Don't worry - it will be done. I give it another two weeks, and we will see something, with source code and all. I am sure it will shut down, but not before the source leaks.
Who knows, maybe the guys at Nulsoft will leak the gnutella code in some manner, before the day ends. This all isn't a matter of "if" - but "when". I suspect "when" is REAL-SOON-NOW...
I am right there with ya, and I bet a helluva lot of other/.'ers are as well! I went to the site, and downloaded everything on the crack - I thought the paper was extremely well written, and it gave good insights into how they did everything - it isn't too often you see cryptanalysis explained in such detail (it isn't something I pursue - but I enjoy reading about it). I am looking on what they are providing as an "educational" page, a "how-to" on cryptanalysis, of sorts...
I read a little further down, and found out the Miss Risca was working with two others on this: Carter Bancroft and Catherine Taylor Clelland.
What is strange is that no mention of this is given in the articles about the prize, which makes it sound like Viviana was doing independent research, when in fact, she was part of a team who seems to have been doing research for at least a year on the subject (see this BBC article, which is dated June 10,1999).
From what I have seen, which has mentioned these two other researchers, Viviana has gotten "low billing", so to speak. It makes me wonder what her role in the research is. She must have done some work, enough to understand what was going on, to do a science fair writeup.
I still wonder about this prize, though. I mean, she did all of this, with access to the equipment and such, and people who REALLY knew what they were doing. How did she get on this team? Did she go up to them and say "Hey, I like the stuff you are doing, and it interests me - can I be a part of your team, and help you out?". This whole thing just sounds odd - it would be a totally different thing if the work she did was performed on her own, in her own home or at the school lab. But she obviously didn't - she had access to a lab with the right equipment and to others with more knowledge working in the field. How many of the other students had that option? How many independent adult "backyard" researchers have this option? It is almost like she was more apt to get the prize by who she knew, and not by what she did.
Of course, I guess since that is how things seem to work in the real world, maybe she got some good experience after all?
While I applaud what these high school students have done, as well as all of their hard work, I still have to agree with the AC who wrote:
I'm a high school Junior who is interested in cryptography and OS programming and a whole bunch o' stuff. How can ppl actually do such major research? or know enough to do it? or even have resources to get to this equiptment? I'd like to do these experiment and research but ppl like me are limited in what they can do. I don't understand how ppl at such an age can have the ability to do things.
I really agree with this statement, and I am not even in high school anymore! I wonder what exactly this girl did? For her peers who won the other prizes, at least one can guess what was done and how it might have been done, but how was she able to do what she did?
Did she really splice the DNA? Somehow I doubt it - I mean, in order to encode the DNA, she would need not only a way to splice it (which, as I understand it, isn't extremely hard. I think that part can be done using a small lab setup, because most of the work is done in a test tube, via RNA - but in a particular predetermined sequence of base pairs?), but also a way to sequence the DNA as well (in order to check the encoding, to verify it is valid).
Or am I way off base (no pun intended) here? Someone, please correct me if I am completely wrong, because I would love to know how one can do this in thier own home (or at least a small lab)!
I can only think of one way she could have done it, and wouldn't have needed a lot of equipment (in fact, she would only need a computer):
1. We know what the base nucleotides are - Adenine (A), Guanine (G), Cytosine (C), and Thymine (T). 2. These bases form pairs which make up the DNA helix ladder strand - pairs like A-T or C-G. 3. The pairs in the ladder could be encoded to represent a binary stream - ie, A-T equals 0 and C-G equals 1. More complex encoding could be done by using other base pairs. 4. With a computer, write a program that can take a message, and spits out "DNA sequences" of base pairs for keys and can encode a third "DNA sequence" of base pairs with the message using those keys. 5. Theorize how such DNA strands could be inserted and used to convey "secret" information via another living organism.
This is the only way I can see a high school student doing such a thing in his or her home. I don't really know how one would be able to do this stuff "by hand" with real DNA (In other words, how do you build a DNA strand, by hand, one base pair at a time, in a predetermined sequence? Can this even be done with current technology?).
If this was all that was done, then it would still leave the exercise in the realm of theory (the theory that one could of encode base pairs in a DNA strand to convey secret information). If a student did such a thing, it would be interesting, but would it warrant a $100,000 prize? I can see where actually doing the sequencing and splicing of real DNA would, but not a simulation...
I was hoping someone would mention this tech - and here is an inventor trying to build the mass tran for the future - today.
The core of his system relies on Inductrack - the rest seems off the shelf. Right now it is a "competing" alternative to the Transit 2000 Plan for Phoenix, Arizona - though I think neither will go over well with the voters.
Does this inventor's implementation seem feasible?
While not strictly related to this chipset (which seems rather impressive, and if the support is there under OpenGL and/or DirectX, could make a large impact on game realism), I have a thought on something that I have wanted for a long time to be included as standard on any graphics card:
A high-quality TV output
Why, you might ask? Well, my use of it wouldn't be typical (I want an easy way to plug in a homebrew, or el cheapo HMD, that uses a composite video signal), but I can see others using it for more normal usage - to play games on the TV, to watch their DVD's on the TV (I know many DVD decoder cards have the output to TV on them, but this should be a function of the video card), or to set up a TV-based internet connection (yeah, I know - yech! - but it should be an option!). One other use I could think of would be to be able to record a 3D movie to a VCR (of course, you and I would just keep it digital, render it to an MPEG or AVI file).
I don't want the cheesy TV-out system either (where you have to set the system to 640x480x30Hz or something, then the scan-rate conversion is done, but you can't see it on the monitor) - I want to be able to view the image on the monitor and TV at the same time. For my purpose, this would allow me to preview a world rendered for an HMD on my monitor as I work, but then put on the HMD to do actual testing. I also want something that can handle the fast motion that can accompany FPS games and VR sims.
Now, for my purpose, all of this would be moot if el cheapo HMDs had SVGA quality LCDs and interfaces - but they don't. My application is a niche anyhow - I am sure many have wanted to play their FPS game on the TV from their computer (esp. when the TV is generally much larger than the monitor on the PC).
I know that there exists external hardware to do this - but much of it isn't cheap, and the cheap stuff isn't great. I think, though, that an intergrated, low-cost solution could be done, if some company would do it.
I have had only two providers so far to host my site (which, as of now, has yet to actually go online, but that is another story). Both have been great providers, and why I switched from one to the other will become apparent.
My first provider was WebCom, an outfit in Cali (IIRC). Their interface was fast, and they were real easy to set up with. Everything is web based - no need to telnet or FTP or anything (though I think this may be an option). Security is real tight - they don't allow outside developed scripts for CGI, you can only use what they have. If you are setting up an e-commerce site (I don't think you are, but if you want to...), this place is perfect - the CGI they offer is mainly for such a site, with shopping cart CGI and such, plus the option of CC verification. Customer support was great, the best of any provider I have had. They also seemed to have great uptime. Cost for the service was a little high for such hosting (and for what you got), but I think the security of the site and the customer service made up for it. Now, with all these great features, why did I switch?
They were too restrictive.
I _wanted_ to telnet in, FTP in - not as an option, but as the standard way of doing things. I wanted shell access to my account, and I wanted to be able to write my own CGI scripts for my site (hey, if I needed shopping cart software, I could write it myself, or find it on the net). I wanted some kind of *nix for the site. I wanted more space, and any web interface I used, I wanted to be short and to-the-point. I also wanted a place that didn't care too much about what I put on my site, or if I wanted to "rent" a portion of my site for others pages. After a bit of searching, and a banner or two on/. - I found such a site:
I chose them because of these reasons. Their customer service so far has been great. Most questions you have, though, can be answered by reading through the online documentation. This is a site that presumes you know what you are doing - they don't do hand holding here. This is what I wanted (having started using the internet via a dialup shell account back in 1993, I don't have a fear of *nix command lines - in fact, I love them). I have them auto-bill my credit card, so I don't have to mess with billing (they still send out an invoice in my email, so I can see what is happening - and I can check the charges online). I can telnet or FTP in from anywhere, and check my mail with PINE - or I can set up a POP client to read my email. The former is useful for work, if I just want to check up on anything, while I use the latter for home, where I would actually answer my email.
The one thing they don't allow is mailing-list scripts (which is understandable). So, for my future site, which I plan on having a mailing list, I am going to use eGroups, and for my webring, I will use Webring (I could have set up my own private webring, using some PERL script I found on the net, with a little tweaking, but the only reason I was thinking of going that route, was because I didn't know if Webring support Lynx clients - they do, so I didn't feel I wanted to waste time going the custom route). Which brings me to my last point...
It seems like HE understands the net - they don't use glitzy graphics or such for their site - it is fast and efficient HTML - heck, it even looks hand coded (I don't know how true this is), which I like (I detest WYSIWYG editors - VI is your friend!). They understand that information is what makes the net go, that graphics can get in the way, especially when not used properly.
Their prices are competitive, and you get a lot of space for little money per month (not as much as some places, but enough for most sites). But they are not for the faint of heart, or for those who need help setting up a site - go to WebCom for that.
The image is projected on the outside of the dome (toward the viewers face - ie, from the front). The dome is transparent enough to see the image on the other side, while still being opaque enough to not blind the user (from the projection bulb light).
The site has info on how all of this works - in fact, at one time (about a year or so ago), the site was a real kludge - it had a picture of one of the prototypes, with the chair in front of a ladder holding the projector up in the air. The whole setup looked like it was inside an apartment or house.
The surface is far enough away - your eyes start to lose the ability to focus on objects at about 3 inches from your face (your eyes can turn inward, but prolonged viewing like this causes eyestrain and headaches). From what I have seen on the site, the inner surface of the dome is about a foot away, more than enough room. I would imagine the image (in FOV terms) looks similar or better than what an astronaut sees out his helmet visor (I am only saying this because of the way the system works, and that the guy got a grant from NASA for potential astronaut training uses of the device).
One other cool thing - the chair is a "zero-force" chair. In other words, it is contoured to support your body in the position your body would assume in zero-g, when relaxed. When in a chair like this, you feel very little of the chair supporting you - it is very comfortable (the chair you lay in at the dentist is very similar - in fact, such a chair, bought used, might be a good starting point for a homebrew version of this system). With the chair out of the way, and the dome providing near-full to full immersion, and the sound system blocking ambient noise, I would imagine it feels like you are a floating "mind" entity, bringing the immersion level way, waaay up!
I guess you could say this guy already did the homebrew thing, and is now going for making money on it. I am just interested in replicating what he did - because I can't afford the thousands he is asking for a chair...
One thing I forgot to mention, and is very important to take into consideration, is the possibility of coming in contact with other wires (such as electrical wires) and/or pipes (for water or sewage). So...
Check on both side of the wall, at the same horizontal position as where you will put your outlet box, make sure that vertically you don't see any light switches or other outlets. Do the same as you make horizontal runs.
If you do suspect a pipe or a wire might be in the way, be careful. If you are thinking there may be a wire, then the best bet is to cut off the electricity to that room or section of the house. Check the outlet or switch to make sure it is dead, with a voltmeter. Then, when you cut your hole, use a razor knife or box cutter, and make several passes to make the hole, each pass cutting a little deeper into the wall, until you cut all the way through. This is better than the possibility of nicking the wiring. The truely paranoid can wear a pair of rubber gloves, to insulate themselves from the electricity...
If you suspect a pipe (rare that you will run into one, unless the wall you are working on backs against a bathroom or kitchen area), cut gradually with the keyhole saw - if you run into an obstruction, stop sawing, and try to go shallower. If that isn't possible, try using a razor knife or box cutter to remove the section of wall, in a similar manner as would be done for wiring. Basically, you want to avoid damaging the pipe (which may be PVC, copper or steel).
In any scenario, try to route around the pipe or wiring first, by either rerouting your wire, or moving the box to a different location.
Now, it is illegal to own a device that's only use is to commit fraud, like a red box, or a tricked out cable descrambler. Simply owning one of those devices is a crime. That's because they have no legitimate purpose other than to facilitate the commission of a crime.
Now, I know that what you wrote is probably true, due to the phucked up nature of our current legal system, but...
What if I like to listen to the sound of a quarter drop (or nickel and dime drop, for that matter) tones? What if I use a Red Box for making music? That is a perfectly legitimate use! What does a Red Box look like, anyhow? A Hallmark greeting card? A Yak-Back? A tape recorder? A laptop? Any of these could qualify as a Red Box, so how can one (or a law) say that they don't have any other legitimate use?
As far as a cable descrambler is concerned, given the right software and a good DSP, a computer could be a cable descrambler. Besides, you should be able to own one, with the intent that you would rather own one, than pay the $2.50 a month to the cable company to lease one, right? Or are we only allowed to lease a cable descrambler?
I can have all the intent in the world to do something, but until I physically do it (and get caught, though getting caught or not doesn't make it right one way or the other), it shouldn't be illegal.
When it is, what we have is thought crime.
As a previous poster noted, the punishment should be only for the actions of the person, and not on the possession of a tool.
Do you pay a license on a per-TV basis, per year, or do you pay it once a year, no matter how many TV's your household has?
If it's the latter, this is more fair - though if you don't watch TV, but you do buy a TV for non-TV watching purposes (maybe it serves as a monitor for an old C=64, eh?), should you really have to subsidize other people's watching habits?
I would say it's fair if you do watch TV for entertainment's sake - I do know that the few BBC produced programs I have watched were of excellent quality - much better in terms of entertainment value than much of the crap on American TV...
Personally, I wouldn't tell her it's a good or bad thing, but only a "thing", and that she should decide for herself whether it is good or bad, and thus set her own value system, instead of a reflection of my own.
I would much rather see my daughter think as an individual about such issues, rather than "toeing the party line", so to speak.
You are right, though: Opening up a dialog is what we really should be doing with our kids, whether it is about sex, drugs or homework. However, I would add that such dialog would best be opened up by an informed and open-minded parent, rather than one with a biased opinion.
Why is it that when something like "taxing the internet" or "equal access for the internet" comes up I always hear the blather on "what about the poorer folks"?
Take a look around you, people - there exist TONS of computers FREE FOR THE TAKING by those "poorer folks". Businesses are constantly upgrading their machines, and the old machines more often than not either languish in a storeroom, or get thrown in the trash. A few companies sell them as surplus to other companies that either strip them for parts or sell them whole at rock-bottom prices (I once got a P100 with 16MB and 500 MB hard drive - for $15.00 from one such place!).
Ordinary folks often have computers lying around collecting dust, and try to sell them at yard sales. Many times you can get a decent 486 or low end pentium at a yard sale for under $50.00. Parts can be scavenged to build a machine for almost nothing.
The point I am trying to make is that to get a computer, one capable of going online (I am not talking about a machine that can run the latest and greatest software, but still one that is more than useful for MOST ORDINARY TASKS), for little money. Certainly for equal/less money than a month of cable, cigarettes, beeper/cell phone service, or whatever other non-essentials someone who is poor spends their money on. The same goes for internet service (free and cheap dialup exist for those who look or ask, and normal dialups exist for not much more). But, herein lies the REAL problem of getting these people internet access:
Computers themselves are a non-essential item, just like the other things poor people buy (like the above mentioned cable, cigarettes and beeper/cell phone service). However, for some reason, these people are more concerned over having cable for their TV, than getting a computer and the internet, and educating themselves. Even if all they had was a computer, and no internet - they could still call all the free BBS's and perhaps educate themselves (learning programming and other computer skills) that might get them out of the mire they are in.
The thing that should be focused on is getting those people who haven't got a lot of money to see that computers don't cost a lot of money - if you are willing to settle for last year's (or 5 years ago) tech (many seem to settle for "last year's tech" on their cars, why not a computer?). There exists so many resources that are cheap or free for getting a computer, learning about computers, and getting online. These people are willing to save and spend $50 to $100 a month on non-essentials - why aren't they willing to do the same for a computer?
Does any of this make sense? Am I not seeing something? Is it a cultural issue? Am I blind to something because I haven't been poor or in the situation? Is it because of fear of theft (you have a computer, and someone breaks in and steals it to buy crack)? People, please enlighten me...
You are correct - you can sometimes get more, and with a big enough antenna, you can get a LOT more (my dad had a friend once who used to regularly pick up stations in Los Angeles on his rig - at the time we lived in Bakersfield!).
But with standard rabbit ears, at least where I am now (Phoenix, Arizona - Cave Creek area), 3-4 channels is about it (ok, on a good day when the wind is blowing right and the rabbits are in their holes, maybe 6 channels). Those channels are pretty clear. Of those, one is the religious channel - which I steer clear of, except when I need to laugh (pagan comedy, anyone?).
When I spoke about satellite dishes, I tried to make the distinction between them (the big 8-12 foot K-Band things) and a DSS/DirectTV dish - I may have not been clear enough...
And thank you for pointing it out - I have known about this, but I was concentrating so much on North America (USA in particular), that I didn't mention this. Are there any other countries that do this?
Personally I think the license sucks, in todays market. IIRC, isn't Britain allowing for private broadcasters to compete? If they are, I am wondering what will happen to the licensing fee - whether it will stay, go away, or be reduced? It made sense for the early days of TV (when there were few stations), but in today's market, you shouldn't have to be forced to have a license - especially if you never watch that particular broadcaster!
What if you don't even use the TV as a TV? From what I understand, you still have to pay the license fee, correct? Now, some may ask "Why would you buy a TV if you aren't going to use it as a TV?", to which I would reply "Well, what if I was building a VR HMD from Casio pocket TV's?"...
I tell ya, they got you coming and going, all the way to the grave!
TV was originally broadcast over the air (via UHF and VHF - in fact, it still is), and anybody with a receiver could pick up the broadcast. Because there wasn't any way for the broadcaster to know who picked up the signal, they couldn't charge the owners of the receivers to watch the signal. They had to find a different revenue model, and since radio is where many of the original broadcasters started from, radio ads became TV commercials. These commercials were paid for by advertisers to the broadcaster, to pay for the TV transmission, mostly. Thus, everyone got TV for "free" - they just had to watch the commercials.
Fast forward to the 1960's - commercials and TV are pretty much common items, and everyone has an antenna on their house. But people want more channels, and they want higher quality. Neighbors band together and buy large "neighborhood" TV antennas, centralize the antenna, then split/amplify the signal off of it to feeds that run to each house, allowing these people to see more channels at a better quality. Appliance sellers in the area see this, and think "Hey! I sell TV's - maybe I can set up an attenna for the neighborhood, and charge people $5.00 bucks a month to use it if they buy one of my TVs!". People go for it, because it is cheaper and easier than convincing all the neighbors (notice that there is a laziness factor here - most shit in history that we hate is cause by many people being lazy) to buy a central antenna, the quality is just as good (maybe better!) and thus, the first distributed, monthly-charge "cable" service begins.
Now, what about the advertisers? Well, they don't really care (or they don't notice), because more "eyeballs" are still seeing their advertisements, which is all they want. And the broadcasters? They don't care, either, because they are still being paid by the advertisers to broadcast. Everybody is happy...
Let's move to the 1970's - things are still pretty much the same, except most of the "mom & pop" cable systems are gone, either bought out by other companies, or for other reasons. But the cable system still exists, except for one change: There isn't a central "antenna" anymore, not in the everyday sense. What the cable companies are now doing is using microwave feeds and some are using satellite feeds (ala HBO). These microwave feeds are still "free" - in fact, you could buy microwave "dishes" and get signals out of the air of a very high quality, for a few hundred bucks. Other "free" sources could be gotten via home sattellite dishes - HBO could be picked up, as well as many other stations.
One thing about HBO, though - HBO was a "premium" channel - you were supposed to pay the cable company a fee to see it, and part of that fee went back to HBO to pay for the rebroadcast license the cable company had with HBO. Those with microwave dishes and sattelite dishes, however, didn't pay this fee. HBO got upset (rightly, for HBO's broadcast contained no commercials, so something had to pay for it), and began scrambling the signal. Dish owners fought back with descrambler's, arguing that the signal came onto their property, and that they should be able to see it. Back and forth it has gone (and still does today).
The 1980's came, and decoder boxes were the norm. Why? The national broadcasters were sending out the feeds via satellite and microwaves (in addition to over-the-air). These feeds still contained commercials (some also had spots where the local cable companies could insert commercials), which advertisers paid for. The cable companies, though, had to pay for a license to rebroadcast the broadcaster's signal. Because of this, they had to keep control of the signal, so they began to scramble their broadcasts as well. Now, it was difficult to impossible to see the signals via a satellite or microwave dish.
So, let's see - where are the broadcasters getting their money from? Ah yes, from the cable companies (and indirectly from the viewers) and from advertisers. But is the amount that viewers pay for cable still a "convenience" fee, like it was when cable started...?
At the end of the 1980's, and throughout the 1990's, more and more cable channels were added. Most all of these channels were "private" affairs - in other words, they weren't put out by the original national broadcasters (ABC, NBC, CBS). Many of these channels you had to pay for (either per-channel, or in a "package, most oftentime the latter), and most of the channels had commercials. We now have a wonderful system where you pay to watch commercials, rather than the commercials supporting the broadcast of the channel. Unfortunately, we don't have any choice about paying, otherwise we are stuck with only 3 to 4 on the air channels (and this will quickly go to 0 on the air channels when HDTV broadcasts are common). I am not arguing for free cable though. I think we should pay the convenience fee (to the cable company), and the premium channel fees to the cable comapny as well. The other channels are supposed to be advertiser supported. If this was the case, then why can't you pick up these supposedly "advertiser supported" channels on a satellite dish (like Lifetime, the History Channel, Discovery Channel, A&E)? Why is Lifetime only available in higher tier packages on DSS, not in the basic tier? How is it that the "convenience fee" that cable companies charge tend to go over $30.00 a month?
I guess one thing would be good about TV over IP, when it gets here: It will allow broadcasters to really compete for eyeballs, by only allowing those who pay-per-hour or whatnot access to the channels, and it will allow the "subscriber" to pick and choose what channels they want to see, rather than get the channels in "packages". The only thing I hate is that they will be able to track viewing habits, as well as control whether you can record a show or not. It will make today's banner ad and DVD problems seem like a sandbox spat...
Watch them do exactly that - I would be willing to bet within 6 months we will see this, and force iCrave to go under. That, or one of the biggies will BUY iCrave TV...
How to run wire yourself and save $$$!
on
Wiring Your Home?
·
· Score: 3
Introduction
If you can afford to have the cable installed before the sheetrock goes up on the walls, or you are allowed by the builder to do this yourself, by all means, do it. But for many, the expense of having someone else install and run custom wiring can't be justified, especially for first-time home buyers who may not have a lot of money to spare for additional work to be done.
In these cases, it may be easier to do the work after the house is built (if you want to do it yourself). You won't be able to use conduit, but it still can be done...
Tools Needed
The tools you will need are:
A keyhole-type hand saw A power drill A long 3/8 inch wire drill (these are really long - about 4 foot - flexible drills used to drill through studs and such for wire routing) A wire fish tape (a steel reel thing for wire fishing in walls and conduit) A bit of strong string About 6 inches of lightweight chain An electronic stud finder
Vertical Runs
Plan out where you want an outlet, then use the stud finder to find the nearest vertical stud. Select one side or the other of the stud (whichever is convenient) and mark where you want the box. Now is a good time to go into the attic or basement and check to see if anything is blocking the way of the hole you will need to drill in the ceiling plate stud (for an attic run) or base (floor) plate stud (for a basement run). If it is, you may have to move the location of the box, or do a horizontal run of the wire (explained below).
On the side you choose, move the stud finder to find the horizontal "fire-blocks", and mark on the wall where they are - these will have to be drilled through to run the cable (older houses may not have these blocks, which is good for running cable, and bad when there is a fire). Depending on whether you are running the wire to the attic or basement, you may or may not encounter these fire-blocks. However, you will encounter either a base (floor) plate stud on the bottom (at floor level) or a ceiling base plate stud (ceiling level) that will need to be drilled through.
With the keyhole saw, cut the hole for outlet box. The box will have instructions on how to cut the hole (get the boxes that are blue plastic, and have "flip-out" tabs - these are designed to be installed after the sheet rock has been put up).
Now, depending on where you installed the box (floor level, ceiling level, in the middle somewhere), and whether you are routing wire to the ceiling or basement, cut holes just above the fire-block studs, and a hole under the ceiling base plate stud (attic run) or above floor base plate stud (basement run). These holes should be near in-line with the box.
Tie the length of chain to the end of the string, and drop the chain through the hole in attic, or whichever hole is the highest (may be the box hole if it is a basement run). At each hole in the wall, fish the chain and run through the stud hole, until you reach the box (or the basement). Cut the chain off the string. The string will act as your wire pulling string. Alternatively, you can use the fish tape in the same manner.
Tie the string to the cable at one or the other ends, and pull the cable through, the amount you need. Always pull through more than you think you need, because invariably, you always need more. The wire is cheap - don't worry about wasting a bit of it.
Horizontal Runs
Horizontal runs can be done similarly. Simply mark the intervening vertical studs, and make a hole with the keyhole saw to the left or right of the stud. Drill the hole, and use the fish tape (or a stiff piece of wire, like a straightened coathanger) to work the chain/string/wire over as you work. Depending on how far your horizontal run is, you may end up going through a lot of vertical studs. Studs should be spaced about 18-24 inches apart (anyone know the code on this?). Try to keep horizontal runs to minimum lengths, or position them near the floor level (where any patching mistakes will be less noticable).
Finishing Up
Once the wire is finished being pulled through, and all connections are checked, you will be ready to patch, texture and paint all the holes you made. It is best to do all the wiring for one room, then patch/paint that room, and move on to the next. BTW - don't be afraid of re-texturing the patch. Your hardware store should sell or be able to get a product that is a simple spray on texture system - it costs about $20.00 a can, and is easy to use.
Conclusion
A hard and lengthy job? You bet. Done right, though it can save you quite a bit of money. However, if your time is valuable, it may not be worth it. A large wiring project could take several days of work to finish. Keep in mind what you plan to do, and how long you expect it to take. Research all costs and materials before you begin, and ask yourself if it is really something you want to tackle. The learning experience of it alone is worth it many times. Also, keep in mind alternative approaches - baseboard running, thin track conduit (kinda ugly IMO, but easy to install), and wireless approaches.
I wonder if you and the builder could simply sign some kind cross agreement where neither party holds the other responsible for on-site injuries? Maybe couple this with your own builder insurance (I am sure something like this exists)? Or see if you could be added as an employee to the builder's insurance policy for his employees, for the duration of the project, and you pay him the premiums?
I find it hard to understand how you could injure one of his employees (unless you were working on-site at the time everyone else was working). Most of the time you would do your work on the weekend (when most builders don't work), and you are only installing conduit and boxes for audio/video/comp/phone cabling - not electrical work (thus no faulty wiring or shock hazard).
I guess it might be possible for you to drill/bore/cut wrong and weaken a support structure (which could cause a fall and/or collapse), but you would have to seriously not realize what you were doing (in other words, if you are planning on doing this yourself, it might be a good idea to familiarize oneself with how a house is built and why, before modifying the structure in any way).
Either your Casio is old or you got a cheap one...
For the record, the Casio I am wearing, which I bought last year around this time (Casio Illuminator - 200m depth resist, all aluminium exterior) is showing the date correctly.
The watch was expensive for me ($50.00), considering the watches I bought up to that point (cheap Walmart plastic crap, $15.00). I used to reason that watches were a disposable item, and not worth paying a lot for. My patience and resolve left me, though, after so many of the cheap watches I bought broke after a year or two (either the band or the watch face, or water would get into them when they supposedly could take it).
So I finally decided to buy a better watch. This Casio looked rugged enough to take the abuse I tend to put watches through, and it had all the functions I normally use (although I would love to see some kind of water resistant databank watch in an aluminium case, that didn't cost an arm and a leg).
I've had it for about a year now, and it looks as good as the day I bought it, which is much better than I can say about any of the cheapo watches I owned previously. Most of these started to looked ratty after about a year of wear. This watch I can say was worth the money I spent for it. I will never buy a cheap watch again.
This was a bug left in Excel on purpose because earlier versions of Excel had the leap year bug, and changing it would break all of the user's macros or something to that effect. That, or Lotus 123 had the bug as well, and to keep the imported spreadsheets working properly, the bug had to be kept...
In other words, a case of the users (inadvertently?) driving the course of software development in the wrong direction, by keeping bugs from being fixed for compatibility reasons.
Some advocates of Linux say that Linux is ready for the desktop - ie, "Grandma can use it". Other advocates are more moderate, and say "It is almost there". Detractors on the other hand, either say it is too difficult to learn, or that is will never "get there".
My question is this: In your opinion, what happened to people?
Specifically, are people more ignorant now? Why is it that not long ago, everybody and their brother could use the command line from DOS, and the really good ones could modify their AUTOEXEC.BAT and CONFIG.SYS, but today, most people don't "get" a command line? Has the WIMP interface dumbed people down? Why are a lot of people even decrying Windows as "too difficult"?
Over the weekend I looked up what the fourth wire was for...
It was called the inhibit wire - and was used in a core memory "cube". This wire was threaded through the cores in such a way, on each plane in a cube, so as to "inhibit" the writing of bits on cores on certain planes of the cube. If you think of the planes as being analogous to the planar structure of, say, the VGA Mode X (all you graphics coders know what I mean), each plane is a bit array, and a word is stored via multiple planes (each plane is a bit plane). Due to the way the planes were wired (in order to make reading/writing quicker, from what I could gather), all planes were read/written at once. When writing to a plane, you needed to inhibit the current to certain cores in a word, to write a 0 in that bit position within the word. You would do that with the inhibit wire, which basically carried a negative voltage of half the current to inhibit the writing at the cores being written.
One final interesting note - something most of you may only read here. In this book, which I referenced for the info on the inhibit wire (the book was a textbook called "Computer Principles"), a mention was made about a different type of core memory - in which the cores were not individual, but was continuous. To put it simply, the device was made up of a flat plate of the ferrous material, with the wires threaded through holes drilled in the material, rather than through individual cores. It was found that the material stored the magnetic charges in the regions around the wires, and that these regions wouldn't interract as long as they were kept sufficiently far enough apart. No new name was given for this memory - it was just another type of core memory.
One more note - many of you have probably heard of mecury delay lines - but have any of you heard of nickel delay lines? Apparently, nickel (and some other metals) deform lengthwise when subjected to an electrical current. This property, with proper sensors and amplifiers, allowed early computers to have a cheaper (and less poisonous) alternative to mercury delay line storage systems. I once saw this type of system in a TI adding machine from the sixties that I had taken apart when I was younger, though at the time I didn't know what it was (this thing was completely transistor logic based - with the exception of the display - which were vacumn tube pixie lamps!)...
Slashdot Mirror
Don't worry - it will be done. I give it another two weeks, and we will see something, with source code and all. I am sure it will shut down, but not before the source leaks.
Who knows, maybe the guys at Nulsoft will leak the gnutella code in some manner, before the day ends. This all isn't a matter of "if" - but "when". I suspect "when" is REAL-SOON-NOW...
I am right there with ya, and I bet a helluva lot of other /.'ers are as well! I went to the site, and downloaded everything on the crack - I thought the paper was extremely well written, and it gave good insights into how they did everything - it isn't too often you see cryptanalysis explained in such detail (it isn't something I pursue - but I enjoy reading about it). I am looking on what they are providing as an "educational" page, a "how-to" on cryptanalysis, of sorts...
I read a little further down, and found out the Miss Risca was working with two others on this: Carter Bancroft and Catherine Taylor Clelland.
What is strange is that no mention of this is given in the articles about the prize, which makes it sound like Viviana was doing independent research, when in fact, she was part of a team who seems to have been doing research for at least a year on the subject (see this BBC article, which is dated June 10,1999).
From what I have seen, which has mentioned these two other researchers, Viviana has gotten "low billing", so to speak. It makes me wonder what her role in the research is. She must have done some work, enough to understand what was going on, to do a science fair writeup.
I still wonder about this prize, though. I mean, she did all of this, with access to the equipment and such, and people who REALLY knew what they were doing. How did she get on this team? Did she go up to them and say "Hey, I like the stuff you are doing, and it interests me - can I be a part of your team, and help you out?". This whole thing just sounds odd - it would be a totally different thing if the work she did was performed on her own, in her own home or at the school lab. But she obviously didn't - she had access to a lab with the right equipment and to others with more knowledge working in the field. How many of the other students had that option? How many independent adult "backyard" researchers have this option? It is almost like she was more apt to get the prize by who she knew, and not by what she did.
Of course, I guess since that is how things seem to work in the real world, maybe she got some good experience after all?
While I applaud what these high school students have done, as well as all of their hard work, I still have to agree with the AC who wrote:
I'm a high school Junior who is interested in cryptography and OS programming and a whole bunch o' stuff. How can ppl actually do such major research? or know enough to do it? or even have resources to get to this equiptment? I'd like to do these experiment and research but ppl like me are limited in what they can do. I don't understand how ppl at such an age can have the ability to do things.
I really agree with this statement, and I am not even in high school anymore! I wonder what exactly this girl did? For her peers who won the other prizes, at least one can guess what was done and how it might have been done, but how was she able to do what she did?
Did she really splice the DNA? Somehow I doubt it - I mean, in order to encode the DNA, she would need not only a way to splice it (which, as I understand it, isn't extremely hard. I think that part can be done using a small lab setup, because most of the work is done in a test tube, via RNA - but in a particular predetermined sequence of base pairs?), but also a way to sequence the DNA as well (in order to check the encoding, to verify it is valid).
Or am I way off base (no pun intended) here? Someone, please correct me if I am completely wrong, because I would love to know how one can do this in thier own home (or at least a small lab)!
I can only think of one way she could have done it, and wouldn't have needed a lot of equipment (in fact, she would only need a computer):
1. We know what the base nucleotides are - Adenine (A), Guanine (G), Cytosine (C), and Thymine (T).
2. These bases form pairs which make up the DNA helix ladder strand - pairs like A-T or C-G.
3. The pairs in the ladder could be encoded to represent a binary stream - ie, A-T equals 0 and C-G equals 1. More complex encoding could be done by using other base pairs.
4. With a computer, write a program that can take a message, and spits out "DNA sequences" of base pairs for keys and can encode a third "DNA sequence" of base pairs with the message using those keys.
5. Theorize how such DNA strands could be inserted and used to convey "secret" information via another living organism.
This is the only way I can see a high school student doing such a thing in his or her home. I don't really know how one would be able to do this stuff "by hand" with real DNA (In other words, how do you build a DNA strand, by hand, one base pair at a time, in a predetermined sequence? Can this even be done with current technology?).
If this was all that was done, then it would still leave the exercise in the realm of theory (the theory that one could of encode base pairs in a DNA strand to convey secret information). If a student did such a thing, it would be interesting, but would it warrant a $100,000 prize? I can see where actually doing the sequencing and splicing of real DNA would, but not a simulation...
Can someone enlighten me?
I was hoping someone would mention this tech - and here is an inventor trying to build the mass tran for the future - today.
The core of his system relies on Inductrack - the rest seems off the shelf. Right now it is a "competing" alternative to the Transit 2000 Plan for Phoenix, Arizona - though I think neither will go over well with the voters.
Does this inventor's implementation seem feasible?
While not strictly related to this chipset (which seems rather impressive, and if the support is there under OpenGL and/or DirectX, could make a large impact on game realism), I have a thought on something that I have wanted for a long time to be included as standard on any graphics card:
A high-quality TV output
Why, you might ask? Well, my use of it wouldn't be typical (I want an easy way to plug in a homebrew, or el cheapo HMD, that uses a composite video signal), but I can see others using it for more normal usage - to play games on the TV, to watch their DVD's on the TV (I know many DVD decoder cards have the output to TV on them, but this should be a function of the video card), or to set up a TV-based internet connection (yeah, I know - yech! - but it should be an option!). One other use I could think of would be to be able to record a 3D movie to a VCR (of course, you and I would just keep it digital, render it to an MPEG or AVI file).
I don't want the cheesy TV-out system either (where you have to set the system to 640x480x30Hz or something, then the scan-rate conversion is done, but you can't see it on the monitor) - I want to be able to view the image on the monitor and TV at the same time. For my purpose, this would allow me to preview a world rendered for an HMD on my monitor as I work, but then put on the HMD to do actual testing. I also want something that can handle the fast motion that can accompany FPS games and VR sims.
Now, for my purpose, all of this would be moot if el cheapo HMDs had SVGA quality LCDs and interfaces - but they don't. My application is a niche anyhow - I am sure many have wanted to play their FPS game on the TV from their computer (esp. when the TV is generally much larger than the monitor on the PC).
I know that there exists external hardware to do this - but much of it isn't cheap, and the cheap stuff isn't great. I think, though, that an intergrated, low-cost solution could be done, if some company would do it.
I have had only two providers so far to host my site (which, as of now, has yet to actually go online, but that is another story). Both have been great providers, and why I switched from one to the other will become apparent.
/. - I found such a site:
My first provider was WebCom, an outfit in Cali (IIRC). Their interface was fast, and they were real easy to set up with. Everything is web based - no need to telnet or FTP or anything (though I think this may be an option). Security is real tight - they don't allow outside developed scripts for CGI, you can only use what they have. If you are setting up an e-commerce site (I don't think you are, but if you want to...), this place is perfect - the CGI they offer is mainly for such a site, with shopping cart CGI and such, plus the option of CC verification. Customer support was great, the best of any provider I have had. They also seemed to have great uptime. Cost for the service was a little high for such hosting (and for what you got), but I think the security of the site and the customer service made up for it. Now, with all these great features, why did I switch?
They were too restrictive.
I _wanted_ to telnet in, FTP in - not as an option, but as the standard way of doing things. I wanted shell access to my account, and I wanted to be able to write my own CGI scripts for my site (hey, if I needed shopping cart software, I could write it myself, or find it on the net). I wanted some kind of *nix for the site. I wanted more space, and any web interface I used, I wanted to be short and to-the-point. I also wanted a place that didn't care too much about what I put on my site, or if I wanted to "rent" a portion of my site for others pages. After a bit of searching, and a banner or two on
Hurricane Electric
I chose them because of these reasons. Their customer service so far has been great. Most questions you have, though, can be answered by reading through the online documentation. This is a site that presumes you know what you are doing - they don't do hand holding here. This is what I wanted (having started using the internet via a dialup shell account back in 1993, I don't have a fear of *nix command lines - in fact, I love them). I have them auto-bill my credit card, so I don't have to mess with billing (they still send out an invoice in my email, so I can see what is happening - and I can check the charges online). I can telnet or FTP in from anywhere, and check my mail with PINE - or I can set up a POP client to read my email. The former is useful for work, if I just want to check up on anything, while I use the latter for home, where I would actually answer my email.
The one thing they don't allow is mailing-list scripts (which is understandable). So, for my future site, which I plan on having a mailing list, I am going to use eGroups, and for my webring, I will use Webring (I could have set up my own private webring, using some PERL script I found on the net, with a little tweaking, but the only reason I was thinking of going that route, was because I didn't know if Webring support Lynx clients - they do, so I didn't feel I wanted to waste time going the custom route). Which brings me to my last point...
It seems like HE understands the net - they don't use glitzy graphics or such for their site - it is fast and efficient HTML - heck, it even looks hand coded (I don't know how true this is), which I like (I detest WYSIWYG editors - VI is your friend!). They understand that information is what makes the net go, that graphics can get in the way, especially when not used properly.
Their prices are competitive, and you get a lot of space for little money per month (not as much as some places, but enough for most sites). But they are not for the faint of heart, or for those who need help setting up a site - go to WebCom for that.
The image is projected on the outside of the dome (toward the viewers face - ie, from the front). The dome is transparent enough to see the image on the other side, while still being opaque enough to not blind the user (from the projection bulb light).
The site has info on how all of this works - in fact, at one time (about a year or so ago), the site was a real kludge - it had a picture of one of the prototypes, with the chair in front of a ladder holding the projector up in the air. The whole setup looked like it was inside an apartment or house.
The surface is far enough away - your eyes start to lose the ability to focus on objects at about 3 inches from your face (your eyes can turn inward, but prolonged viewing like this causes eyestrain and headaches). From what I have seen on the site, the inner surface of the dome is about a foot away, more than enough room. I would imagine the image (in FOV terms) looks similar or better than what an astronaut sees out his helmet visor (I am only saying this because of the way the system works, and that the guy got a grant from NASA for potential astronaut training uses of the device).
One other cool thing - the chair is a "zero-force" chair. In other words, it is contoured to support your body in the position your body would assume in zero-g, when relaxed. When in a chair like this, you feel very little of the chair supporting you - it is very comfortable (the chair you lay in at the dentist is very similar - in fact, such a chair, bought used, might be a good starting point for a homebrew version of this system). With the chair out of the way, and the dome providing near-full to full immersion, and the sound system blocking ambient noise, I would imagine it feels like you are a floating "mind" entity, bringing the immersion level way, waaay up!
I guess you could say this guy already did the homebrew thing, and is now going for making money on it. I am just interested in replicating what he did - because I can't afford the thousands he is asking for a chair...
Regarding fisheye Quake, do any of you out there think we could build our own homebrew flostations using this code...?
One thing I forgot to mention, and is very important to take into consideration, is the possibility of coming in contact with other wires (such as electrical wires) and/or pipes (for water or sewage). So...
Check on both side of the wall, at the same horizontal position as where you will put your outlet box, make sure that vertically you don't see any light switches or other outlets. Do the same as you make horizontal runs.
If you do suspect a pipe or a wire might be in the way, be careful. If you are thinking there may be a wire, then the best bet is to cut off the electricity to that room or section of the house. Check the outlet or switch to make sure it is dead, with a voltmeter. Then, when you cut your hole, use a razor knife or box cutter, and make several passes to make the hole, each pass cutting a little deeper into the wall, until you cut all the way through. This is better than the possibility of nicking the wiring. The truely paranoid can wear a pair of rubber gloves, to insulate themselves from the electricity...
If you suspect a pipe (rare that you will run into one, unless the wall you are working on backs against a bathroom or kitchen area), cut gradually with the keyhole saw - if you run into an obstruction, stop sawing, and try to go shallower. If that isn't possible, try using a razor knife or box cutter to remove the section of wall, in a similar manner as would be done for wiring. Basically, you want to avoid damaging the pipe (which may be PVC, copper or steel).
In any scenario, try to route around the pipe or wiring first, by either rerouting your wire, or moving the box to a different location.
Now, it is illegal to own a device that's only use is to commit fraud, like a red box, or a tricked out cable descrambler. Simply owning one of those devices is a crime. That's because they have no legitimate purpose other than to facilitate the commission of a crime.
Now, I know that what you wrote is probably true, due to the phucked up nature of our current legal system, but...
What if I like to listen to the sound of a quarter drop (or nickel and dime drop, for that matter) tones? What if I use a Red Box for making music? That is a perfectly legitimate use! What does a Red Box look like, anyhow? A Hallmark greeting card? A Yak-Back? A tape recorder? A laptop? Any of these could qualify as a Red Box, so how can one (or a law) say that they don't have any other legitimate use?
As far as a cable descrambler is concerned, given the right software and a good DSP, a computer could be a cable descrambler. Besides, you should be able to own one, with the intent that you would rather own one, than pay the $2.50 a month to the cable company to lease one, right? Or are we only allowed to lease a cable descrambler?
I can have all the intent in the world to do something, but until I physically do it (and get caught, though getting caught or not doesn't make it right one way or the other), it shouldn't be illegal.
When it is, what we have is thought crime.
As a previous poster noted, the punishment should be only for the actions of the person, and not on the possession of a tool.
Do you pay a license on a per-TV basis, per year, or do you pay it once a year, no matter how many TV's your household has?
If it's the latter, this is more fair - though if you don't watch TV, but you do buy a TV for non-TV watching purposes (maybe it serves as a monitor for an old C=64, eh?), should you really have to subsidize other people's watching habits?
I would say it's fair if you do watch TV for entertainment's sake - I do know that the few BBC produced programs I have watched were of excellent quality - much better in terms of entertainment value than much of the crap on American TV...
Personally, I wouldn't tell her it's a good or bad thing, but only a "thing", and that she should decide for herself whether it is good or bad, and thus set her own value system, instead of a reflection of my own.
I would much rather see my daughter think as an individual about such issues, rather than "toeing the party line", so to speak.
You are right, though: Opening up a dialog is what we really should be doing with our kids, whether it is about sex, drugs or homework. However, I would add that such dialog would best be opened up by an informed and open-minded parent, rather than one with a biased opinion.
I guess I can dream of that day...
Why is it that when something like "taxing the internet" or "equal access for the internet" comes up I always hear the blather on "what about the poorer folks"?
Take a look around you, people - there exist TONS of computers FREE FOR THE TAKING by those "poorer folks". Businesses are constantly upgrading their machines, and the old machines more often than not either languish in a storeroom, or get thrown in the trash. A few companies sell them as surplus to other companies that either strip them for parts or sell them whole at rock-bottom prices (I once got a P100 with 16MB and 500 MB hard drive - for $15.00 from one such place!).
Ordinary folks often have computers lying around collecting dust, and try to sell them at yard sales. Many times you can get a decent 486 or low end pentium at a yard sale for under $50.00. Parts can be scavenged to build a machine for almost nothing.
The point I am trying to make is that to get a computer, one capable of going online (I am not talking about a machine that can run the latest and greatest software, but still one that is more than useful for MOST ORDINARY TASKS), for little money. Certainly for equal/less money than a month of cable, cigarettes, beeper/cell phone service, or whatever other non-essentials someone who is poor spends their money on. The same goes for internet service (free and cheap dialup exist for those who look or ask, and normal dialups exist for not much more). But, herein lies the REAL problem of getting these people internet access:
Computers themselves are a non-essential item, just like the other things poor people buy (like the above mentioned cable, cigarettes and beeper/cell phone service). However, for some reason, these people are more concerned over having cable for their TV, than getting a computer and the internet, and educating themselves. Even if all they had was a computer, and no internet - they could still call all the free BBS's and perhaps educate themselves (learning programming and other computer skills) that might get them out of the mire they are in.
The thing that should be focused on is getting those people who haven't got a lot of money to see that computers don't cost a lot of money - if you are willing to settle for last year's (or 5 years ago) tech (many seem to settle for "last year's tech" on their cars, why not a computer?). There exists so many resources that are cheap or free for getting a computer, learning about computers, and getting online. These people are willing to save and spend $50 to $100 a month on non-essentials - why aren't they willing to do the same for a computer?
Does any of this make sense? Am I not seeing something? Is it a cultural issue? Am I blind to something because I haven't been poor or in the situation? Is it because of fear of theft (you have a computer, and someone breaks in and steals it to buy crack)? People, please enlighten me...
You are correct - you can sometimes get more, and with a big enough antenna, you can get a LOT more (my dad had a friend once who used to regularly pick up stations in Los Angeles on his rig - at the time we lived in Bakersfield!).
But with standard rabbit ears, at least where I am now (Phoenix, Arizona - Cave Creek area), 3-4 channels is about it (ok, on a good day when the wind is blowing right and the rabbits are in their holes, maybe 6 channels). Those channels are pretty clear. Of those, one is the religious channel - which I steer clear of, except when I need to laugh (pagan comedy, anyone?).
When I spoke about satellite dishes, I tried to make the distinction between them (the big 8-12 foot K-Band things) and a DSS/DirectTV dish - I may have not been clear enough...
And thank you for pointing it out - I have known about this, but I was concentrating so much on North America (USA in particular), that I didn't mention this. Are there any other countries that do this?
Personally I think the license sucks, in todays market. IIRC, isn't Britain allowing for private broadcasters to compete? If they are, I am wondering what will happen to the licensing fee - whether it will stay, go away, or be reduced? It made sense for the early days of TV (when there were few stations), but in today's market, you shouldn't have to be forced to have a license - especially if you never watch that particular broadcaster!
What if you don't even use the TV as a TV? From what I understand, you still have to pay the license fee, correct? Now, some may ask "Why would you buy a TV if you aren't going to use it as a TV?", to which I would reply "Well, what if I was building a VR HMD from Casio pocket TV's?"...
I tell ya, they got you coming and going, all the way to the grave!
It was the entire, unfiltered TV signal.
Here is why commercials exist:
TV was originally broadcast over the air (via UHF and VHF - in fact, it still is), and anybody with a receiver could pick up the broadcast. Because there wasn't any way for the broadcaster to know who picked up the signal, they couldn't charge the owners of the receivers to watch the signal. They had to find a different revenue model, and since radio is where many of the original broadcasters started from, radio ads became TV commercials. These commercials were paid for by advertisers to the broadcaster, to pay for the TV transmission, mostly. Thus, everyone got TV for "free" - they just had to watch the commercials.
Fast forward to the 1960's - commercials and TV are pretty much common items, and everyone has an antenna on their house. But people want more channels, and they want higher quality. Neighbors band together and buy large "neighborhood" TV antennas, centralize the antenna, then split/amplify the signal off of it to feeds that run to each house, allowing these people to see more channels at a better quality. Appliance sellers in the area see this, and think "Hey! I sell TV's - maybe I can set up an attenna for the neighborhood, and charge people $5.00 bucks a month to use it if they buy one of my TVs!". People go for it, because it is cheaper and easier than convincing all the neighbors (notice that there is a laziness factor here - most shit in history that we hate is cause by many people being lazy) to buy a central antenna, the quality is just as good (maybe better!) and thus, the first distributed, monthly-charge "cable" service begins.
Now, what about the advertisers? Well, they don't really care (or they don't notice), because more "eyeballs" are still seeing their advertisements, which is all they want. And the broadcasters? They don't care, either, because they are still being paid by the advertisers to broadcast. Everybody is happy...
Let's move to the 1970's - things are still pretty much the same, except most of the "mom & pop" cable systems are gone, either bought out by other companies, or for other reasons. But the cable system still exists, except for one change: There isn't a central "antenna" anymore, not in the everyday sense. What the cable companies are now doing is using microwave feeds and some are using satellite feeds (ala HBO). These microwave feeds are still "free" - in fact, you could buy microwave "dishes" and get signals out of the air of a very high quality, for a few hundred bucks. Other "free" sources could be gotten via home sattellite dishes - HBO could be picked up, as well as many other stations.
One thing about HBO, though - HBO was a "premium" channel - you were supposed to pay the cable company a fee to see it, and part of that fee went back to HBO to pay for the rebroadcast license the cable company had with HBO. Those with microwave dishes and sattelite dishes, however, didn't pay this fee. HBO got upset (rightly, for HBO's broadcast contained no commercials, so something had to pay for it), and began scrambling the signal. Dish owners fought back with descrambler's, arguing that the signal came onto their property, and that they should be able to see it. Back and forth it has gone (and still does today).
The 1980's came, and decoder boxes were the norm. Why? The national broadcasters were sending out the feeds via satellite and microwaves (in addition to over-the-air). These feeds still contained commercials (some also had spots where the local cable companies could insert commercials), which advertisers paid for. The cable companies, though, had to pay for a license to rebroadcast the broadcaster's signal. Because of this, they had to keep control of the signal, so they began to scramble their broadcasts as well. Now, it was difficult to impossible to see the signals via a satellite or microwave dish.
So, let's see - where are the broadcasters getting their money from? Ah yes, from the cable companies (and indirectly from the viewers) and from advertisers. But is the amount that viewers pay for cable still a "convenience" fee, like it was when cable started...?
At the end of the 1980's, and throughout the 1990's, more and more cable channels were added. Most all of these channels were "private" affairs - in other words, they weren't put out by the original national broadcasters (ABC, NBC, CBS). Many of these channels you had to pay for (either per-channel, or in a "package, most oftentime the latter), and most of the channels had commercials. We now have a wonderful system where you pay to watch commercials, rather than the commercials supporting the broadcast of the channel. Unfortunately, we don't have any choice about paying, otherwise we are stuck with only 3 to 4 on the air channels (and this will quickly go to 0 on the air channels when HDTV broadcasts are common). I am not arguing for free cable though. I think we should pay the convenience fee (to the cable company), and the premium channel fees to the cable comapny as well. The other channels are supposed to be advertiser supported. If this was the case, then why can't you pick up these supposedly "advertiser supported" channels on a satellite dish (like Lifetime, the History Channel, Discovery Channel, A&E)? Why is Lifetime only available in higher tier packages on DSS, not in the basic tier? How is it that the "convenience fee" that cable companies charge tend to go over $30.00 a month?
I guess one thing would be good about TV over IP, when it gets here: It will allow broadcasters to really compete for eyeballs, by only allowing those who pay-per-hour or whatnot access to the channels, and it will allow the "subscriber" to pick and choose what channels they want to see, rather than get the channels in "packages". The only thing I hate is that they will be able to track viewing habits, as well as control whether you can record a show or not. It will make today's banner ad and DVD problems seem like a sandbox spat...
Watch them do exactly that - I would be willing to bet within 6 months we will see this, and force iCrave to go under. That, or one of the biggies will BUY iCrave TV...
Introduction
If you can afford to have the cable installed before the sheetrock goes up on the walls, or you are allowed by the builder to do this yourself, by all means, do it. But for many, the expense of having someone else install and run custom wiring can't be justified, especially for first-time home buyers who may not have a lot of money to spare for additional work to be done.
In these cases, it may be easier to do the work after the house is built (if you want to do it yourself). You won't be able to use conduit, but it still can be done...
Tools Needed
The tools you will need are:
A keyhole-type hand saw
A power drill
A long 3/8 inch wire drill (these are really long - about 4 foot - flexible drills used to drill through studs and such for wire routing)
A wire fish tape (a steel reel thing for wire fishing in walls and conduit)
A bit of strong string
About 6 inches of lightweight chain
An electronic stud finder
Vertical Runs
Plan out where you want an outlet, then use the stud finder to find the nearest vertical stud. Select one side or the other of the stud (whichever is convenient) and mark where you want the box. Now is a good time to go into the attic or basement and check to see if anything is blocking the way of the hole you will need to drill in the ceiling plate stud (for an attic run) or base (floor) plate stud (for a basement run). If it is, you may have to move the location of the box, or do a horizontal run of the wire (explained below).
On the side you choose, move the stud finder to find the horizontal "fire-blocks", and mark on the wall where they are - these will have to be drilled through to run the cable (older houses may not have these blocks, which is good for running cable, and bad when there is a fire). Depending on whether you are running the wire to the attic or basement, you may or may not encounter these fire-blocks. However, you will encounter either a base (floor) plate stud on the bottom (at floor level) or a ceiling base plate stud (ceiling level) that will need to be drilled through.
With the keyhole saw, cut the hole for outlet box. The box will have instructions on how to cut the hole (get the boxes that are blue plastic, and have "flip-out" tabs - these are designed to be installed after the sheet rock has been put up).
Now, depending on where you installed the box (floor level, ceiling level, in the middle somewhere), and whether you are routing wire to the ceiling or basement, cut holes just above the fire-block studs, and a hole under the ceiling base plate stud (attic run) or above floor base plate stud (basement run). These holes should be near in-line with the box.
Tie the length of chain to the end of the string, and drop the chain through the hole in attic, or whichever hole is the highest (may be the box hole if it is a basement run). At each hole in the wall, fish the chain and run through the stud hole, until you reach the box (or the basement). Cut the chain off the string. The string will act as your wire pulling string. Alternatively, you can use the fish tape in the same manner.
Tie the string to the cable at one or the other ends, and pull the cable through, the amount you need. Always pull through more than you think you need, because invariably, you always need more. The wire is cheap - don't worry about wasting a bit of it.
Horizontal Runs
Horizontal runs can be done similarly. Simply mark the intervening vertical studs, and make a hole with the keyhole saw to the left or right of the stud. Drill the hole, and use the fish tape (or a stiff piece of wire, like a straightened coathanger) to work the chain/string/wire over as you work. Depending on how far your horizontal run is, you may end up going through a lot of vertical studs. Studs should be spaced about 18-24 inches apart (anyone know the code on this?). Try to keep horizontal runs to minimum lengths, or position them near the floor level (where any patching mistakes will be less noticable).
Finishing Up
Once the wire is finished being pulled through, and all connections are checked, you will be ready to patch, texture and paint all the holes you made. It is best to do all the wiring for one room, then patch/paint that room, and move on to the next. BTW - don't be afraid of re-texturing the patch. Your hardware store should sell or be able to get a product that is a simple spray on texture system - it costs about $20.00 a can, and is easy to use.
Conclusion
A hard and lengthy job? You bet. Done right, though it can save you quite a bit of money. However, if your time is valuable, it may not be worth it. A large wiring project could take several days of work to finish. Keep in mind what you plan to do, and how long you expect it to take. Research all costs and materials before you begin, and ask yourself if it is really something you want to tackle. The learning experience of it alone is worth it many times. Also, keep in mind alternative approaches - baseboard running, thin track conduit (kinda ugly IMO, but easy to install), and wireless approaches.
Yeah, this does make sense.
I wonder if you and the builder could simply sign some kind cross agreement where neither party holds the other responsible for on-site injuries? Maybe couple this with your own builder insurance (I am sure something like this exists)? Or see if you could be added as an employee to the builder's insurance policy for his employees, for the duration of the project, and you pay him the premiums?
I find it hard to understand how you could injure one of his employees (unless you were working on-site at the time everyone else was working). Most of the time you would do your work on the weekend (when most builders don't work), and you are only installing conduit and boxes for audio/video/comp/phone cabling - not electrical work (thus no faulty wiring or shock hazard).
I guess it might be possible for you to drill/bore/cut wrong and weaken a support structure (which could cause a fall and/or collapse), but you would have to seriously not realize what you were doing (in other words, if you are planning on doing this yourself, it might be a good idea to familiarize oneself with how a house is built and why, before modifying the structure in any way).
Either your Casio is old or you got a cheap one...
For the record, the Casio I am wearing, which I bought last year around this time (Casio Illuminator - 200m depth resist, all aluminium exterior) is showing the date correctly.
The watch was expensive for me ($50.00), considering the watches I bought up to that point (cheap Walmart plastic crap, $15.00). I used to reason that watches were a disposable item, and not worth paying a lot for. My patience and resolve left me, though, after so many of the cheap watches I bought broke after a year or two (either the band or the watch face, or water would get into them when they supposedly could take it).
So I finally decided to buy a better watch. This Casio looked rugged enough to take the abuse I tend to put watches through, and it had all the functions I normally use (although I would love to see some kind of water resistant databank watch in an aluminium case, that didn't cost an arm and a leg).
I've had it for about a year now, and it looks as good as the day I bought it, which is much better than I can say about any of the cheapo watches I owned previously. Most of these started to looked ratty after about a year of wear. This watch I can say was worth the money I spent for it. I will never buy a cheap watch again.
This was a bug left in Excel on purpose because earlier versions of Excel had the leap year bug, and changing it would break all of the user's macros or something to that effect. That, or Lotus 123 had the bug as well, and to keep the imported spreadsheets working properly, the bug had to be kept...
In other words, a case of the users (inadvertently?) driving the course of software development in the wrong direction, by keeping bugs from being fixed for compatibility reasons.
Some advocates of Linux say that Linux is ready for the desktop - ie, "Grandma can use it". Other advocates are more moderate, and say "It is almost there". Detractors on the other hand, either say it is too difficult to learn, or that is will never "get there".
My question is this: In your opinion, what happened to people?
Specifically, are people more ignorant now? Why is it that not long ago, everybody and their brother could use the command line from DOS, and the really good ones could modify their AUTOEXEC.BAT and CONFIG.SYS, but today, most people don't "get" a command line? Has the WIMP interface dumbed people down? Why are a lot of people even decrying Windows as "too difficult"?
Over the weekend I looked up what the fourth wire was for...
It was called the inhibit wire - and was used in a core memory "cube". This wire was threaded through the cores in such a way, on each plane in a cube, so as to "inhibit" the writing of bits on cores on certain planes of the cube. If you think of the planes as being analogous to the planar structure of, say, the VGA Mode X (all you graphics coders know what I mean), each plane is a bit array, and a word is stored via multiple planes (each plane is a bit plane). Due to the way the planes were wired (in order to make reading/writing quicker, from what I could gather), all planes were read/written at once. When writing to a plane, you needed to inhibit the current to certain cores in a word, to write a 0 in that bit position within the word. You would do that with the inhibit wire, which basically carried a negative voltage of half the current to inhibit the writing at the cores being written.
One final interesting note - something most of you may only read here. In this book, which I referenced for the info on the inhibit wire (the book was a textbook called "Computer Principles"), a mention was made about a different type of core memory - in which the cores were not individual, but was continuous. To put it simply, the device was made up of a flat plate of the ferrous material, with the wires threaded through holes drilled in the material, rather than through individual cores. It was found that the material stored the magnetic charges in the regions around the wires, and that these regions wouldn't interract as long as they were kept sufficiently far enough apart. No new name was given for this memory - it was just another type of core memory.
One more note - many of you have probably heard of mecury delay lines - but have any of you heard of nickel delay lines? Apparently, nickel (and some other metals) deform lengthwise when subjected to an electrical current. This property, with proper sensors and amplifiers, allowed early computers to have a cheaper (and less poisonous) alternative to mercury delay line storage systems. I once saw this type of system in a TI adding machine from the sixties that I had taken apart when I was younger, though at the time I didn't know what it was (this thing was completely transistor logic based - with the exception of the display - which were vacumn tube pixie lamps!)...