tandy - it is VERY difficult to find a TOMY Armatron - most are the Radio Shack branded ones (same tech - no prob there, but not the same if you collect 80's TOMY toys)...
I support the EFF - do you?
You have a point - but as an operator of the server, it would be my responsibility to limit the number of users/bandwidth to something reasonable, so that it wouldn't be hogged. In addition, @Home should provide sufficient bandwidth at those local nodes so that such flooding is less of a problem for others, as well as providing tools to see how much bandwidth you are using out of the "pool", so that you can throttle back as needed.
I have thought about running on high ports, but that isn't quite the same as how I have my site right now, where anyone who clicks the link above can see it, and search engines can see it easily as well. IOW, I would rather run on standard ports for http.
Now, high non-standard ports would be OK for me to do some other work I have thought about (setting up a personal, my use only, FTP server - to xfer files between my work and home - etc), but I still would rather be able to do this legally, than skirting the edges and getting my contract canceled because I ran a telnet daemon on my box that I used occasionally...
I support the EFF - do you?
I started thinking about what I wrote earlier, and realized that using a motor with an ecentric (to produce the vibration), means that the motor is actually (if left loose, say) vibrating in a "circular" pattern (wobbling in a circle). For my idea to work, you would have to be able to impart the force in a single direction - so I wondered how it was being done in the model I saw. I began to think about it...
IIRC - the model used a motor, with the shaft extending through the center of a circular thin can (like a chewing tobbacco tin). Attached to the end of the shaft was a "vane" - a thin piece of metal - that extended to the side of the can, but didn't touch it. Inside the can was a loose bearing, then the lid was put on. The tin/motor combo was mounted on it's side.
Now, when the motor spun the vane, it would push the bearing - throwing the weight forward (and maybe even up and around the side), but at the top, the bearing would fall to the bottom - to continue the cycle as the vane came back around.
Now, this could be totally wrong (unfortunately I don't have that particular encyclopedia - I only saw it at the library as a kid). The thing that shoots the whole in my memory of the device is that toy mouse I described - it don't rattle, which it should if if had a loose bearing in it. I might open the thing up tonight, and see how it works...
I support the EFF - do you?
...for broadband connections.
Why? I currently have @Home service (yeah, I know it sucks, but it is all I can get right now), but in order to stay legit, I am not allowed to run servers. I am also capped on my upload bandwidth (and probably capped on the download, but at several times what the upload cap is).
Before I signed up for the service, I repeatedly tried to get them to offer me more bandwidth and the ability to run a server (hey, I am not wanting to so I can run an MP3 or p0rn server - I just would like to host my site at home, instead of through HE), even offering to pay more for any extra bandwidth I use, etc. They suggested I look into @Work - but since this is a hobbiest site with low hit counts, I can't afford that kind of access.
I was even willing to keep the cap, and just allow me to run a server, but they wouldn't do it (they wouldn't even let me negotiate the contract)...
Bleh...
Anyhow, if we could get metered service for those who want it, and allow us to run servers and pay for what is used, then maybe we can get out of these stuffy contracts that disallow you from reselling the service or using it to run a server or whatnot, and get back to just providing a pipe to use.
I support the EFF - do you?
Actually, I believe there was one terminal, long time ago, that did have such a key (ADDS ViewPoint keeps popping into my head, but it may be another, even more obscure terminal). I remeber seeing an ad or an article about it in a very old BYTE magazine...
I support the EFF - do you?
It's a tradgedy that something like this occurred to you, but the root of the problem is:
The individuals in our society (American, mostly) do not want to take responsibility for their own actions.
They want to blame it on somebody else, or disregard issues that affect them in a detrimental way. It is a form of greed and selfishness.
Until each and every one of us wakes up and realizes that we are not in our own little world, and that the world doesn't revolve around us, such tradgedies will continue to occur.
I support the EFF - do you?
I find it hard to believe what they are asking for these machines. Sure, they are new surplus, possible still in the original boxes, so that has something going for them. And they are arguably worth it as a computer kit. Plus, there is always the nostalgia factor...
I can understand wanting to buy one to learn more about how a computer is actually built - learning about microprocessors, bus interfacing (for RAM, ROM and peripherals), and digital electronics. There aren't many kits out there that would let you do this at that price, and none as simple, I would wager. I find it strange that someone would want to use these as microcontrollers, though - as it would be cheaper to buy Basic Stamps, or for the assembler freak, PICs (and these are real cheap - $5-6 each). Not as much memory, but much more compact.
I am reading a book right now call "Build Your Own Self Programming Robot" (I think that is right) by David L. Heisserman (sp?) - about a building a robot he calls Rodney (he has another book, which I may have the titles mixed up, about a system named Buster - Buster came before Rodney). The systems computer is built around an 8085 microprocessor, and a bit of RAM chips, and a bunch of glue logic. Data is entered into the system via toggle switches - one bank sets the address (12 bits), and the other bank the data (8 bits), then there are toggles for load, reset, and run/program. It is pretty clearly laid out.
I gave thought to actually building this thing, as diagrammed in the book, but after reading about it, I realized that most of such a system could be built using a cheap 486 laptop (which I have one with a busted screen) and the parallel port, plus a little bit of addressing logic on the parallel port. Then some custom coding, and there's Rodney. Still, it was fun reading that 80's robotics book, and realizing how far we have come, yet how so far we have to go (the books author was real optimistic about robots and what they could/should be able to do)...
I support the EFF - do you?
I had one given to me several years back - of course, it was already put together. I think before I would spend $100 on one of these, I would buy a PIC stamp kit or something.
But you know how nostalgia is...
I support the EFF - do you?
They sell a book on the site - something like "The INS and OUTS of the ZX81" or something. It has a full schematic, as well as interfacing info (or at least that is what the writeup says).
I support the EFF - do you?
Well, I just remember a device (described for the DIY'er to build) that was (is?) in the old (from the 50's or 60's) Popular Mechanic's Do-It-Yourself Encyclopedia set. It was a toy that vibrated, and scooted along in one direction. I actually have a toy "mouse" (for your pet cat) that does this when you pull the ring/string thing out it's butt (I am serious here - that is where they positioned it - I guess it is it's tail). The little bugger scoots along the ground, presumably your cat will chase it, and pounce (don't have a cat to try this with, but hey - if they like lasers, they should like this!)...
Anyhow, I was thinking three of these things - if they were all turned on (all three, space at 120 degrees apart on a circular platform), the platform wouldn't go anywhere, but by varying the speed, you could get diferent motion vectors (sorta like a vibrating holonomic device) - or at least that is the theory...
I support the EFF - do you?
Personally, I don't think it is so much as a world definition format (such as VRML) that is needed to get us there, but instead a new physical interface for displaying the content.
Intermediate steps of displaying the 3D on a 2D screen work well for many apps, such as games. However, most games suffer from mainly dealing with movement on a plane. These games allow for a full 6DOF movement, but such movement tends toward being tricky for most people (which is why we don't have a ton of Descent clones). Only good gamers excel in these areas, and learn the control necessary to navigate in the environments effectively. This won't cut it with the normal "joe".
We (people) can easily navigate in a real 3D space. Most of us played on the jungle jim when we were kids, some of us did flips on trampolines, others did cartwheels. We could probably still do these things today (with a little practice), and not get too disoriented. Why? Because we arn't keeping our head still, and we can sense (with our eyes mainly) the world around us, without this "frame" around it (like on a monitor).
For the average person to be able to effectively explore and work in a 3D enviroment, that person needs to be "in" the environment - the term known as "immersion". With current "mainstream" systems (like games and such), there is no immersion. Increasing the monitor size helps, but becomes prohibitive (in cost) for most people after a point (about 21" for most). Even then, it is still a monitor. So, what are the options?
Shutter glasses can add depth, but still only to the boundries of the largest affordable size monitor you buy. A projection system with shutter glasses can be really nice, esp. when coupled with a zero-force chair. However, the cost becomes quite high for the projector (because of the refresh rate needed for the shutter glasses) - let's not even talk about the chair.
You could conceivably build your own chair, and position it close to the screen, so that the projected image encompasses your whole FOV. This is even better (in fact, this is essentially what simulators do - they may do it with a single projection, or a multi-monitor approach, with each monitor representing a window in the "vehicle" - multi-head X could do this quite nicely). However, unless you are pretending you are in a vehicle (like in Descent), problems arise when you want to turn your head, and look around.
These problems can be overcome with an HMD - to do to full immersion. However, until you spend large amounts of $$$, HMD's tend to be low-res, small FOV affairs (though playing Quake in the low-cost VFX-1 is quite fun). This is the tradeoff for full immersion.
Navigation then becomes another issue. Gloves have been tried, but they tend to be a pain (until you move up to say, a VPL Dataglove with a Polhemous tracking system). A cheaper method might involve some sort of 3D "puck" navigation device you could hold in one hand, with a few buttons on it to select options and such with.
Feedback still has to be dealt with (cheap motion platforms are available), and the final bugaboo (at least in a full immersion setup) - simulator sickness (affects a lot of people).
I think immersion is the key to getting a lot of people using 3D environments. It just needs to be cheaper to be accessible to more people (actually, it can be fairly cheap now - but most people won't take the time to implement it - still takes a bit of elbow grease).
I support the EFF - do you?
I am wondering - could a few permanent "feet" be attached to the top of the thing, flip it upside down, then you might have this vibrating robot platform-like thing, able to move in any direction (at least on a smooth surface). Imagine - an ultra-cheap holonomic drive (provided you used, say, pager motors, and such to build it).
I guess I am wondering if it would be possible to build such a platform this way, with say three vibrating motors, set @ 120 degrees apart...?
I support the EFF - do you?
Perhaps then instead of getting rid of the assignee system, only allow the individual to assign the patent to another individual (and not a large organization)?
As far as patenting an invention multiple times, I would think in this day and age we should be able to have a database set up to allow key words or something entered so that one could take the application, and find out real quick if the invention has already been patented (BTW, isn't this what the patent office is supposed to do - make sure an invention can't be patented twice, either by the same individual, or another individual?). Some kind of safeguards and checks would have to be allowed so that the patent could still be extended with another patent (I am not sure I am putting this right - my friend's other two patents illustrate this, though - they both look very similar, but the second is an improvement on the first, in which he adds a remote/electric control feature to the idea of the first)...
I support the EFF - do you?
1. Algorithms - I mean anything that can be reduced to a mathematical sequence of steps. I don't think a process (how to make a better butter) is the same as the RSA algorithm (which I do think was quite ingenious, getting the idea to work, but it still involved natural mathematics - BTW, I wouldn't have a problem with a patent on say a chip using the RSA algorithm, just the patent on the algorithm itself).
2. That is what I meant - getting rid of the assignee system (in addition). I don't mind the number of submissions, and the courts should hear any grievances, etc - if it causes headaches, so be it - at least it will be heard (or maybe a better system could be come up with to lessen the court problems).
4. Yeah, this is one I have a problem with to - as to how you assure that the examiners will be trustworthy (impartial and objective) if they are a third party. Maybe some kind of representational election system (instead of a bid process, or something)?
5. You got a point there - however, perhaps such a model could be done in a computer (ie, a virtual model - in fact such models are being used more and more before an actual model is built by the inventor, and it has been proposed that the vmodel may actually suffice for a real model in some circumstances). The virtual model could then be presented (along with relevant paperwork).
In the case of such a network - I tend to wonder if it would be patentable at all (under my suggested guidlines). Sticking an attenna up in the air and flashing data between nodes is old hat, so anything patentable would have to be hardware related (new transceivers, new antenna designs, perhaps new method of layout of the antenna nodes), as software couldn't be patented (because it can be reduced to a series of unpatentable algorithms). These bits of hardware or layout could be modeled (at normal or smaller size, or virtual) for presentation...
I support the EFF - do you?
Yes, there was a bit a hand waving - I'll admit to that.
But I still believe that $50.00 a month isn't too much. When I got out of high school, I came here to Phoenix and started working at an Osco Drug Store, earning minimum wage. At the time, you couldn't easily get net access (I didn't get a dial up shell until 93 - I came to phx in 91), so I did a lot of BBSing. Where did that $50.00 a month go? Well, $25.00 went to the phone, and the rest - I spent on books! Actually, truth be told, I spent that much on books every week.
You could say I had skewed priorities, but I enjoyed reading - and through reading, one could learn what they needed to (esp. today) in order to get on the net cheap - plus, they could simply ask people how to do it. Really - how hard is it to log onto a text shell account? We did it before, others did it as well - what, have people gone stupid (don't answer that)?
I wasn't really arguing with the whole article, merely the one point in it stating that it was difficult to get on the net because of cost (and the article isn't the first to broadcast this idea - for some reason people think you need an ultra-PC w/broadband to get on, when all that is really required is a used VT100 terminal and a cheap 2400 baud modem).
I support the EFF - do you?
This bill sounds like it will be a step in the right direction, but I feel that more could be done, specifically:
1. Disallow the patenting of algorithms and business methods (and possibly naturally occuring things - like DNA/genes).
This actually used to be the way it was - but not anymore, for some reason. All was (mostly) well before the commercialization of the internet, then suddenly business methods done in the real world for years could be patented merely by adding "using a network" or similar language to the patent application.
2. Disallow large organizations (companies, conglomerates, corporations, non-profits, etc) from patenting, holding patents, or being assigned rights to patents after the fact. Only allow individuals to patent inventions, and only allow the individuals to license the patents to larger organizations.
This would help return the system back to allowing "the lone inventor" to actually invent things, be able to patent them, and then profit from the patents (hopefully spurring him to invent more!). As it is today, companies can build large patent portfolios and use them defensively and offensively, like they were weapons in a war.
3. Lower the costs for patenting, and streamline the process.
What? You want them to do what? Yes - you heard me: Make it easier to get a patent. Right now, even for a simple patent, one nearly has to go broke just to afford the lawyers and various fees needed to patent an invention (take a look into it someday - I have had several good ideas that I would love to patent, many are improvements on existing products - none are in the computer sector - but I can't afford it on my salary. Most people can't). I have a friend who patented 3 inventions - and it has since cost him well over $75,000! One of the inventions is something you probably see almost everyday: In some pickups (I have seen them in Toyotas and Dodges), they have a little drink holder - in front of the air conditioner vents - to keep hot drinks hot in the winter, cold ones cool in the summer. My friend patented that device in the mid-'70's. He hasn't seen a dime from anyone, because he can't afford to fight the automakers. In fact, it isn't only the automakers, but other companies are making ones that clip on to the vents (his patent covers all these options). It doesn't matter much now, since the patent is expired - but I hate to see people getting screwed like this.
4. Hire competent patent examiners, or allow for an outside agency(s) to act/provide competent patent examiners.
This one is pretty self-defining.
5. Provide a working model or implementation of the idea to the patent examiners.
This requirement got dropped a long time ago, but it should be reinstated. Requiring a working implementation or model would show 100% that the individual patenting the device KNOWS what he is doing - plus it would show the validity of the device for patenting. In addition, it would eliminate the ability to patent things which don't quite work now, but someone gets working later, then they fall under scrutiny because this "ye-ole-ancient" patent is there blocking them.
Those are my ideas. Please expand on them, or tear them apart. I would very much enjoy seeing what everyone thinks...
I support the EFF - do you?
Indeed - why worry?
Just because you are emailing a friend something that you believe is perfectly innocent, yet because of the totalitarian, conservative, fundamentalist laws we have, which number in the thousands (if not higher), most of which you cannot even begin to know, due to the convoluted nature of the language they are drafted in (notwithstanding the sheer number) - what you sent is actually somehow against the law (perhaps it was a letter explaining how to reverse engineer the new Captain Crunch decoder ring, and you fell afoul of the DMCA), and thus you should be brought up on criminal charges.
Why worry indeed...
I support the EFF - do you?
To be honest, the last I saw of this was in version 4.2 - I have not seen what is in the current version of VisualC. But can you simply click on say a text box, (or pop the wizard) and have a new method of Text1_Change() appear?
Might have to investigate it further (though I am doing less and less on my doze box as time goes by - been having a real fun time lately patching my kernel to 2.2.14 to get my Zip drive working properly)...
I support the EFF - do you?
While you wouldn't get an extremely accurate measurement this way, you would get close enough for a tabletop environment:
Measure the IR light level (which is all I bet these "sensors" actually do - but I might be wrong here) with the IR LED/Transistor pair at various distances to an object, and build a table of thresholds to know roughly how close the sensor is to an object (on your tabletop environment). It might even be possible to calculate this with ratios (probably have to factor in the square root of distance thing as well).
I also noted that the Palm could be left off the cost of the complete robot, because it was useful and could be used for other things in its own right.
I support the EFF - do you?
Pray tell, how is going online today expensive?
What, at the minimum, is needed for anyone to go online?
1. Access
2. Interface
Access would be a phone, and a local dial-up ISP. Almost everyone has a phone. Only the extreme poor don't have a phone (why, I cannot understand, since a phone - for local calls only - costs about $30.00 a month - surely one can budget for that amount). Local dial-up ISPs can be found that charge less than $20.00 a month for access. What are we at now, $50.00 a month? Have several people chip in on a single account (yeah, I know most contracts prohibit this, but it could be done anyway) and phone, and you might be looking at $10.00 a month for 5 people.
Now, the interface. Computers are expensive you say? NONSENSE. I can go down to my local trash bin and damn near pull a complete system from the garbage. If I wanted to actually shop for something, I could go down to a local electronics recycling place, and buy an old 486 and a modem for about $100 - or a VT100 terminal and a modem for less. Heck, for even less - go to a garage sale, pick up an old TRS-80 or Commie, hook up a cheap 2400 baud modem, some comm software, and your TV (everyone has a TV - even if they don't have a phone, they have a TV).
THAT IS ALL THAT IS REQUIRED.
Provided all you are seeking is information - information that might (just maybe) help you out of your situation, and into something more profitable. Get a simple shell account, use Lynx to browse the web (hell, it is healthier for you that way, anyhow), and Pine/Elm for email.
If all you are wanting is porn, or some other consumer crap, then you are SOL.
The internet can help everyone - and anyone can join the discussion. For plain information, it doesn't take anything (much of anything) to use.
Unfortunately, it is getting harder to find plain dial-up shell accounts...
I support the EFF - do you?
You can't just send copies of physical paper book out over the Net, you know, someone has to have a big pile of books in a warehouse so your non-existent staff can take a copy, wrap it up and mail it.
And this is where I think Amazon went wrong (aside from the 1-click stuff). You know (but the poster you replied to obviously doesn't) that Amazon has HUGE warehouses to take the books, stick a little bookmark in them, wrap 'em up in plastic, then stick them in a box emblazoned with Amazon's logo, then ship them out (and when I mean huge, I mean DAMN BIG - some of the largest warehouses on the planet, things that make Costco look like a side store). These are what costs Amazon it's money (heck, it probably would have been cheaper to buy that aircraft carrier they had on a commercial a long while back).
All to get their logo in front of the consumer.
What would have been cheaper would have been to instead drop-ship the books directly from the publisher (ie, work out deals with the publisher to blow the bookmark in at time of manufacture, then add the Amazon logo to the shipping boxes). However, in the long run this would have backfired as soon as the publishers realized they could do this themselves, and set up web sites to directly sell the books to the public, bypassing the middleman. It would be tough for publishers to set up the infrastructure to handle the number of consumers, but they already have most of it in place.
This is why Amazon is fighting Barnes and Noble - the 1-click patent is peanuts. Why? Because Barnes and Noble is a publisher. That's right - they not only sell books in brick and motar stores, and on the net, they also act as a publisher of books as well (which is kinda scary in it's own right, because by owning the press and the means of distribution, they can conceivably control public opinion in subtle ways - or maybe that is me in conspiracy mode). In effect, they do exactly what I outlined above. Eventually, other publishers will as well (and I am sure other publishers are doing it - anyone know which ones?)...
When the middleman is fully cut out, Amazon will die. They may then either decide to fade away - or they may take the other route: Become a publisher as well (and suffer a profit cut anyway, but possibly still remain in business).
I say they should become a publisher now, and solicit for books and short articles (to be collected in a yearly "Annotated Amazon Collection" or something) by unknown authors on the net. These authors would then have a platform from which to publish in a paper form, while still maybe being able to distribute electronically (perhaps all those adult erotica authors could make some money then).
I support the EFF - do you?
If the watermarks are different for each copy (not likely in the case of a CD, but maybe for online distribution, which could be marked at time of download with the purchaser's information), all you would need is two copies of the music.
Think of the music as a carrier signal, and the watermark as the actual signal you want to isolate. With two seperate copies, you can do a differencing process on the files, leaving behind the watermark, which can then be further analysed.
I support the EFF - do you?
Hey, I agree that the holonomic drive is a cool part, but for making a cheap table top robot, it is kinda overkill (now, if they were touting a cheap holonomic drive robot - hey, no contest!).
I would admire the whole thing more if they told you how to build your own holonomic drive wheels from scratch (they don't seem like a very hard part to build - I bet you could make some out of drill saw rounds and a few wooden beads, with proper application of a Dremel).
I support the EFF - do you?
Your right AC in that he did say he tried another drive - though he doesn't say whether it was the only drive in the system (though more than likely it was).
/. if this was taken wrong.
I am sure that what I sugested wasn't the case, and I wasn't tring to stir the pot (ok, maybe I was a little - my paranoia gear just kicked in, is all). I appologise to all on
I support the EFF - do you?