...and Commodore insisted on powerful 2D graphics without any support for 3D. Meanwhile, the PC world got Wolfestein 3D and Doom...
I think you are confused about what happenned to Commodore (by which, I assume you mean the Amiga line). The Amiga always had superior 2D graphics, from the start in 1985. The PC wasn't able to touch it until about 1993 or 1994, when VGA cards became ubiquitous in the PC scene. Even then, you were limited compared to what the Amiga could do, because the VGA card was essentially a frame buffer - any and all effects had to be handled by the CPU. The Amiga had the advantage of a parallel chipset - consisting of chips for graphic manipulations (mainly the blitter), chips for sound (Amiga had the best sound - 4 channel FM stereo as well as digital sample playback - since 1985), and the CPU. Also, there were two different types of RAM in the Amiga - regular and something known as "Fast" RAM. Fast RAM was typically used for graphics and sound, while the other RAM was used for the OS. The blitter allowed for some weird and wacky things, like having two different frequency screens overlayed on top of each other. Plus, the Amiga also had planar graphics (as opposed to the scalar architecture of VGA), which also allowed for some interesting effects.
With all that said, though, that isn't what led to the PC outpacing the Amiga (I doubt it was cause for the downfall of Commodore - I blame that on mismanagement of the company and bad marketing of their products) - what led to that was two fold: not using the fastest and greatest Motorola 68xxx processors for their machines (and not making it easy to upgrade to a faster processor), and not pricing the machines aggressively enough to compete with the PC. Sure, there were third party CPU and RAM upgrades available, but the whole Amiga line, both OEM and third-party hardware, was an expensive beast.
At the time (ie, 1993-1995), the Amiga 1200, 600, and 4000 were the real Amiga line. Unfortunately, only the 4000 had the horsepower to be really effective for 3D games, but not many people owned them. So, software publishers targetted most games and such for the 1200 and 600 (which was really a strange form of the 500 - it didn't have the AGA chipset). When Wolfenstein 3D came out on the PC, it stunned a lot of people, myself included. But don't kid yourself: Wolfenstein 3D was a 2D game at heart - for that matter, so was Doom, and Doom 2. Arguably, Quake was "2D" as well (from the standpoint that it didn't have hardware accellerated 3D graphics), but it doesn't count since the graphics were really 3D, just rendered in software. The first three games, though, all used a form of graphic rendering called "raycasting", which was a very ingenious method combining the Bresenham algorithm and sprite scaling to simulate a 3D rendered world, very quickly, using very optimized assembly code.
The Amiga certainly had the horsepower to render such a world - indeed, shortly after Wolfenstein 3D stunned the world, other programmers figured out the "tricks" and the Amiga got its share of raycast games - not as many as the PC world (which may have been a good thing), but there were a few nice ones made. What really changed is that it proved the PC capable of doing some really nice graphic effects. The capability was there all along (in both the Amiga and the PC, mind you), probably since the days of the Amiga 1000 and PCs with CGA graphics - I say this because a guy named John Kowalski proved you can get a 2 MHz 8-bit machine to do raycasting (the TRS-80 Color Computer 3 - 320x200 16 color mode), along with a host of other wierd and wild stunts that were absolutely unheard of back in the heyday of the CoCo 3 (ie, 1987-1990 or so). From this, another individual used his talent (Nickolas Marentes) to create a game based off the Gloom-3D code, called Gate Crasher. Yes - both of these projects came out around 19
More or less, as others have commented, such machines exist today. What is interesting, though I have never found a web page on them, and none are available on eBay, is that in the early 1990's there was a 286 or 386 PC that was pretty much the same thing, and the company that made it (can't remember their name) called it the "Brick PC". It was very small for a "full power" (of the time) PC, and it had all the needed ports (serial, parallel, video, etc). It was smaller than the laptops of the time, slightly bigger than a Mac Mini today. They must not have sold many, though, as I have yet to see one pop up on eBay, yet I see Altairs, Sols, and IMSAIs all the time (granted, all of these machines probably sold more copies than the Brick PC)...
If the status quo of laws is that one cannot HELP be ignorant of without becoming a lawyer, then a core tenet of a legal system is "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" is unconscionable.
I agree with you, but it is much worse than this - lawyers don't even know the "law", outside of their specialty. At one time in history, one could be a simple "lawyer", and be able to work any sort of cases. As laws became more complex, and people started needing lawyers for only certain areas of the law, specialization became the norm. Today, it is not uncommon to find a lawyer who could easily litigate a patent case, but be clueless when it comes to criminal defense.
To make matters even worse, we have judges who don't know the law, or whose understanding of the law is completely at odds with what the law really says. Couple both of these issues with the general public's inability to understand the law, along with their lack of knowledge of their rights a jurors (ie, FIJA - though judges DO KNOW about this point, and take great measures to ensure the potential jurors don't, even though it is their right to exercise), and you have the situation you have today.
When I was 16 (16+ years ago, heh), I had a phone line and 1200 baud modem in my room, with my two TRS-80 Color Computers. I had a phone line in my room when I turned 13, and got my first modem (a 300 baud screamer) when I was 14. I've been "online" ever since. I don't remember my parents really caring what I did on my computer, or what I downloaded or looked at. I know I managed to get both cheesy porn (ascii and ansi art, mainly - but some 16 color GIFs on my Color Computer 3 as well) as well as various "anarchy" text files from the MetalShop BBS (never did anything with them, but they were fun to read).
I know the internet and all it holds is a vastly different beast from the BBS's of old. Even so, in theory, the possibilities for wierd people reaching out to local kids on a local BBS seems much higher. I guess my parents instilled in me the sense of knowing right from wrong (for the most part) - I tend to wonder if parents are failing at this nowadays...?
Edison was a determined genius and a good administrator. His inventions (film, audio, electricity, light bulbs - just 3 out of 1200) are still a STAPLE in western society.
Edison was a shrewd businessman and marketer, as well. He still has a lot of people fooled, including you, apparently.
Film? I assume by this you mean "motion pictures", but Edison was not the "inventor" of such technology, he merely managed to package it up into a nice assembly. Many, many people contributed toward the progress of motion picture technology - Edison merely stood on all of these men's shoulders and set up an "easy to use" system.
Audio? If you mean the phonograph, then I will give you this one - such a device was fairly unique to come out of Menlo Park, though I bet if you researched it carefully, you will still find precedents in the technology. Even so, I would be more inclined to give this to him than other things he "invented". One thing Edison completely missed was the invention of what would later become known as the "triode" - the vacuum tube, to be precise. Edison noticed the electrons being "given off" by the heated filament of one of his light bulbs, but chalked it up as a curiosity of no importance. It would be years later that DeForrest would recognize the usefulness of this, which was termed "the Edison Effect", to develop the vacuum tube, around which audio amplifiers, useful radio, electronic computers, radar, and a whole host of other devices could be developed.
Finally, electricity and light bulbs? You have to be kidding me. Yes, Edison perfected the incandescent electric bulb, but many other inventors were working on similar devices - Edison merely had the forethought to try every possible material he could think of in a "brute force" attempt to build a better electric lamp. His lamp was the "best of breed", but it wasn't unique. This isn't unexpected, though, as many inventions throughout history have been "simultaneously" discovered and patent disputes abounded. It seems like for certain inventions at certain points in time, history shows that multiple people hit upon success, and whoever gets to the patent office first, wins.
However, with electricity, you are really far off the mark. Today's modern electricity generation and distribution system (not to mention tons of other modern devices like flourescent bulbs, microwave ovens, plasma TVs, radio control and the like) would not be possible were it not for the genius of one man: Nikola Tesla. There has been so much written about this man by others more capable than I that I won't go into details, save that Edison (of whom Tesla was a former employee, and he offerred Edison a more advanced form of electricity generation, which Edison turned down, causing Nikola to leave and sell the system to George Westinghouse, who set up the first AC generating station at Niagara Falls) did all he could to wipe Tesla's name from the spotlight of electrical history. It almost worked - some would even say, to the layman, it did work.
What invention can we really credit Edison for, though? Yep - the electric chair. Edison came up with the system in an effort to discredit Tesla, by building a device that could kill a person using AC (which, at the lower frequencies for electrical distribution tends to make the muscles of the body unresponsive). Ultimately, it didn't work out for Edison, because the efficiencies of long distance transport of power using AC won out. Tesla wanted to go one step further - wireless power transmission, of which we still don't completely understand where he was going. Some have speculated that it was based on his high frequency Tesla coil apparatus, but from what I have read and understood, Tesla was intimately familiar with resonant frequency systems, and love oscillators (both electronic and mechanical). From his published patents, and various other reading I have done, it seems most likely he was going to use his system to "pump" the earth itself to resonant frequency, to allow others anywhere in the w
If you look at the traits of sociopathy, and the traits which make up a "good CEO", you will find that both share the majority of similar traits. The fact is, "good" CEOs tend to be sociopathic. By "good", I don't mean "for all of mankind", I mean for the sake of the business (and shareholders, if there are any). Whether Ballmer is APD, psychopathic, or sociopathic, I don't know - I am not a psychologist. But he, like many other CEOs, likely falls on the spectrum somewhere...
i've said this before: the government needs some data to be able to protect us from crimes.
You really think that the government can somehow "protect" you, and you alone? I suppose that is why at the local government level we hear on the news every day "...police prevented this man from breaking into an apartment where he was going to brutally rape and kill this woman..."? Oh, that's right - we don't hear that, do we?
Other than in the most rare of circumstances will we ever hear this, and it will be because of "some lucky break" - the cop sees the guy, the cop notices the drunk weaving a bit, the FBI agent somehow manages to put two and two together, the FEMA manager gets off his butt and actually does something in an emergency.
If 9/11 didn't teach you anything, if hurricane Katrina didn't teach you anything, if the daily news hasn't taught you, then I am going to tell you right now:
The government isn't there to protect you personnally - at best they may be able to protect the country itself from harm, and they don't even do a very good job at that (Pearl Harbor? 9/11? Katrina?). Their only function anymore seems to be "mopping up the mess left behind", and 90 percent of the time they can't even do that right without bickering, money grubbing, and ultimately forgetting what the problem originally was, leaving the mess for the citzens to deal with (look at downtown Detroit, among other blighted areas in the country, for examples of this).
The only protection you have for you and your family is you and your family. Depending on your family (or lack of it), it may just be only YOU. Don't look for the government to be there for you when disaster strikes, when war comes to our shores, or when a bad guy is on your block. Half the time if you even manage to be able to call 911, you'll be maimed or dead by the time the cops get there.
I suppose the one good thing that hurricane Katrina showed us is that the FEMA conspiracy (where FEMA had set up numerous fenced "prisons" around the country for dissidents or whatnot in a time of national emergency for "unruly citizens" to be placed and re-educated) is either false, or just wouldn't work because of ineptitude on the part of FEMA. When they can't even get some buses in place to move people with 24-48 hours warning, how would you expect them to be able to do a roundup of citizens who would be armed?
Get out of your bubble - the government isn't going to do jack to "protect you" - not even if you are Bill Gates himself.
One could certainly argue today about that difference when compared to things like fuel bombs and daisycutters, but it was etched into our collective minds as different.
Only an insane man would argue that a fuel-air bomb or daisycutter is somehow near equivalent to a nuclear bomb, even one of Hiroshima vintage. To say that about modern day nuclear bombs would be outright false. All one has to do is look at some of the past's above ground bomb tests to know that this is false. Let me present you one:
Take a look at the Baker test (1946), which was part of Operation Crossroads. Notice the mushroom cloud of water - from the site:
At its greatest extent, the water column was 2000 feet (600 m) across, with walls 300 feet (100 m) thick, and 6000 feet (2 km) tall, holding a million tons of water.
Now, let's compare this blast to daisycutters and MOABs - please reference these links:
Now, these sites seem to reference the fact that the destructive area for both of these conventional devices are about "600 yards", or 1800 feet, across. This area is only, at most, the size of just the water column of the Baker test. I can guarantee you that had that test been conducted on a real target, the destructive area (for just blast effects, mind you) would not have been localized just to the column of the mushroom cloud. Please note that the Baker test had only a yield of 23 kilotons. From the Operation Crossroads web page again:
...The closest ship to surface zero was the USS Saratoga. Eight ships were sunk or capsized, eight more were severly damaged. Sunk vessels were the USS Saratoga, USS Arkansas, the Nagato, LSM-60 (obviously), the submarines USS Apogon and USS Pilotfish, the concrete dry dock ARDC-13, and the barge YO-160.
This was only blast effects on the ships, which don't count the radiation aspect. Since MOABs and daisycutters do not have this aspect, I won't post about it here, though it can't really be discounted if you want a comparison of such conventional weapons to nuclear weapons.
Finally, we must also note that the Baker test was only a standard fission bomb test, of relatively low yield (compared to say, the more modern W87 warhead, which has a yield of 300-475 kilotons). One should also note that when a target is selected for these weapons, multiple warheads are targetted for a single target in most cases (since they tend to be larger cities or bases). Even so, a single modern warhead has the equivalent destructive power as 15-20 Baker tests.
How anybody - the media, the layperson, generals, the president - anybody - can equate the two in destructive power, that they can somehow be used (or should be used) interchangibly - is sheer madness. They aren't interchangible, they in no way compare in destructive power, and once you calculate in radiation effects, one can only see that such devices are in fact madness and tributes of hubris to our destructiveness as a species. To claim otherwise is to show a lack of knowledge and humbleness about these devices.
Sometimes I wonder if the test ban treaties over the years have been a wrong thing. By only being able to "test" these devices on computers and such other simulations, we have removed an effective deterrent to the use of these devices. All we have left now are the pictures and movies of past tests. I doubt nothing else could cement the destructive power capabilities in the minds of generals and others, outside of a personally witnessed live test, while at the same sh
Abolishing religion will not work. Most self-proclaimed atheists have only renamed their gods. For example, for many the strict belief in the scientific method has very much religious characteristics and they defend it with zeal. There's a reason that if you study theology, science is a part of the "other religions" curricullum.
There is a fundamental difference between belief and knowledge. One is based on emotion and "gut feeling", the other is based on reason, logic, and reproducible experimentation.
I won't deny that there are some people (even those who are so-called "scientists") who have a "belief" in the scientific method. This is a wrong thought process though. One (a scientist, especially) should not have a "belief" in anything, but should instead insist upon questioning, and have a rational, logical experimental base foundation for their work. They should never take anything as "fact", but rather as "knowledge which fits currently defined theories". The scientific method is this base, and itself should be constantly questioned, though unfortunately, it rarely is.
I have no doubt that, for a true and honest scientist, that if you were able to construct a better method for scientific research over the common "scientific method", one which could be tested and verified in open research and experimentation, and it was found to yield better, more reproducible results than the current established methods - that he would accept it as the better method and share the idea amongst his peers. Those peers may or may not accept it, but if the method itself can be tested by itself (and perhaps more importantly, the current method as well), it will stand a good chance at supplanting the current method. Thus far, while I don't doubt others have attempted this, none have succeeded in supplanting the current method. If anything, the current method has been modified over time, because over time it has been found to be the method through which science is able to best advance.
I must reiterate that no honest scientist should "believe" in this (or any other) method. If he does, he is merely shortchanging himself, and being fearful/nervous about asking questions about the base upon which he stands, nothing more.
No one will ever use flickr's photo printing services to get real prints of screenshots.
Maybe not today, but what about "tommorow"?
In other words, it would be nice to be able to offer low-cost prints of "screenshots" of computer graphic artwork and such. Also, what happens when "virtual worlds" (like SL, WoW, and others) become so realistic (graphically) that a screenshot can't be distinguished from a "real life" photograph (outside of pictorial cues that could never occur in real life, perhaps)?
These are just questions for idle debate. We aren't there yet, and likely won't be there for a little while longer, and by that time Flickr or their successors likely will allow such screenshot "photographs" anyhow as a part of their TOS agreements...
You mean like this one? No, it doesn't have the "flashy graphics" that current consoles have, but it does seem like it has a pretty active development community. In theory, one could package it up into a "real" system with a "real" game - or learn from it to build your own system.
Something I have thought about on occasion would be to develop a game-centric Linux LiveCD, ideally designed around a micro-atx form factor motherboard of some sort. Ultimately, your distribution web site would have a "recommended specification" for the "game console", specifying everything that is needed for the "console" to work flawlessly with your LiveCD distro (this would include motherboard type, RAM, CPU, graphics and sound chipsets, and "standard" joy/gamepad, among other items). You could also note that the LiveCD "may work on other machine specifications, but for best results use the reccommended specifications". The distro should contain all needed development tools for game development (I would suggest the standard tools, but also include Python, PyGame, and PyOpenGL for rapid prototyping) for the specification, plus sample code and maybe even an actual game, along with documentation, etc of course.
The idea being that your site would be the "standard" specification, and would act as partner/coordinator with others to develop actual incarnations of the "console" (maybe you also sell a "reference" console, built to your specs). Every year, you would re-certify/re-develop your specifications (as needed), to keep them "current" (it would be best if the specifications were developed to be middle or "trailing" edge to some aspects of the hardware, mainly graphics and gamepad, so that each version of the "console" has at least a 2-3 year lifecycle). Others developing their own hardware incarnations of the console spec could partner with you to get a "seal of approval" (this would cost something to certify, of course) as well as support. Developers could get their own support. Maybe tier these support packages (provide a free level, a low cost student/independent level, a professional level, and a corporate level).
All it would take would be to develop that first LiveCD - which shouldn't be that big of a deal at all, since there are plenty of them out there to model it off of. The LiveCD should be setup in such a way as to boot to a splashy screen (perhaps after a "title splash" screen) where the user can boot the LiveCD (ie, run the system off the LiveCD), install the LiveCD (as game console or dev console - prebuilt consoles would have this already done, of course), or update the install. If a game is included on the LiveCD, they should also be able to select and run it as well.
Ultimately, you would end up with an "open source Linux game development kit" - one with both hardware and software specifications, whereby someone could easily boot the game on their normal system (if it meets or comes close to the specs) to "try out", or if they wish to go further, they could install it to develop games with. Stipulate to "licensees" or whatnot that any of the game CDs developed must be like the LiveCD reference system, or at minimum have references back to your web site so that "budding game developers" can easily get set up to develop their own games with your system, however they see fit.
I really think this model could work - if I had the time I would try it myself - depending on what happens after this post (like, if nobody does it before me) I might still attempt it. It wouldn't cost anything more than time to develop the LiveCD. Once you had that, you could begin to tweak it to get it to work with a specification...
I did something similar to this waaay back in the day, before the internet as we know it today (ie, easy consumer access - Internet Direct here in Phoenix wasn't around yet, it that gives you a clue) existed.
My employer was throwing away a VERY HEAVY powersupply from an old minicomputer. They let me have the parts, which included some very nice 120 VAC axial flow fans. My apartment was hot (cheap AC system), and I didn't have a means to go out and buy a desk fan, so I repurposed these fans as my cooling solution. These things moved so much air, they sounded like jet engines powering up when plugged in, and had a tendancy to blow themselves over (despite being metal), so I had to mount them to small pieces of wood.
Unable to sense him, the robot's powerful hydraulic arm kept on working and accidentally pushed the engineer into a grinding machine. His death made Urada the first recorded victim to die at the hands of a robot. This gruesome industrial accident would not have happened in a world in which robot behavior was governed by the Three Laws of Robotics drawn up by Isaac Asimov, a science-fiction writer.
What the author of this article doesn't seem to be aware of is the fact that in 1981, industrial robots were fairly "dumb" machines, even more so than today. In 1981, most industrial robots in use were "pick and place", "point-to-point" "bang-bang" machines. That is, there were very few sensors (mostly light sensors on conveyor belts, and microswitches), lots of "relay ladder" logic (this was before widespread small PLCs on factory floors - microcomputers barely existed, let alone microcontrollers), and "hard stops". These machines were basic industrial machines programmed in such a way (in some older machine cases, via plugboards - newer machines were controlled similar to NC machines or relay ladder logic). Hard limit "stops" (padded bolts or such in the way of a mechanism) helped to prevent the machines from overtravelling. Most such arms were hydraulically or pneumatically controlled, electric drives were not that popular because they couldn't be made fast and powerful enough at the same time. Most industrial robots were large machines used for moving things on and off conveyor belts, welding, painting, foundry work, etc. These were not (and still aren't) lightweight nor smart machines.
I can't imagine the lack of thought of someone who would get inside the working envelope of any automated machine, let alone a large industrial robot, without triple-ensuring lockouts. As a result, factory work envelopes and lockout procedures have become much safer and more pervasive. Industrial robot work envelopes are much better protected from humans accidentally (or on purpose) wandering into them, and sensors in the work envelope help to ensure that power is shut down if lockout procedures aren't followed. Even so, you can't beat stupidity - some poor slob will still find a way to get himself killed.
If you ever have the chance, find a large industrial robot (like that used for welding, painting, or similar heavy duty work) and get a feel for the scale of such a machine. I personally have never been around such machines in a working environment, but they are humbling enough just sitting in "resell" condition. A local dealer in such equipment (Equipment Exchange, BTW - yes, they do sell to the public) had a Unimate "tucked" in a back area of their warehouse. Up to that point, I had only seen pictures of such a machine. Standing next to it was interesting. I own a Ford Ranger, and the arm/base unit was easily as large as my small pickup. That is not something I would want to be near while it is turned on and running. It would hit you, knock you down, and keep running without so much as a blip...
Hmm - you're right. Good thing I didn't go out and buy some of this stuff to try it! Thanks for heads up. What I am needing is some kind of "stuff" that will "stick" to glass, be mostly transparent (ie, 75% or greater), and electrically conductive. So far, the only two realistic options I have seen for this kind of thing is silvering glass, either chemically or via vapor deposition. Now, vapor deposition isn't difficult, but the tools to do it with aren't easily (or cheaply) available.
Basically, you need one hell of a lab grade vaccuum pump, that can pump down to very, very low pressure levels. Even chained together refrigerator compressors won't get you low enough (I haven't found one method that would allow me to homebrew a vaccuum pump for such use). So, I am left with chemical silvering, and as I have explained, the chemicals are nearly impossible to get, and are expensive as well, difficult to store (before or after mixing - they come in dry form), are poisonous, etc.
So, I am trying to look at some other method to build the front electrode - silkscreening with some electrically conductive adhesive seems like the best way, so far - I just have to find that adhesive (and hope it doesn't have too high of a resistance).
My other idea is to reduce the cost for the copper oxide side of things - copper sheeting is pretty expensive, so I have also thought that maybe a high-copper bearing anti-fouling paint, applied to an alluminum base plate might work. Anti-fouling paint is used on boats and ships to prevent corrosion and barnacles from collecting - it tends to be fairly expensive (around $80.00 a gallon), but that gallon covers more area than $80.00 worth of copper sheeting, so if it worked it would be a great thing. My ultimate goal is to be able to homebrew a solar panel cheaper than a silicon based one (even if in area it has to be much bigger to supply the same amount of electricity). So far, based on everything I have seen, silicon is still cheaper. It would be cheaper still if it were easier to get seconds from manufacturers...
Actually, for the scenarios you propose to be on more "equal footing":
"Mom, Dad: I had sex with my girlfriend..." or "Mom, Dad: I was in a fight with my best friend today..."
Or, alternatively:
"Mom, Dad: I got my girlfriend pregnant..." or "Mom, Dad: I shot and killed my best friend today..."
If you look at them this way, I would hope that a parent would see that in each of these cases, the first scenario is much more preferable to the other. One involves pleasure, friendship, and hopefully love. The other involves violence and hatred, and in the last - death. For parents to prefer the violent ending over the non-violent one says a lot about society and the parents. I think you see this, as well.
What is more interesting is why do members of our American society evolve this way? Do they simply forget, and not try to remember, what it was like being younger? Are such thoughts too painful (either because of the experience, or the fact that the experience is in the past and there is no way to change or relive it)? In short, why do most people in our society tend to become more conservative, and lose permissiveness in all areas of life as they grow older? Furthermore, what are the folks WHO DON'T doing different? Is it the level of education? Are those who have view which don't become more conservative more likely to be continuing their education, either formally or on thier own, than those who do become more conservative? In other words, do those who become more conservative as they age tend to have less drive to keep themselves current and aware of the world than those who do?
These and many other questions nag at me. I think about things like this happenning, when I know that many of the people involved saw the craziness with video games (and role playing games, and such) that happenned in the 1980's. I also wonder about what happenned to the kids and progressive people of the 1960's - why did so many of them become just like their parents, and continue the power trip that they struggled against? What made them change...?
Lastly - and this is what scares me the most - am I kidding myself when I think "I am immune"? Will my views, which tend to be very liberal, sometimes radical, and hardly ever mainstream - change to the point where my current self wouldn't recognize my future self? Am I doomed by the same invisible hand which is shoving everyone else around?
I have an old Win 98 box set up for Quicken, mainly - though it does have an old install of Unreal (not UT, but the original) on it. One of these days I am going to retire the Quicken stuff, then it might become my Win 98 box for game playing (I have a ton of old games from my Windows and DOS days as well).
I also have another box configured exclusively for DOS 6.21, that is set up to run a few different TRS-80 Color Computer 2 & 3 emulators. I have converted nearly all of my old Color Computer floppies from when I was a kid to.DSK image formats to run on the emulators. One of these days I will probably scrap this box and make a combo MESS/DOSEmu box for this kind of thing...
If you can more RAM for these machines (somewhere around 512 MB), they should work OK under Linux. At one time, I was running Debian Woody on a Celeron 366 with 768 MB, and it worked great with KDE (with an NVidia card). Right now, my wife is running Mandrake 10.1 on a P2-366 with 256 MB, and while it isn't the snappiest, it works fine for her needs. One of these days I am going to drop some RAM in it or give her a better box, but every time I mention it, she doesn't want me to touch it - she is happy with it (beats all to hell the old box she had running Win 98).
I would say if you can get those people some more RAM (should be easy on Ebay), you will have better luck switching them to Linux and KDE. They shouldn't have any problems, unless they are more into games than what Linux has available (given your description, though, of these individuals, games don't appear to be their main forte - the games available on most stock installs of Linux and KDE will probably be more than enough)...
I was expecting to see something really cool. I guess I shouldn't have gotten my hopes up - it is MAKE magazine, after all, the wonderful magazine that seems to do anything BUT show you how to make something. Rather, it seems like many articles are of the "first, buy something expensive, then tweak it" variety - which is anything but making something.
What was I expecting from a "bandaid fuel cell" in an article from a magazine named MAKE?
Well, perhaps something describing how to build a fuel cell that doesn't require an expensive (and sometimes difficult to obtain) membrane, or catalyst. I was saying to myself "Finally, someone has figured out how to use saranwrap (or something similar) as the membrane for a simple fuel cell".
I suppose if it was that simple, the companies would already be doing it - or would they? How many other times in our recent history have companies passed on simple and effective technologies for a product simply because you couldn't patent the crap out of them? Could fuel cells be any different? I wonder the same thing about solar technology - is there a way to make a better (or at least cheaper to build) copper oxide solar cell, or an easier to build organic solar cell (you know the ones I am talking about, which use cranberry juice or whatnot). In the case of a fuel cell, the expensive and hard to obtain parts seem to be the catalyst material and membrane (in the case of the bandaid fuel cell, it seems that the membrane you buy is just a combination of both in a pre-made stack). In the case of a homemade solar cell, the difficult piece is the front transparent conductor: It is difficult to make transparent conductive glass (silvering is one method, but it require chemicals that are heavily regulated today thanks to things like the PATRIOT Act - no kidding! - plus the chemicals are difficult to handle and expensive to purchase) - so most homemade solar cells, especially the copper oxide ones, use saltwater as a transparent conductor. I have also given thought to "silkscreening" a very, very thin layer of Artic Silver paste compound onto glass to act as a conductor, but I am not sure that would work, either.
At any rate, this article did nothing to cause me to get excited and MAKE something. For a toy experiment, it isn't worth it. I would have been much more impressed had they detailed building a solar powered stirling engine from empty cola cans and a fresnel magnifier...
Don't do it! I agree with a lot of other posters here, that wireless is great for those areas that need it, but don't try to do an entire office this way - you may not get the results you want.
At my last employer, they remodeled the entire office, and decided to go with "wireless everywhere". This was about four years ago. They decided to use some nice 802.11a & b equipment, put in wireless cards in all the computers, and made sure all the laptops had wireless. This was to replace an *already set up* Cat5e wired network. I cautioned them not to do it (via my supervisor, and anyone else who would listen), that others had problems doing this, etc - that it might turn out to be a waste of money. Nobody listened, and they went ahead with it anyway.
It turned out to be a near disaster - computers would connect (sometimes), "roam" a lot, or try to connect (and sometimes succeed) to an AP that was across the office, but fail to see the one just outside the door. There were major speed issues, that would fluctuate during the day. It didn't work well at all. They (the IT dept) tried everything to get it to work right, but nothing they did would solve the problems that were happenning, in all but a few cases.
Fortunately, they left in the old Cat5e and didn't strip it out (not like any company ever does that leases office space), so after enough of us (mostly software devs) pestered them, they started giving us our wired links back. They continued to use the wireless links, but only in places that needed it (conference rooms), or where they couldn't get a wired solution in place (not many of those, fortunately). Not many people even had a need for roaming access, just a few in management and CEx positions, and even they didn't use it that much.
To this day, I don't understand why they didn't even consider what I was mentioning - they could have saved a big chunk of change (ie, around $100,000). Even after I mentioned what I had said earlier after the fact, they pretended I was making stuff up, that I never said any of it, or that it was their idea to change, and that what I had said earlier didn't matter. Oh, well, their money, their company, and if they wanted to try and run it into the ground, that was their business (truthfully, $100,00 wasn't going to break them in this experiment - but likely they lost much, much more in lost productivity and such from employees fighting with the network, but little of that was tracked and quantified).
Well, the way you presented it seemed to indicate that it was human (by saying "we") knowledge (thus scientific) that "souls cannot split". While such knowledge may be "scientific" from an anthropological viewpoint, it is not scientific from the practical perspective. Had you instead phrased it as "basically, those of religious persuasion believe that souls cannot split", I likely would not have responded with anything at all. It was just the juxtapositioning of the words "scientific" and "we know souls cannot split" (we know nothing of the sort because it is a belief, and is not true knowledge grounded in science or logical reason) that made me respond...
Here is where the problem lies - if we were comparing "apples to apples" - that is, if the HDTV and the SDTV, both of the same size and weight, both using LCDs or plasma displays, you would have a point. However, I have yet to see a 30" SDTV LCD widescreen...
Most of the time, for $300.00, that 30" SDTV is going to weigh a ton, because it will contain a glass picture tube. It will take two people to safely move it and set it up, each and every time you need to move it (unless you enjoy hernias for some strange reason). Sudennly, that larger HDTV starts to seem more economical...
What I don't understand (ok, I understand - they want to sell you HDTVs, of course) is why you can't get larger (say 30"-45") SD widescreen projection TVs anymore? They should be fairly inexpensive, cheap to make, and would probably sell quickly. They would also be lightweight. But, like I said - I do understand why, it just ticks me off that they don't (same thing about projectors - why can't I pick up a new $200.00 640x480 data projector instead of going to the used market)...
You know, I am still trying to figure out where these $500.00 HDTV "fell off the back of the truck" sets can be bought. Even at Walmart, you are going to spend more than that for a cheap HDTV capable set. Meh.
You are a lucky SOB to get a projector for $5.00 - I know I have gotten my share of "deals", but most of them have been in the VR HMD arena, not data projectors - oh, well. I myself am in the "market" now for a new TV - my 12 year old 27" is giving up the ghost, so I am looking into options. Currently, I think the best option I am looking at is a nice DLP projector for movies with a smaller 19" TV for everyday watching. Even so, it is going to set me back a chunk to get it, if that option works out.
I don't think an HD set is worth it until you get to the larger screen sizes. Even so, SD widescreen output, even with an 800x600 (heck, even 640x480) projector is fun once you start filling a wall...
Slashdot Mirror
I think you are confused about what happenned to Commodore (by which, I assume you mean the Amiga line). The Amiga always had superior 2D graphics, from the start in 1985. The PC wasn't able to touch it until about 1993 or 1994, when VGA cards became ubiquitous in the PC scene. Even then, you were limited compared to what the Amiga could do, because the VGA card was essentially a frame buffer - any and all effects had to be handled by the CPU. The Amiga had the advantage of a parallel chipset - consisting of chips for graphic manipulations (mainly the blitter), chips for sound (Amiga had the best sound - 4 channel FM stereo as well as digital sample playback - since 1985), and the CPU. Also, there were two different types of RAM in the Amiga - regular and something known as "Fast" RAM. Fast RAM was typically used for graphics and sound, while the other RAM was used for the OS. The blitter allowed for some weird and wacky things, like having two different frequency screens overlayed on top of each other. Plus, the Amiga also had planar graphics (as opposed to the scalar architecture of VGA), which also allowed for some interesting effects.
With all that said, though, that isn't what led to the PC outpacing the Amiga (I doubt it was cause for the downfall of Commodore - I blame that on mismanagement of the company and bad marketing of their products) - what led to that was two fold: not using the fastest and greatest Motorola 68xxx processors for their machines (and not making it easy to upgrade to a faster processor), and not pricing the machines aggressively enough to compete with the PC. Sure, there were third party CPU and RAM upgrades available, but the whole Amiga line, both OEM and third-party hardware, was an expensive beast.
At the time (ie, 1993-1995), the Amiga 1200, 600, and 4000 were the real Amiga line. Unfortunately, only the 4000 had the horsepower to be really effective for 3D games, but not many people owned them. So, software publishers targetted most games and such for the 1200 and 600 (which was really a strange form of the 500 - it didn't have the AGA chipset). When Wolfenstein 3D came out on the PC, it stunned a lot of people, myself included. But don't kid yourself: Wolfenstein 3D was a 2D game at heart - for that matter, so was Doom, and Doom 2. Arguably, Quake was "2D" as well (from the standpoint that it didn't have hardware accellerated 3D graphics), but it doesn't count since the graphics were really 3D, just rendered in software. The first three games, though, all used a form of graphic rendering called "raycasting", which was a very ingenious method combining the Bresenham algorithm and sprite scaling to simulate a 3D rendered world, very quickly, using very optimized assembly code.
The Amiga certainly had the horsepower to render such a world - indeed, shortly after Wolfenstein 3D stunned the world, other programmers figured out the "tricks" and the Amiga got its share of raycast games - not as many as the PC world (which may have been a good thing), but there were a few nice ones made. What really changed is that it proved the PC capable of doing some really nice graphic effects. The capability was there all along (in both the Amiga and the PC, mind you), probably since the days of the Amiga 1000 and PCs with CGA graphics - I say this because a guy named John Kowalski proved you can get a 2 MHz 8-bit machine to do raycasting (the TRS-80 Color Computer 3 - 320x200 16 color mode), along with a host of other wierd and wild stunts that were absolutely unheard of back in the heyday of the CoCo 3 (ie, 1987-1990 or so). From this, another individual used his talent (Nickolas Marentes) to create a game based off the Gloom-3D code, called Gate Crasher. Yes - both of these projects came out around 19
More or less, as others have commented, such machines exist today. What is interesting, though I have never found a web page on them, and none are available on eBay, is that in the early 1990's there was a 286 or 386 PC that was pretty much the same thing, and the company that made it (can't remember their name) called it the "Brick PC". It was very small for a "full power" (of the time) PC, and it had all the needed ports (serial, parallel, video, etc). It was smaller than the laptops of the time, slightly bigger than a Mac Mini today. They must not have sold many, though, as I have yet to see one pop up on eBay, yet I see Altairs, Sols, and IMSAIs all the time (granted, all of these machines probably sold more copies than the Brick PC)...
I agree with you, but it is much worse than this - lawyers don't even know the "law", outside of their specialty. At one time in history, one could be a simple "lawyer", and be able to work any sort of cases. As laws became more complex, and people started needing lawyers for only certain areas of the law, specialization became the norm. Today, it is not uncommon to find a lawyer who could easily litigate a patent case, but be clueless when it comes to criminal defense.
To make matters even worse, we have judges who don't know the law, or whose understanding of the law is completely at odds with what the law really says. Couple both of these issues with the general public's inability to understand the law, along with their lack of knowledge of their rights a jurors (ie, FIJA - though judges DO KNOW about this point, and take great measures to ensure the potential jurors don't, even though it is their right to exercise), and you have the situation you have today.
A very ugly, and very unjust system...
I know the internet and all it holds is a vastly different beast from the BBS's of old. Even so, in theory, the possibilities for wierd people reaching out to local kids on a local BBS seems much higher. I guess my parents instilled in me the sense of knowing right from wrong (for the most part) - I tend to wonder if parents are failing at this nowadays...?
Edison was a shrewd businessman and marketer, as well. He still has a lot of people fooled, including you, apparently.
Film? I assume by this you mean "motion pictures", but Edison was not the "inventor" of such technology, he merely managed to package it up into a nice assembly. Many, many people contributed toward the progress of motion picture technology - Edison merely stood on all of these men's shoulders and set up an "easy to use" system.
Audio? If you mean the phonograph, then I will give you this one - such a device was fairly unique to come out of Menlo Park, though I bet if you researched it carefully, you will still find precedents in the technology. Even so, I would be more inclined to give this to him than other things he "invented". One thing Edison completely missed was the invention of what would later become known as the "triode" - the vacuum tube, to be precise. Edison noticed the electrons being "given off" by the heated filament of one of his light bulbs, but chalked it up as a curiosity of no importance. It would be years later that DeForrest would recognize the usefulness of this, which was termed "the Edison Effect", to develop the vacuum tube, around which audio amplifiers, useful radio, electronic computers, radar, and a whole host of other devices could be developed.
Finally, electricity and light bulbs? You have to be kidding me. Yes, Edison perfected the incandescent electric bulb, but many other inventors were working on similar devices - Edison merely had the forethought to try every possible material he could think of in a "brute force" attempt to build a better electric lamp. His lamp was the "best of breed", but it wasn't unique. This isn't unexpected, though, as many inventions throughout history have been "simultaneously" discovered and patent disputes abounded. It seems like for certain inventions at certain points in time, history shows that multiple people hit upon success, and whoever gets to the patent office first, wins.
However, with electricity, you are really far off the mark. Today's modern electricity generation and distribution system (not to mention tons of other modern devices like flourescent bulbs, microwave ovens, plasma TVs, radio control and the like) would not be possible were it not for the genius of one man: Nikola Tesla. There has been so much written about this man by others more capable than I that I won't go into details, save that Edison (of whom Tesla was a former employee, and he offerred Edison a more advanced form of electricity generation, which Edison turned down, causing Nikola to leave and sell the system to George Westinghouse, who set up the first AC generating station at Niagara Falls) did all he could to wipe Tesla's name from the spotlight of electrical history. It almost worked - some would even say, to the layman, it did work.
What invention can we really credit Edison for, though? Yep - the electric chair. Edison came up with the system in an effort to discredit Tesla, by building a device that could kill a person using AC (which, at the lower frequencies for electrical distribution tends to make the muscles of the body unresponsive). Ultimately, it didn't work out for Edison, because the efficiencies of long distance transport of power using AC won out. Tesla wanted to go one step further - wireless power transmission, of which we still don't completely understand where he was going. Some have speculated that it was based on his high frequency Tesla coil apparatus, but from what I have read and understood, Tesla was intimately familiar with resonant frequency systems, and love oscillators (both electronic and mechanical). From his published patents, and various other reading I have done, it seems most likely he was going to use his system to "pump" the earth itself to resonant frequency, to allow others anywhere in the w
If you look at the traits of sociopathy, and the traits which make up a "good CEO", you will find that both share the majority of similar traits. The fact is, "good" CEOs tend to be sociopathic. By "good", I don't mean "for all of mankind", I mean for the sake of the business (and shareholders, if there are any). Whether Ballmer is APD, psychopathic, or sociopathic, I don't know - I am not a psychologist. But he, like many other CEOs, likely falls on the spectrum somewhere...
You really think that the government can somehow "protect" you, and you alone? I suppose that is why at the local government level we hear on the news every day "...police prevented this man from breaking into an apartment where he was going to brutally rape and kill this woman..."? Oh, that's right - we don't hear that, do we?
Other than in the most rare of circumstances will we ever hear this, and it will be because of "some lucky break" - the cop sees the guy, the cop notices the drunk weaving a bit, the FBI agent somehow manages to put two and two together, the FEMA manager gets off his butt and actually does something in an emergency.
If 9/11 didn't teach you anything, if hurricane Katrina didn't teach you anything, if the daily news hasn't taught you, then I am going to tell you right now:
The government isn't there to protect you personnally - at best they may be able to protect the country itself from harm, and they don't even do a very good job at that (Pearl Harbor? 9/11? Katrina?). Their only function anymore seems to be "mopping up the mess left behind", and 90 percent of the time they can't even do that right without bickering, money grubbing, and ultimately forgetting what the problem originally was, leaving the mess for the citzens to deal with (look at downtown Detroit, among other blighted areas in the country, for examples of this).
The only protection you have for you and your family is you and your family. Depending on your family (or lack of it), it may just be only YOU. Don't look for the government to be there for you when disaster strikes, when war comes to our shores, or when a bad guy is on your block. Half the time if you even manage to be able to call 911, you'll be maimed or dead by the time the cops get there.
I suppose the one good thing that hurricane Katrina showed us is that the FEMA conspiracy (where FEMA had set up numerous fenced "prisons" around the country for dissidents or whatnot in a time of national emergency for "unruly citizens" to be placed and re-educated) is either false, or just wouldn't work because of ineptitude on the part of FEMA. When they can't even get some buses in place to move people with 24-48 hours warning, how would you expect them to be able to do a roundup of citizens who would be armed?
Get out of your bubble - the government isn't going to do jack to "protect you" - not even if you are Bill Gates himself.
Only an insane man would argue that a fuel-air bomb or daisycutter is somehow near equivalent to a nuclear bomb, even one of Hiroshima vintage. To say that about modern day nuclear bombs would be outright false. All one has to do is look at some of the past's above ground bomb tests to know that this is false. Let me present you one:
Operation Crossroads
Take a look at the Baker test (1946), which was part of Operation Crossroads. Notice the mushroom cloud of water - from the site:
At its greatest extent, the water column was 2000 feet (600 m) across, with walls 300 feet (100 m) thick, and 6000 feet (2 km) tall, holding a million tons of water.
Now, let's compare this blast to daisycutters and MOABs - please reference these links:
GBU-43/B "Mother Of All Bombs"
The Daisy Cutter Bomb
MOAB (Massive Ordnance Air Burst)
Now, these sites seem to reference the fact that the destructive area for both of these conventional devices are about "600 yards", or 1800 feet, across. This area is only, at most, the size of just the water column of the Baker test. I can guarantee you that had that test been conducted on a real target, the destructive area (for just blast effects, mind you) would not have been localized just to the column of the mushroom cloud. Please note that the Baker test had only a yield of 23 kilotons. From the Operation Crossroads web page again:
This was only blast effects on the ships, which don't count the radiation aspect. Since MOABs and daisycutters do not have this aspect, I won't post about it here, though it can't really be discounted if you want a comparison of such conventional weapons to nuclear weapons.
Finally, we must also note that the Baker test was only a standard fission bomb test, of relatively low yield (compared to say, the more modern W87 warhead, which has a yield of 300-475 kilotons). One should also note that when a target is selected for these weapons, multiple warheads are targetted for a single target in most cases (since they tend to be larger cities or bases). Even so, a single modern warhead has the equivalent destructive power as 15-20 Baker tests.
How anybody - the media, the layperson, generals, the president - anybody - can equate the two in destructive power, that they can somehow be used (or should be used) interchangibly - is sheer madness. They aren't interchangible, they in no way compare in destructive power, and once you calculate in radiation effects, one can only see that such devices are in fact madness and tributes of hubris to our destructiveness as a species. To claim otherwise is to show a lack of knowledge and humbleness about these devices.
Sometimes I wonder if the test ban treaties over the years have been a wrong thing. By only being able to "test" these devices on computers and such other simulations, we have removed an effective deterrent to the use of these devices. All we have left now are the pictures and movies of past tests. I doubt nothing else could cement the destructive power capabilities in the minds of generals and others, outside of a personally witnessed live test, while at the same sh
There is a fundamental difference between belief and knowledge. One is based on emotion and "gut feeling", the other is based on reason, logic, and reproducible experimentation.
I won't deny that there are some people (even those who are so-called "scientists") who have a "belief" in the scientific method. This is a wrong thought process though. One (a scientist, especially) should not have a "belief" in anything, but should instead insist upon questioning, and have a rational, logical experimental base foundation for their work. They should never take anything as "fact", but rather as "knowledge which fits currently defined theories". The scientific method is this base, and itself should be constantly questioned, though unfortunately, it rarely is.
I have no doubt that, for a true and honest scientist, that if you were able to construct a better method for scientific research over the common "scientific method", one which could be tested and verified in open research and experimentation, and it was found to yield better, more reproducible results than the current established methods - that he would accept it as the better method and share the idea amongst his peers. Those peers may or may not accept it, but if the method itself can be tested by itself (and perhaps more importantly, the current method as well), it will stand a good chance at supplanting the current method. Thus far, while I don't doubt others have attempted this, none have succeeded in supplanting the current method. If anything, the current method has been modified over time, because over time it has been found to be the method through which science is able to best advance.
I must reiterate that no honest scientist should "believe" in this (or any other) method. If he does, he is merely shortchanging himself, and being fearful/nervous about asking questions about the base upon which he stands, nothing more.
Maybe not today, but what about "tommorow"?
In other words, it would be nice to be able to offer low-cost prints of "screenshots" of computer graphic artwork and such. Also, what happens when "virtual worlds" (like SL, WoW, and others) become so realistic (graphically) that a screenshot can't be distinguished from a "real life" photograph (outside of pictorial cues that could never occur in real life, perhaps)?
These are just questions for idle debate. We aren't there yet, and likely won't be there for a little while longer, and by that time Flickr or their successors likely will allow such screenshot "photographs" anyhow as a part of their TOS agreements...
Something I have thought about on occasion would be to develop a game-centric Linux LiveCD, ideally designed around a micro-atx form factor motherboard of some sort. Ultimately, your distribution web site would have a "recommended specification" for the "game console", specifying everything that is needed for the "console" to work flawlessly with your LiveCD distro (this would include motherboard type, RAM, CPU, graphics and sound chipsets, and "standard" joy/gamepad, among other items). You could also note that the LiveCD "may work on other machine specifications, but for best results use the reccommended specifications". The distro should contain all needed development tools for game development (I would suggest the standard tools, but also include Python, PyGame, and PyOpenGL for rapid prototyping) for the specification, plus sample code and maybe even an actual game, along with documentation, etc of course.
The idea being that your site would be the "standard" specification, and would act as partner/coordinator with others to develop actual incarnations of the "console" (maybe you also sell a "reference" console, built to your specs). Every year, you would re-certify/re-develop your specifications (as needed), to keep them "current" (it would be best if the specifications were developed to be middle or "trailing" edge to some aspects of the hardware, mainly graphics and gamepad, so that each version of the "console" has at least a 2-3 year lifecycle). Others developing their own hardware incarnations of the console spec could partner with you to get a "seal of approval" (this would cost something to certify, of course) as well as support. Developers could get their own support. Maybe tier these support packages (provide a free level, a low cost student/independent level, a professional level, and a corporate level).
All it would take would be to develop that first LiveCD - which shouldn't be that big of a deal at all, since there are plenty of them out there to model it off of. The LiveCD should be setup in such a way as to boot to a splashy screen (perhaps after a "title splash" screen) where the user can boot the LiveCD (ie, run the system off the LiveCD), install the LiveCD (as game console or dev console - prebuilt consoles would have this already done, of course), or update the install. If a game is included on the LiveCD, they should also be able to select and run it as well.
Ultimately, you would end up with an "open source Linux game development kit" - one with both hardware and software specifications, whereby someone could easily boot the game on their normal system (if it meets or comes close to the specs) to "try out", or if they wish to go further, they could install it to develop games with. Stipulate to "licensees" or whatnot that any of the game CDs developed must be like the LiveCD reference system, or at minimum have references back to your web site so that "budding game developers" can easily get set up to develop their own games with your system, however they see fit.
I really think this model could work - if I had the time I would try it myself - depending on what happens after this post (like, if nobody does it before me) I might still attempt it. It wouldn't cost anything more than time to develop the LiveCD. Once you had that, you could begin to tweak it to get it to work with a specification...
My employer was throwing away a VERY HEAVY powersupply from an old minicomputer. They let me have the parts, which included some very nice 120 VAC axial flow fans. My apartment was hot (cheap AC system), and I didn't have a means to go out and buy a desk fan, so I repurposed these fans as my cooling solution. These things moved so much air, they sounded like jet engines powering up when plugged in, and had a tendancy to blow themselves over (despite being metal), so I had to mount them to small pieces of wood.
Where the heck is my /. article?
What the author of this article doesn't seem to be aware of is the fact that in 1981, industrial robots were fairly "dumb" machines, even more so than today. In 1981, most industrial robots in use were "pick and place", "point-to-point" "bang-bang" machines. That is, there were very few sensors (mostly light sensors on conveyor belts, and microswitches), lots of "relay ladder" logic (this was before widespread small PLCs on factory floors - microcomputers barely existed, let alone microcontrollers), and "hard stops". These machines were basic industrial machines programmed in such a way (in some older machine cases, via plugboards - newer machines were controlled similar to NC machines or relay ladder logic). Hard limit "stops" (padded bolts or such in the way of a mechanism) helped to prevent the machines from overtravelling. Most such arms were hydraulically or pneumatically controlled, electric drives were not that popular because they couldn't be made fast and powerful enough at the same time. Most industrial robots were large machines used for moving things on and off conveyor belts, welding, painting, foundry work, etc. These were not (and still aren't) lightweight nor smart machines.
I can't imagine the lack of thought of someone who would get inside the working envelope of any automated machine, let alone a large industrial robot, without triple-ensuring lockouts. As a result, factory work envelopes and lockout procedures have become much safer and more pervasive. Industrial robot work envelopes are much better protected from humans accidentally (or on purpose) wandering into them, and sensors in the work envelope help to ensure that power is shut down if lockout procedures aren't followed. Even so, you can't beat stupidity - some poor slob will still find a way to get himself killed.
If you ever have the chance, find a large industrial robot (like that used for welding, painting, or similar heavy duty work) and get a feel for the scale of such a machine. I personally have never been around such machines in a working environment, but they are humbling enough just sitting in "resell" condition. A local dealer in such equipment (Equipment Exchange, BTW - yes, they do sell to the public) had a Unimate "tucked" in a back area of their warehouse. Up to that point, I had only seen pictures of such a machine. Standing next to it was interesting. I own a Ford Ranger, and the arm/base unit was easily as large as my small pickup. That is not something I would want to be near while it is turned on and running. It would hit you, knock you down, and keep running without so much as a blip...
Basically, you need one hell of a lab grade vaccuum pump, that can pump down to very, very low pressure levels. Even chained together refrigerator compressors won't get you low enough (I haven't found one method that would allow me to homebrew a vaccuum pump for such use). So, I am left with chemical silvering, and as I have explained, the chemicals are nearly impossible to get, and are expensive as well, difficult to store (before or after mixing - they come in dry form), are poisonous, etc.
So, I am trying to look at some other method to build the front electrode - silkscreening with some electrically conductive adhesive seems like the best way, so far - I just have to find that adhesive (and hope it doesn't have too high of a resistance).
My other idea is to reduce the cost for the copper oxide side of things - copper sheeting is pretty expensive, so I have also thought that maybe a high-copper bearing anti-fouling paint, applied to an alluminum base plate might work. Anti-fouling paint is used on boats and ships to prevent corrosion and barnacles from collecting - it tends to be fairly expensive (around $80.00 a gallon), but that gallon covers more area than $80.00 worth of copper sheeting, so if it worked it would be a great thing. My ultimate goal is to be able to homebrew a solar panel cheaper than a silicon based one (even if in area it has to be much bigger to supply the same amount of electricity). So far, based on everything I have seen, silicon is still cheaper. It would be cheaper still if it were easier to get seconds from manufacturers...
"Mom, Dad: I had sex with my girlfriend..." or "Mom, Dad: I was in a fight with my best friend today..."
Or, alternatively:
"Mom, Dad: I got my girlfriend pregnant..." or "Mom, Dad: I shot and killed my best friend today..."
If you look at them this way, I would hope that a parent would see that in each of these cases, the first scenario is much more preferable to the other. One involves pleasure, friendship, and hopefully love. The other involves violence and hatred, and in the last - death. For parents to prefer the violent ending over the non-violent one says a lot about society and the parents. I think you see this, as well.
What is more interesting is why do members of our American society evolve this way? Do they simply forget, and not try to remember, what it was like being younger? Are such thoughts too painful (either because of the experience, or the fact that the experience is in the past and there is no way to change or relive it)? In short, why do most people in our society tend to become more conservative, and lose permissiveness in all areas of life as they grow older? Furthermore, what are the folks WHO DON'T doing different? Is it the level of education? Are those who have view which don't become more conservative more likely to be continuing their education, either formally or on thier own, than those who do become more conservative? In other words, do those who become more conservative as they age tend to have less drive to keep themselves current and aware of the world than those who do?
These and many other questions nag at me. I think about things like this happenning, when I know that many of the people involved saw the craziness with video games (and role playing games, and such) that happenned in the 1980's. I also wonder about what happenned to the kids and progressive people of the 1960's - why did so many of them become just like their parents, and continue the power trip that they struggled against? What made them change...?
Lastly - and this is what scares me the most - am I kidding myself when I think "I am immune"? Will my views, which tend to be very liberal, sometimes radical, and hardly ever mainstream - change to the point where my current self wouldn't recognize my future self? Am I doomed by the same invisible hand which is shoving everyone else around?
Or, is there a way around it?
I also have another box configured exclusively for DOS 6.21, that is set up to run a few different TRS-80 Color Computer 2 & 3 emulators. I have converted nearly all of my old Color Computer floppies from when I was a kid to
I would say if you can get those people some more RAM (should be easy on Ebay), you will have better luck switching them to Linux and KDE. They shouldn't have any problems, unless they are more into games than what Linux has available (given your description, though, of these individuals, games don't appear to be their main forte - the games available on most stock installs of Linux and KDE will probably be more than enough)...
What was I expecting from a "bandaid fuel cell" in an article from a magazine named MAKE?
Well, perhaps something describing how to build a fuel cell that doesn't require an expensive (and sometimes difficult to obtain) membrane, or catalyst. I was saying to myself "Finally, someone has figured out how to use saranwrap (or something similar) as the membrane for a simple fuel cell".
I suppose if it was that simple, the companies would already be doing it - or would they? How many other times in our recent history have companies passed on simple and effective technologies for a product simply because you couldn't patent the crap out of them? Could fuel cells be any different? I wonder the same thing about solar technology - is there a way to make a better (or at least cheaper to build) copper oxide solar cell, or an easier to build organic solar cell (you know the ones I am talking about, which use cranberry juice or whatnot). In the case of a fuel cell, the expensive and hard to obtain parts seem to be the catalyst material and membrane (in the case of the bandaid fuel cell, it seems that the membrane you buy is just a combination of both in a pre-made stack). In the case of a homemade solar cell, the difficult piece is the front transparent conductor: It is difficult to make transparent conductive glass (silvering is one method, but it require chemicals that are heavily regulated today thanks to things like the PATRIOT Act - no kidding! - plus the chemicals are difficult to handle and expensive to purchase) - so most homemade solar cells, especially the copper oxide ones, use saltwater as a transparent conductor. I have also given thought to "silkscreening" a very, very thin layer of Artic Silver paste compound onto glass to act as a conductor, but I am not sure that would work, either.
At any rate, this article did nothing to cause me to get excited and MAKE something. For a toy experiment, it isn't worth it. I would have been much more impressed had they detailed building a solar powered stirling engine from empty cola cans and a fresnel magnifier...
At my last employer, they remodeled the entire office, and decided to go with "wireless everywhere". This was about four years ago. They decided to use some nice 802.11a & b equipment, put in wireless cards in all the computers, and made sure all the laptops had wireless. This was to replace an *already set up* Cat5e wired network. I cautioned them not to do it (via my supervisor, and anyone else who would listen), that others had problems doing this, etc - that it might turn out to be a waste of money. Nobody listened, and they went ahead with it anyway.
It turned out to be a near disaster - computers would connect (sometimes), "roam" a lot, or try to connect (and sometimes succeed) to an AP that was across the office, but fail to see the one just outside the door. There were major speed issues, that would fluctuate during the day. It didn't work well at all. They (the IT dept) tried everything to get it to work right, but nothing they did would solve the problems that were happenning, in all but a few cases.
Fortunately, they left in the old Cat5e and didn't strip it out (not like any company ever does that leases office space), so after enough of us (mostly software devs) pestered them, they started giving us our wired links back. They continued to use the wireless links, but only in places that needed it (conference rooms), or where they couldn't get a wired solution in place (not many of those, fortunately). Not many people even had a need for roaming access, just a few in management and CEx positions, and even they didn't use it that much.
To this day, I don't understand why they didn't even consider what I was mentioning - they could have saved a big chunk of change (ie, around $100,000). Even after I mentioned what I had said earlier after the fact, they pretended I was making stuff up, that I never said any of it, or that it was their idea to change, and that what I had said earlier didn't matter. Oh, well, their money, their company, and if they wanted to try and run it into the ground, that was their business (truthfully, $100,00 wasn't going to break them in this experiment - but likely they lost much, much more in lost productivity and such from employees fighting with the network, but little of that was tracked and quantified).
Well, the way you presented it seemed to indicate that it was human (by saying "we") knowledge (thus scientific) that "souls cannot split". While such knowledge may be "scientific" from an anthropological viewpoint, it is not scientific from the practical perspective. Had you instead phrased it as "basically, those of religious persuasion believe that souls cannot split", I likely would not have responded with anything at all. It was just the juxtapositioning of the words "scientific" and "we know souls cannot split" (we know nothing of the sort because it is a belief, and is not true knowledge grounded in science or logical reason) that made me respond...
Which "scientific side" is that? Christian? Meh.
While not laser-based, it is one of the best homebrew FSO systems I have seen:
Ronja - Twibright Labs
Most of the time, for $300.00, that 30" SDTV is going to weigh a ton, because it will contain a glass picture tube. It will take two people to safely move it and set it up, each and every time you need to move it (unless you enjoy hernias for some strange reason). Sudennly, that larger HDTV starts to seem more economical...
What I don't understand (ok, I understand - they want to sell you HDTVs, of course) is why you can't get larger (say 30"-45") SD widescreen projection TVs anymore? They should be fairly inexpensive, cheap to make, and would probably sell quickly. They would also be lightweight. But, like I said - I do understand why, it just ticks me off that they don't (same thing about projectors - why can't I pick up a new $200.00 640x480 data projector instead of going to the used market)...
You are a lucky SOB to get a projector for $5.00 - I know I have gotten my share of "deals", but most of them have been in the VR HMD arena, not data projectors - oh, well. I myself am in the "market" now for a new TV - my 12 year old 27" is giving up the ghost, so I am looking into options. Currently, I think the best option I am looking at is a nice DLP projector for movies with a smaller 19" TV for everyday watching. Even so, it is going to set me back a chunk to get it, if that option works out.
I don't think an HD set is worth it until you get to the larger screen sizes. Even so, SD widescreen output, even with an 800x600 (heck, even 640x480) projector is fun once you start filling a wall...
There, fixed it for ya!