Furthermore, most schools have (or did have - its been a little while since I was in high school) at least three class levels: AP (Advanced Placement - also known as "college prep" - some schools have an even higher level of "honors" as well), regular classes, and remedial classes. In many cases (not all, mind you) you will find many members of the football team and other athletics in the remedial classes, where they tend to do well, actually. They get their passing grades - including "A's", and thus are allowed to continue playing their games or other sports.
Typically (at least at my high school), most of the students who are in the lower grade level classes play basketball or football. Most of the other athletes, such as those in track or baseball, tend to be fairly academically gifted. They tend to be in at least a few (and in a few cases, all) AP or honors classes. Some of these may be because they excel in those topics, others because they push themselves (or their parents push them) to excel. Even so, they are first and foremost athletes, with a strong secondary interest in educating themselves.
That isn't to say there aren't academically inclined football or basketball players in high school. They just tend to be few in number...
...if you wanted to "save power" in a watch, you would just build a simple accellerometer into the device to turn the watch on (for say 30 seconds) when you move it (a simple mercury or mass/spring switch would be the cheapest way).
However, in a regular watch it seems pointless, since the cells used typically last 3-5 years before needing replacement. Maybe as watches gain more functions (cameras, radios, cell phones, remotes, calculators - all of that wrapped in one - probably already exist somewhere - I know all of those and more have been put into a watch form-factor separately already), such a solution would be needed, and maybe combined with such a force-sensing switch, might cut down on power consumption more.
But, the fact is, if power consumption of the LCD in a simple watch was really an issue today, there are several of methods which could be used to extend the battery life without the use of possibly expensive new "memory" LCD devices...
I have never had great luck with these lights, mainly because I would buy the cheapo plastic ones. They would always break. Maybe the metal ones are better?
Anyhow, I did have a problem when I first moved into my house that I solved with one of these cheap lights. Ordering a pizza for delivery invariably had the driver calling the house to have me or someone else stand out in the driveway so they knew where to deliver the thing. We had numbers on the house, but they weren't well lit at night, and running an electrical line for lighting to them would have been a pain (plus electricity cost). So, I solved the problem with one of these cheapo lights.
I took the light apart, mounted the LED/battery unit under the eave where the numbers were, drilled a hole through the roof, and mounted the solar cell on the roof with a big glob of silicone glue. Sealed it and the hole up, soldered the wires (and sealed them up too).
Since then (3+ years ago), the LEDs have lit the numbers up perfectly, not a problem since. The pizza delivery guys can now find my house easier, too...
You cannot implement brakes or washing machines inside a computer, but when you invent such things, the operation of those things most likely will be in someway aided by the use of a computer (running software, obviously).
This stance assumes, of course, that the theory of universal computation is false...
A one-off, done by a single person, is one thing - the real problem comes when you have multiple people all mucking about with the data, which is what you generally see in most businesses.
It starts out with a simple Excel "data model" somebody does, replete with formulas and macros to make things "fun" - to allow you to try out all sorts of scenarios. Then, the inevitable happens:
The spreadsheet gets emailed...
Between people, between departments - multiple people play with it, save it to their local hard drive, copies end up on the network file server(s), and it is emailed some more. Maybe a few sneakernet transfers are made via thumbdrive or CD-R - who knows, who cares? Nobody! Multiple people play with it - some even change the formulas just slightly before passing it on. It is saved some more, passed some more, modified some more...
Then the "big day" comes - decisions are made by people, each with their own version of the spreadsheet. Which is "final version"? Which is the most realistic portrayal for the model? Which is the latest? Nobody knows! Worse, nobody cares! Descisions get made...
The meeting happens, and they all pull out their copy of the sheets - whoops! Nothing matches up with anyone else's copy! What is going on!? Panic? What decisions have been made? What promises must now be kept? Who should be fired?
Most likely, the guy who originally modelled it - how could it be anyone else's fault...?
On the side that has the cable, does someone over there subscribe to it? If so, ask if they will go in half on their bill with you (cable and broadband), in exchange for setting up an 802.11 AP on their end that you can connect to from your house (via a cantenna or something). Make sure they know it will go up on their roof or on a pole or something. Once it is set up, secure the hell out of it (you really just want to make it a wireless bridge to your network, not an open AP free-for-all), so that only you have access (lock it down with 128 bit WEP and MAC address filtering).
No, you won't get cable TV this way (but what is on there ain't worth it anyhow), but you can get decent speed internet connectivity. If you want the TV, then you will need to go with a dish. It seems like you might have this option, if you have a willing neighbor (unfortunately, if all you have is a cable buried in the ground, this plan won't work too well)...
I commented on this article in response to another's comment regarding the Chilean Robot that he thought might work this way - both mine and his comments were modded up (+3), but neither appear in this thread anymore - anyone know what is going on, or has an idea? Weird...
First off, take a look at that "robot" again (the picture in the NGEO article). Does that look like any kind of "research robot" you have ever seen? At best, it looks like something an amateur robotics experimenter might build, from a variety of parts picked up from various locations.
Ordinarily, I wouldn't discount such robotics. Over the years, many great things have been done in robotics using COTS "junk" and such by such amateurs. Unfortunately, this whole thing seems to scream "scam" to me. Those transducers on the front seem like speakers ripped from some center channel surround sound speaker. The metal-shell body with small access panels, a cheesy light on top, along with an even cheesier obviously fake dish antenna (with no apparent directional control - what is the point of such an antenna, which if it was real would be directional, and would need directional control for communications on a mobile platform?), which looks like it came from one of those "get cable signal quality without a cable box" scam antenna's from the 1980's. Finally, the wheels and such look like they belong to a cheap radio-control 4WD "monster truck" toy - complete to the "bling chrome" rims. Which wouldn't be much of an issue, except it doesn't look like the thing can turn, unless it is using differential steering instead of Ackerman (sp?) (which would be the normal mode of steering for a RC vehicle unless it was a tank, which the wheels don't appear to be from).
The thing just looks cheap, cheap, cheap - and not at all like something you would expect - even a prototype - to look like for research and development purposes where there is money supposedly being invested. I have seen more highly advanced amateur robots built using COTS parts found on Ebay, by dudes in their garages on shoestring budgets, that were way better built than this thing. Honestly, it looks like something I once cobbled together when I was a kid in grammar school. It just has an air of a scam - it looks like the equivalent of those scam perpetual "energy motors" and their inventors that you see so often. Stuff enough crap together, stick it in front of an audience not versed in what they are seeing, ask for some money for investment - standard scam stuff. Finally - normally I wouldn't comment on this - but what kind of facial expression is that on that man (Manuel Salinas)? He looks somewhere between drunk, stoned, and hit with a 2x4. Maybe he just was having a bad day?
Anyhow - enough of what I think. I did some googling on the guy and his robot. A few minutes of research turned up this blog entry about the guy and his "technology"...
Ok geeks, how many of us can rebuild our car? How many of us know the compression ratios of the engine or where to find the fuel pump? How many of us are aware of the nuances of how the exhaust pipe is shaped for best fuel economy? How many people could diagram a torque converter, its interface with the automatic transmission and even point out an error if a diagram that they saw?
I'm guessing very few. Most of us would take our car to a mechanic if it were to break because we don't have the specialized knowledge set to diagnose and fix it. Mechanics always talk about the stupid easily fixable things people bring in their cars for.
You know something - you are right. There are few geeks who can understand their cars. However, I find the attitude that you shouldn't have to understand it appalling when coming from another geek. Why? Because ultimately, that geek is saying he is only willing to understand one system, but not another. That he doesn't care about all processes, only some.
These geeks are self-limiting thier knowledge base - because to understand many systems is to understand commonalities among those systems. It is to understand comparitive strengths and weakness. Finally, knowing these things one can better understand how to recognize the strengths of separate systems, and how to apply those strengths to other systems to improve and correct the failings of those other systems.
By not trying to understand automobiles or any other system as inately as they understand computer systems, they are doing themselves (and thier work and knowledge) a grave disservice.
Finally, for the record, while I don't know (off the top of my head) the compression ratios of the engines in the vehicles I take care of, I do know how to test them, as well as just about everything else on your list. Honestly, a basic automobile is a very simple system to understand. For a geek not to understand one (not to mention not wanting to understand one) seems completely non-geeky. Alas, I have known many otherwise regular computer geeks who do not, and don't want to...
I use the nVidia binary drivers because I experiment around with VR, which is something that requires nearly the same capabilities and needs as gaming. I also personally believe that Linux could be great for gaming. I don't see (any time soon) Linux becoming a big "gaming platform", but I could easily see someone or a company developing Live CD/DVD boot disks with a minimal Linux gaming distribution running a game.
I doubt it would happen, but I have thought about the idea of a company who creates this distro, which has a complete dev tool suite for game creation, which runs as a LiveCD. A developer could install it to his hard drive, and develop games for it. Then, once he (or a company) has the code hammered out, the dev system could dump the project to a Live CD/DVD image, which could then be burned (or pressed) and sold. The company that creates the distro assesses and specifies certain hardware profiles known to run the distro perfectly (motherboard, cpu, ram, network, hard drive, video card, sound card, controllers, etc). Others could use those profiles to build their own custom gaming "consoles"/"rigs". Others could include companies (maybe the original company could sell a "reference platform" or something as well to those who don't want to build thier own). The company could also say "may run on other specifications but not warranted to do so", etc - so if someone wants to drop it on his PC or other platform, and it runs (to whatever extent), they wouldn't be liable, while at the same time others could claim their games run on the "PC platform".
This is what Indrema and others should have done, instead of tried to make a console system first...
Actually, I think we certainly do have the technology - if you modify the parameters a bit:
First off, the spherical chamber: Do what Operation Plowshare did, use a nuke to build the chamber by detonating it underground. I bet that if you mined ventilation shafts at the near "edge" of the explosion, you could vent off the overpressure. The heat from the explosion would sinter the rock together. All that would be left would be to send in some remote-controlled mining equipment to "smooth" it out. You aren't talking a big sphere here, probably well less than a mile in diameter, but that is OK.
Clean out/rebuild the overpressure ventilation shafts - you will need these later.
Attach to the inside surface of the chamber many, many thousands of feet of stainless steel piping/tubing - probably 6 to 8 inches in diameter, if not larger (I am not an engineer, can you tell?). This is your "energy collector". You will run water through this.
Spray the inside of the sphere (over the top of the SS water piping) with a bunch of concrete - maybe further steel reinforce it, perhaps make an agregate with granite or something. This layer should probably be a few feet thick, probably thicker.
Now, you simply do the same thing - dropping the nukes so they explode at the center (or near). The overpressure goes out the vents (this is a "fatal flaw" - I don't know what you do with the escaping radioactive material and/or radiation from these vents). The heat heats the water in the coils, which is then used like a typical fission reactor by passing it through a heat exchanger system. The coils are buried in the concrete/granite aggregate, which holds the heat very well, so the "every 5 seconds" could probably be extended to something longer once the system is up and running (the first few "primer" explosions would have to be done in more rapid succession since they serve to heat the system up to working temperature, but later blasts can be spaced apart more as the system runs).
Now, for the hydrogen devices - you don't need the "high yield" devices used for weapons. You grab another of the Plowshare-related systems: the delivery and propulsion system from the Orion. These thermonuclear devices were designed to be about the size of a basketball, to propel a ship through space, detonated behind the ship (with an ablative pusher plate to propel it, riding the shockwave). They were extremely small fusion devices - which got them immediately sucked into the "top secret" drawer of things, of course - but they had much lower yields, and if set up properly, the explosion from them could be sized slightly smaller than the size of your sphere, so you harvest the heat, and not anything else that would possibly destroy the system in short order.
In theory, aside from the radioactivity being released, plus possibly servicing/refurbishing the system (as the concrete/granite aggregate layer ablates) - this should work. Unfortunately, even if all of that was conquered, I am not sure it would be any more efficient than a regular fission reactor, plus there is likely no way the design for those mini-hydrogen devices will ever see the light of day again outside of WW-3...
The truth is, for many subjects one can gain competence in them via home-based study, as long as one is willing to purchase the books, learn the subject, and buy the tools, parts, etc to actually practice the subject as a hobby. True, you can't do some things (medicine, dentistry, particle physics beyond a certain level, etc) - but most things are open if you are willing to apply the time, some money, and patience.
What you will never get, though, is the "magic piece of paper". Why someone is somehow worth more than another because they were willing to spend the money to get it (that piece of paper generally says nothing about your actually grades or work - it isn't a transcript), I can only understand because it is tradition and the only thing we have. Even so, it seems that today people treat colleges as just a way to get that paper, and damn actually doing real work.
Even our f-ing President is proud he is a "C"-average - but he's got his diploma, so he must be up to the task for the position he is in.
Are you suggesting his only job option then is to do some kind of "blue collar" or "manual labor" job?
I mean, we all have to make sacrifices - but there are sacrifices, then there are Sacrifices.
I am in basically the same position as the poster, minus the kids (so I have a bit more leeway, I suppose). Given the changing conditions in the job market for software development, I consider myself lucky to have a job in the field. My skills and knowledge have helped, networking with friends, too, of course. Even so, I am realistic in that I realize that this career path may not lead where I would like it to lead to (that is, being employed as a software developer until I retire). I don't have much desire to go into management, I don't have any skills there (mainly because nobody has let me try to manage people). So, what can we do?
Perhaps if I didn't have a mortgage, bills, or a wife, I could consider getting a part time job somewhere and go back to school. Unfortunately, I (and likely neither can the poster) cannot just "give up" these things. Yeah, I suppose we could divorce our wives, skip town (to avoid child support), and just let the bills default - screw the family, so to speak. But I imagine the poster isn't like that and doesn't want to do that - neither do I.
My only option I can possibly see is doing a part time on-line course in business or something, or possibly starting my own consulting gig or such. Either way, there would be sacrifices of money and time there. If it doesn't work out, I could lose the roof over my head and/or the love of my life. Such prospects make the whole thing seem daunting.
Yes, I wish now that I had gone to a real college instead of a tech school. Not for the knowledge - I can gain that easily from a myriad of books. Really, it would be for that elusive piece of paper that says "I am smart". Fortunately, most potential employers still look on experience pretty heavily, so my 15+ years of past experience in software development counts for something. Unfortunately, that experience isn't easily transitionable to other fields, so if I ever have to find something different, it is going to be a tough row to hoe. But I figure, if Ken Williams (of Sierra Online - read his story of how he became a programmer) can do what he did, maybe I can do the same.
Your pithy answer seems to indicate that you are either relatively young, or just damn secure in the job (and/or skills) you have. Either way, it also comes across as immature. I don't think I nor the original poster wants "something for nothing" as you put it. We just want to be able to utilize the skills we have acquired and/or love in another career field without having to give up everything and go back to square one (if only it was so easy to go back to being "just out of high school")...
I see what you are getting at, but what you are saying here would essentially end my career as a software developer, probably permanently. Not to mention I would likely lose my house, maybe even my family. Why?
Well, I have been doing software development as a career since I was 18. I am now (soon to be) 33. I don't have any software engineering or CS degree. The best I can say I have is a degree from a tech school. I can guarantee you I am not "a real bozo" when it comes to computers.
How would I survive in your vision? I can't go back to school to get a degree (though I would love to do so, believe me) - I have a wife, a mortgage, and other bills. I could probably find the time (though I would have no life at that point), but where would I find the money? Loans? Perhaps - just to get a scrap of paper to make what I am making now? Most of the time as a student you take out loans when you are poor with the idea of having the prospect of a job to allow you to make enough money to pay back those loans quickly after graduation. But if you already have a life and a family - what then?
I admit, my choices early in my life weren't the best. I probably should have gone to college. It isn't really a workable option now, unless I am prepared to lose nearly everything I have worked for up until now...
Actually, the CAVE room is a room inside a much larger room. Some space is saved by using mirrors and such to fold the optical path of the projectors, but sometimes this isn't desireable, as mirrors cause light loss (some of the light is absorbed by the mirrors - mirrors aren't 100% reflective). Things get really tricky if you are trying to project imagery on the top (ceiling) or bottom (floor) of the CAVE cubical...
There is one thing a CAVE system can do that the vast majority of HMDs can't, which is to provide true immersion within the virtual environment. By "true immersion", I mean a field-of-view (FOV) and resolution of display that is beyond anything any current HMD can do. With the resolution of this system, I would dare say that for the resulting FOV the number of pixels per degree is probably pretty outstanding. Likely close to 20/20 visual acuity, something no HMD on the market can do.
Certainly, there might be a few one-off HMD research models out there, using some exotic display technology (or just a ramped up form of current display tech) to achieve extremely high resolutions coupled with wide FOV angles, but I doubt it (if that kind of tech existed, we would see in projectors and TV's today, as that market is much larger and lucrative). Even if such HMDs did exist, they wouldn't be cheap. Some of the best HMDs out there, built by companies like Kaiser-ElectroOptics, sell for around $250,000 - and still don't approach the FOV and resolution levels of most CAVE systems. Certainly these HMDs are very nice, and have their own benefits (like not needing an entire HUGE room to setup and use them in), but for massively immersive virtual environments, where a full and realistic FOV is needed, with extreme resolution to bring visual acuity at or near 20/20, a CAVE cannot be beat.
It just isn't in the form of lame VRML objects on a web page you spin around.
You must have missed some of the better VRML "demos" - I remember one such demo (IIRC) that MIT made - a virtual museum. Using a 14.4Kb modem on a 486 didn't help things, but I remember bringing the site up, and seeing a wireframe that filled in (oh so horribly slowly) with colors, then textures, and shapes - as I "walked" through it. As a wireframe, it wasn't too bad - but with colors, textures, etc - the thing just crawled.
I'll never forget the experience, though - right up there with my first experience in a Virtuality 1000 pod, and playing around with 3D using Rend386 and a hacked up PowerGlove. I have always wanted to have that same experience again - but this time around with today's PC, graphics card, and broadband speed. Personally, I think that is what killed VRML - they wanted to render the equivalent of WoW on a 486 with 8 meg (to be fair, most of the VRML authors were likely playing on SGI hardware, with the intention that other SGI owners would view their work - their machines were literally a decade ahead of what normal people had at the time).
I have played around with homebrew VR hardware and software for a very long time, since 1993, in fact. One thing I remember several studies verifying was that for immersion, "true" 3D (that is, different views for each eye) was less of a factor in immersion than was proper shading, and other non-3D rendering techniques (like tracking without lag and such).
In fact, one of biggest factors in increasing immersion was in "is the field-of-view (FOV) large enough". Once you get past a certain point (IIRC, it was around 60 degrees horizontal, 45 degrees vertical), immersion was nearly automatic. At that FOV setting, the image is starting to get into the peripheral vision area - the further past that you can push it, the better (at least until it is out of visible bounds, of course).
Unfortunately, these glasses and other "new" HMD designs typically fall very short on the FOV angle. I can guarantee that these glasses would be like wearing a couple of toilet-paper tubes over your eyes. For augmented reality needs, or video watching, they may be suitable, but for immersive 3D action, they won't be very fun. Such glasses could be used for 3D gaming, but it would never be the same as a good immersive HMD with a large FOV. Also, note that a large FOV tends to mean lower visual acuity (because the pixels are enlarged and spread out more). So, you typically see HMDs with excellent FOVs, but horrible resolution (640 x 480, or worse). Even so, it isn't as bad as you think - with enough action, and you "moving around", once you get into the game, your brain fills in the gaps. Back in the day, this was termed "seeing beyond the pixels" - in fact, this is how your eyes and brain work in every day life, you just don't notice it. However, in order for this to work properly, you have to have full 3D tracking of the HMD. Inevitably, it just makes the whole thing more expensive. Furthermore, if you stop moving to look in a direction, the lack of motion can break the processing your brain is doing, and the image can become horrible very quickly (in some cases, even causing simulator sickness - but that is another topic).
Even so, such HMDs aren't cheap - expect to pay somewhere around $1500.00 to $5000.00 for large FOV with OK resolution (at the $5000.00 mark, you might find a few 1024x768 devices - but most will be 800x600 - the cost is mostly in the optics for big FOV, pixel blending, with low distortion - tough and expensive to do in optics). Extremely high resolution, high FOV HMDs do exist out there, but they are niche market devices, with VERY LARGE price tags (even a second mortgage on a house might not cover the cost!).
If you really want a nice HMD with OK resolution and good FOV - look into finding a used Visette Pro or Visette 2 HMD. While they only take PAL video (meaning you will need a scan convertor in the States), they can be found on the market used for little money (less than $500.00 if you shop right). They have an FOV of about 60H x 40V, with a resolution of around 640x480, all the optics are adjustable (independant focus and IPD adjust), built in headphones and microphone, and nose weight is low (fairly well balanced).
If you can find one of those, my all time favorite consumer HMD is the Forte VFX-1 - resolution and FOV sucks, but the FOV is just big enough that after playing for a little while, your focus and the FOV seem to "expand" (this may be another trick of the brain, but while I have experienced it, I haven't read anything on it). The really cool features are the great headphones and the flip-up visor (excellent for 3D game development work for HMD use). The bad part about the device is that it used the VGA feature connector, which is all but missing on current generation cards - plus the interface was EISA, so new motherboards are completely out. Not sure how you would get around that...
9v batteries are square or rectangular, 6 volt lantern batteries are square or rectangular
While the outer casing of these batteries are rectangular, the cells within are not. Take apart one of these batteries (and they truely are batteries, as opposed to cells), and you will find cells wired together inside (6 x 1.5V cells in a 9V alkaline, 4 x 1.5V cells in a 6V lantern battery - of course, if rechargable, the cell voltage size varies as to type).
Repo trucks are very similar to tow trucks, but they are designed to do one thing - grab a car and get it away FAST. The main difference is in the lifting system. Most repo trucks use a system where they can lower the grabber forks, shove them under the front or rear tires (they automatically "flip" into place around the tires), lift the car up, and drive away - usually to a "safe" spot where they can easily put on the safety chains and such equipment for the trip back to the yard. Many times, a skilled driver can grab a car and leave without even leaving the cab for the initial take (as long as there is sufficient access to the front or rear of the car).
Take a look around as you drive - see if you can spot the "repo trucks" in your area. Once you know what to look for (most of the time it will be a relatively unmarked truck with the special grabber, white or black, usually - if there is any signage on the truck, look for the words "asset recovery" and the like). Interestingly, also, some repo men do side jobs as tow trucks - for short, in-town runs such trucks work great.
It wouldn't surprise me a bit if there were car thefts being performed with repo trucks - maybe an errant driver who lost his repo job for drug use, drunk driving, or other - or maybe a used repo truck - now being used to steal cars...
I like FWD vehicles for a lot of reasons, but I also like RWD for other reasons as well. Last weekend, though, I saw something and I wondered about it.
This was on Sunday, the last day of the Maricopa (AZ) County Fair. Also the day of Demolition Derby. I love Demolition Derby, but I wonder if its days are numbered?
You see, for a good demolition derby, you have to have cars that run, and continue running, even after all kinds of crap have happenned to them. To do this, derby drivers typically run RWD vehicles, mostly old Buicks, Caddilacs, and an assortment of old station wagons. I have yet to see a single FWD vehicle in one of these competitions. Why?
Because power and steer are combined in one unit, and that unit is fairly fragile. There are typically two main rules in Demolition Derby: No head-to-head (front) collision impacts (that is, direct head to head - side-front impacts are allowed), and no driver side door impacts. You will actually see drivers avoid this at all costs (you get disqualified). However, because front-side impacts are allowed, and rear to front impacts are allowed, you will see other drivers attempting to "take out the engine" in this manner.
Invariably, this does nothing to the engine (most are welded and chained in place), but some damage does occur to the radiator and such. However, since the engine still supplies power, even if the steering is damaged, the driver can still "drive" the car, if they are good (turns-in-reverse driving, anyone?). Power to the back wheels is unaffected.
Not so in a FWD car - you break the steering on such a thing, and power output is invariably screwed as well, because any side impact that can break the steering will invariably break the axles and CV joints of the FWD vehicle - which breaks the transmission, etc. Maybe the rules will change where no front impacts will be allowed? Do they run demolition derbys in other countries where RWD cars aren't as prevalent anymore? What do they do there?
Nothing was more fun than watching these cars and drivers destroy each other. One car's engine caught fire and couldn't be started again, the driver was out. They brought a water truck by and hosed the fire (and driver) off thoroughly, to put the fire and such out (extinguishers were tried, but the fire was too hot). Even so, at the end of the competition, my wife and I stayed to watch the "clean up" - they eventually got the car started again and drove it out of the arena. It is always amazing to watch the amount of damage a car can inflict (and receive), and still move around (for various degrees of "move").
I just wonder if these demolition derby competitions are going to be things of the past, as there isn't much in the way of RWD vehicles any more (unless they switch to trucks, I suppose). I just wonder if one day it will be no more, or if the rules will change, or what. It isn't for everyone, but I enjoy watching it (and if I had the time and room for a car of my own, I would enter myself)...
...the talk at the time was Netscape positioning itself as a vendor of "Network Application Servers" (my term), basically HTTP servers for the backend, designed to work best with Netscape Navigator - to allow corporations (and/or Netscape themselves) to serve up an OS and applications to the user through the browser - in essence, turning every computer with Netscape Navigator into a "Network Computer" whereby your data follows you whereever you can login with Netscape.
The idea was pretty bold at the time - elimination of the OS (at least as it is currently conceived) on the desktop, no less. Everyone was on this bandwagon (IBM had the NetStation, Sun had their own network terminals and Java, SGI dabbled, etc). I even remember a couple of guys who built a "WebOS" for IE using Javascript and some backend magic (basically doing a crude form of what is termed AJAX today).
Microsoft went after this with a vengence because it would mean that their core product would be unnecessary - event their server OS would be unnecessary, because Netscape was supplying that as well in the form of the application server system. It was a business tactic that worked very well.
Unfortunately (regarless of the merits of such a "Web Operating System", etc) - Microsoft may have set back personal computing by a decade or so (to their profit, to be sure!). I mean, look at what is happenning today - we are looking at "Web 2.0" applications, AJAX, WebOS's are springing up again... I don't know if all of this is just solutions in search of a problem, or if it is an idea so "insanely great" that it must be made real, even if a certain business doesn't want it. Will it fall on it's face this time? I don't know - but I do wonder where we would be today if what was happenning yesterday could have been let go to fruition (or death, as the case might have been). Instead, we have had to wait 10 years (almost) to "try again"...
Slashdot Mirror
Typically (at least at my high school), most of the students who are in the lower grade level classes play basketball or football. Most of the other athletes, such as those in track or baseball, tend to be fairly academically gifted. They tend to be in at least a few (and in a few cases, all) AP or honors classes. Some of these may be because they excel in those topics, others because they push themselves (or their parents push them) to excel. Even so, they are first and foremost athletes, with a strong secondary interest in educating themselves.
That isn't to say there aren't academically inclined football or basketball players in high school. They just tend to be few in number...
However, in a regular watch it seems pointless, since the cells used typically last 3-5 years before needing replacement. Maybe as watches gain more functions (cameras, radios, cell phones, remotes, calculators - all of that wrapped in one - probably already exist somewhere - I know all of those and more have been put into a watch form-factor separately already), such a solution would be needed, and maybe combined with such a force-sensing switch, might cut down on power consumption more.
But, the fact is, if power consumption of the LCD in a simple watch was really an issue today, there are several of methods which could be used to extend the battery life without the use of possibly expensive new "memory" LCD devices...
Anyhow, I did have a problem when I first moved into my house that I solved with one of these cheap lights. Ordering a pizza for delivery invariably had the driver calling the house to have me or someone else stand out in the driveway so they knew where to deliver the thing. We had numbers on the house, but they weren't well lit at night, and running an electrical line for lighting to them would have been a pain (plus electricity cost). So, I solved the problem with one of these cheapo lights.
I took the light apart, mounted the LED/battery unit under the eave where the numbers were, drilled a hole through the roof, and mounted the solar cell on the roof with a big glob of silicone glue. Sealed it and the hole up, soldered the wires (and sealed them up too).
Since then (3+ years ago), the LEDs have lit the numbers up perfectly, not a problem since. The pizza delivery guys can now find my house easier, too...
This stance assumes, of course, that the theory of universal computation is false...
It starts out with a simple Excel "data model" somebody does, replete with formulas and macros to make things "fun" - to allow you to try out all sorts of scenarios. Then, the inevitable happens:
The spreadsheet gets emailed...
Between people, between departments - multiple people play with it, save it to their local hard drive, copies end up on the network file server(s), and it is emailed some more. Maybe a few sneakernet transfers are made via thumbdrive or CD-R - who knows, who cares? Nobody! Multiple people play with it - some even change the formulas just slightly before passing it on. It is saved some more, passed some more, modified some more...
Then the "big day" comes - decisions are made by people, each with their own version of the spreadsheet. Which is "final version"? Which is the most realistic portrayal for the model? Which is the latest? Nobody knows! Worse, nobody cares! Descisions get made...
The meeting happens, and they all pull out their copy of the sheets - whoops! Nothing matches up with anyone else's copy! What is going on!? Panic? What decisions have been made? What promises must now be kept? Who should be fired?
Most likely, the guy who originally modelled it - how could it be anyone else's fault...?
No, you won't get cable TV this way (but what is on there ain't worth it anyhow), but you can get decent speed internet connectivity. If you want the TV, then you will need to go with a dish. It seems like you might have this option, if you have a willing neighbor (unfortunately, if all you have is a cable buried in the ground, this plan won't work too well)...
FWIW, here is a link to this missing thread...
Ordinarily, I wouldn't discount such robotics. Over the years, many great things have been done in robotics using COTS "junk" and such by such amateurs. Unfortunately, this whole thing seems to scream "scam" to me. Those transducers on the front seem like speakers ripped from some center channel surround sound speaker. The metal-shell body with small access panels, a cheesy light on top, along with an even cheesier obviously fake dish antenna (with no apparent directional control - what is the point of such an antenna, which if it was real would be directional, and would need directional control for communications on a mobile platform?), which looks like it came from one of those "get cable signal quality without a cable box" scam antenna's from the 1980's. Finally, the wheels and such look like they belong to a cheap radio-control 4WD "monster truck" toy - complete to the "bling chrome" rims. Which wouldn't be much of an issue, except it doesn't look like the thing can turn, unless it is using differential steering instead of Ackerman (sp?) (which would be the normal mode of steering for a RC vehicle unless it was a tank, which the wheels don't appear to be from).
The thing just looks cheap, cheap, cheap - and not at all like something you would expect - even a prototype - to look like for research and development purposes where there is money supposedly being invested. I have seen more highly advanced amateur robots built using COTS parts found on Ebay, by dudes in their garages on shoestring budgets, that were way better built than this thing. Honestly, it looks like something I once cobbled together when I was a kid in grammar school. It just has an air of a scam - it looks like the equivalent of those scam perpetual "energy motors" and their inventors that you see so often. Stuff enough crap together, stick it in front of an audience not versed in what they are seeing, ask for some money for investment - standard scam stuff. Finally - normally I wouldn't comment on this - but what kind of facial expression is that on that man (Manuel Salinas)? He looks somewhere between drunk, stoned, and hit with a 2x4. Maybe he just was having a bad day?
Anyhow - enough of what I think. I did some googling on the guy and his robot. A few minutes of research turned up this blog entry about the guy and his "technology"...
Scam? Most likely...
I'm guessing very few. Most of us would take our car to a mechanic if it were to break because we don't have the specialized knowledge set to diagnose and fix it. Mechanics always talk about the stupid easily fixable things people bring in their cars for.
You know something - you are right. There are few geeks who can understand their cars. However, I find the attitude that you shouldn't have to understand it appalling when coming from another geek. Why? Because ultimately, that geek is saying he is only willing to understand one system, but not another. That he doesn't care about all processes, only some.
These geeks are self-limiting thier knowledge base - because to understand many systems is to understand commonalities among those systems. It is to understand comparitive strengths and weakness. Finally, knowing these things one can better understand how to recognize the strengths of separate systems, and how to apply those strengths to other systems to improve and correct the failings of those other systems.
By not trying to understand automobiles or any other system as inately as they understand computer systems, they are doing themselves (and thier work and knowledge) a grave disservice.
Finally, for the record, while I don't know (off the top of my head) the compression ratios of the engines in the vehicles I take care of, I do know how to test them, as well as just about everything else on your list. Honestly, a basic automobile is a very simple system to understand. For a geek not to understand one (not to mention not wanting to understand one) seems completely non-geeky. Alas, I have known many otherwise regular computer geeks who do not, and don't want to...
I doubt it would happen, but I have thought about the idea of a company who creates this distro, which has a complete dev tool suite for game creation, which runs as a LiveCD. A developer could install it to his hard drive, and develop games for it. Then, once he (or a company) has the code hammered out, the dev system could dump the project to a Live CD/DVD image, which could then be burned (or pressed) and sold. The company that creates the distro assesses and specifies certain hardware profiles known to run the distro perfectly (motherboard, cpu, ram, network, hard drive, video card, sound card, controllers, etc). Others could use those profiles to build their own custom gaming "consoles"/"rigs". Others could include companies (maybe the original company could sell a "reference platform" or something as well to those who don't want to build thier own). The company could also say "may run on other specifications but not warranted to do so", etc - so if someone wants to drop it on his PC or other platform, and it runs (to whatever extent), they wouldn't be liable, while at the same time others could claim their games run on the "PC platform".
This is what Indrema and others should have done, instead of tried to make a console system first...
"C" average student...
First off, the spherical chamber: Do what Operation Plowshare did, use a nuke to build the chamber by detonating it underground. I bet that if you mined ventilation shafts at the near "edge" of the explosion, you could vent off the overpressure. The heat from the explosion would sinter the rock together. All that would be left would be to send in some remote-controlled mining equipment to "smooth" it out. You aren't talking a big sphere here, probably well less than a mile in diameter, but that is OK.
Clean out/rebuild the overpressure ventilation shafts - you will need these later.
Attach to the inside surface of the chamber many, many thousands of feet of stainless steel piping/tubing - probably 6 to 8 inches in diameter, if not larger (I am not an engineer, can you tell?). This is your "energy collector". You will run water through this.
Spray the inside of the sphere (over the top of the SS water piping) with a bunch of concrete - maybe further steel reinforce it, perhaps make an agregate with granite or something. This layer should probably be a few feet thick, probably thicker.
Now, you simply do the same thing - dropping the nukes so they explode at the center (or near). The overpressure goes out the vents (this is a "fatal flaw" - I don't know what you do with the escaping radioactive material and/or radiation from these vents). The heat heats the water in the coils, which is then used like a typical fission reactor by passing it through a heat exchanger system. The coils are buried in the concrete/granite aggregate, which holds the heat very well, so the "every 5 seconds" could probably be extended to something longer once the system is up and running (the first few "primer" explosions would have to be done in more rapid succession since they serve to heat the system up to working temperature, but later blasts can be spaced apart more as the system runs).
Now, for the hydrogen devices - you don't need the "high yield" devices used for weapons. You grab another of the Plowshare-related systems: the delivery and propulsion system from the Orion. These thermonuclear devices were designed to be about the size of a basketball, to propel a ship through space, detonated behind the ship (with an ablative pusher plate to propel it, riding the shockwave). They were extremely small fusion devices - which got them immediately sucked into the "top secret" drawer of things, of course - but they had much lower yields, and if set up properly, the explosion from them could be sized slightly smaller than the size of your sphere, so you harvest the heat, and not anything else that would possibly destroy the system in short order.
In theory, aside from the radioactivity being released, plus possibly servicing/refurbishing the system (as the concrete/granite aggregate layer ablates) - this should work. Unfortunately, even if all of that was conquered, I am not sure it would be any more efficient than a regular fission reactor, plus there is likely no way the design for those mini-hydrogen devices will ever see the light of day again outside of WW-3...
Programming skills + subject competence(science, history, etc) + magic_piece_of_paper = desirable person
The truth is, for many subjects one can gain competence in them via home-based study, as long as one is willing to purchase the books, learn the subject, and buy the tools, parts, etc to actually practice the subject as a hobby. True, you can't do some things (medicine, dentistry, particle physics beyond a certain level, etc) - but most things are open if you are willing to apply the time, some money, and patience.
What you will never get, though, is the "magic piece of paper". Why someone is somehow worth more than another because they were willing to spend the money to get it (that piece of paper generally says nothing about your actually grades or work - it isn't a transcript), I can only understand because it is tradition and the only thing we have. Even so, it seems that today people treat colleges as just a way to get that paper, and damn actually doing real work.
Even our f-ing President is proud he is a "C"-average - but he's got his diploma, so he must be up to the task for the position he is in.
Yeah - RIGHT.
I mean, we all have to make sacrifices - but there are sacrifices, then there are Sacrifices.
I am in basically the same position as the poster, minus the kids (so I have a bit more leeway, I suppose). Given the changing conditions in the job market for software development, I consider myself lucky to have a job in the field. My skills and knowledge have helped, networking with friends, too, of course. Even so, I am realistic in that I realize that this career path may not lead where I would like it to lead to (that is, being employed as a software developer until I retire). I don't have much desire to go into management, I don't have any skills there (mainly because nobody has let me try to manage people). So, what can we do?
Perhaps if I didn't have a mortgage, bills, or a wife, I could consider getting a part time job somewhere and go back to school. Unfortunately, I (and likely neither can the poster) cannot just "give up" these things. Yeah, I suppose we could divorce our wives, skip town (to avoid child support), and just let the bills default - screw the family, so to speak. But I imagine the poster isn't like that and doesn't want to do that - neither do I.
My only option I can possibly see is doing a part time on-line course in business or something, or possibly starting my own consulting gig or such. Either way, there would be sacrifices of money and time there. If it doesn't work out, I could lose the roof over my head and/or the love of my life. Such prospects make the whole thing seem daunting.
Yes, I wish now that I had gone to a real college instead of a tech school. Not for the knowledge - I can gain that easily from a myriad of books. Really, it would be for that elusive piece of paper that says "I am smart". Fortunately, most potential employers still look on experience pretty heavily, so my 15+ years of past experience in software development counts for something. Unfortunately, that experience isn't easily transitionable to other fields, so if I ever have to find something different, it is going to be a tough row to hoe. But I figure, if Ken Williams (of Sierra Online - read his story of how he became a programmer) can do what he did, maybe I can do the same.
Your pithy answer seems to indicate that you are either relatively young, or just damn secure in the job (and/or skills) you have. Either way, it also comes across as immature. I don't think I nor the original poster wants "something for nothing" as you put it. We just want to be able to utilize the skills we have acquired and/or love in another career field without having to give up everything and go back to square one (if only it was so easy to go back to being "just out of high school")...
Association for Computing Machinery
Well, I have been doing software development as a career since I was 18. I am now (soon to be) 33. I don't have any software engineering or CS degree. The best I can say I have is a degree from a tech school. I can guarantee you I am not "a real bozo" when it comes to computers.
How would I survive in your vision? I can't go back to school to get a degree (though I would love to do so, believe me) - I have a wife, a mortgage, and other bills. I could probably find the time (though I would have no life at that point), but where would I find the money? Loans? Perhaps - just to get a scrap of paper to make what I am making now? Most of the time as a student you take out loans when you are poor with the idea of having the prospect of a job to allow you to make enough money to pay back those loans quickly after graduation. But if you already have a life and a family - what then?
I admit, my choices early in my life weren't the best. I probably should have gone to college. It isn't really a workable option now, unless I am prepared to lose nearly everything I have worked for up until now...
Actually, the CAVE room is a room inside a much larger room. Some space is saved by using mirrors and such to fold the optical path of the projectors, but sometimes this isn't desireable, as mirrors cause light loss (some of the light is absorbed by the mirrors - mirrors aren't 100% reflective). Things get really tricky if you are trying to project imagery on the top (ceiling) or bottom (floor) of the CAVE cubical...
Certainly, there might be a few one-off HMD research models out there, using some exotic display technology (or just a ramped up form of current display tech) to achieve extremely high resolutions coupled with wide FOV angles, but I doubt it (if that kind of tech existed, we would see in projectors and TV's today, as that market is much larger and lucrative). Even if such HMDs did exist, they wouldn't be cheap. Some of the best HMDs out there, built by companies like Kaiser-ElectroOptics, sell for around $250,000 - and still don't approach the FOV and resolution levels of most CAVE systems. Certainly these HMDs are very nice, and have their own benefits (like not needing an entire HUGE room to setup and use them in), but for massively immersive virtual environments, where a full and realistic FOV is needed, with extreme resolution to bring visual acuity at or near 20/20, a CAVE cannot be beat.
You must have missed some of the better VRML "demos" - I remember one such demo (IIRC) that MIT made - a virtual museum. Using a 14.4Kb modem on a 486 didn't help things, but I remember bringing the site up, and seeing a wireframe that filled in (oh so horribly slowly) with colors, then textures, and shapes - as I "walked" through it. As a wireframe, it wasn't too bad - but with colors, textures, etc - the thing just crawled.
I'll never forget the experience, though - right up there with my first experience in a Virtuality 1000 pod, and playing around with 3D using Rend386 and a hacked up PowerGlove. I have always wanted to have that same experience again - but this time around with today's PC, graphics card, and broadband speed. Personally, I think that is what killed VRML - they wanted to render the equivalent of WoW on a 486 with 8 meg (to be fair, most of the VRML authors were likely playing on SGI hardware, with the intention that other SGI owners would view their work - their machines were literally a decade ahead of what normal people had at the time).
In fact, one of biggest factors in increasing immersion was in "is the field-of-view (FOV) large enough". Once you get past a certain point (IIRC, it was around 60 degrees horizontal, 45 degrees vertical), immersion was nearly automatic. At that FOV setting, the image is starting to get into the peripheral vision area - the further past that you can push it, the better (at least until it is out of visible bounds, of course).
Unfortunately, these glasses and other "new" HMD designs typically fall very short on the FOV angle. I can guarantee that these glasses would be like wearing a couple of toilet-paper tubes over your eyes. For augmented reality needs, or video watching, they may be suitable, but for immersive 3D action, they won't be very fun. Such glasses could be used for 3D gaming, but it would never be the same as a good immersive HMD with a large FOV. Also, note that a large FOV tends to mean lower visual acuity (because the pixels are enlarged and spread out more). So, you typically see HMDs with excellent FOVs, but horrible resolution (640 x 480, or worse). Even so, it isn't as bad as you think - with enough action, and you "moving around", once you get into the game, your brain fills in the gaps. Back in the day, this was termed "seeing beyond the pixels" - in fact, this is how your eyes and brain work in every day life, you just don't notice it. However, in order for this to work properly, you have to have full 3D tracking of the HMD. Inevitably, it just makes the whole thing more expensive. Furthermore, if you stop moving to look in a direction, the lack of motion can break the processing your brain is doing, and the image can become horrible very quickly (in some cases, even causing simulator sickness - but that is another topic).
Even so, such HMDs aren't cheap - expect to pay somewhere around $1500.00 to $5000.00 for large FOV with OK resolution (at the $5000.00 mark, you might find a few 1024x768 devices - but most will be 800x600 - the cost is mostly in the optics for big FOV, pixel blending, with low distortion - tough and expensive to do in optics). Extremely high resolution, high FOV HMDs do exist out there, but they are niche market devices, with VERY LARGE price tags (even a second mortgage on a house might not cover the cost!).
If you really want a nice HMD with OK resolution and good FOV - look into finding a used Visette Pro or Visette 2 HMD. While they only take PAL video (meaning you will need a scan convertor in the States), they can be found on the market used for little money (less than $500.00 if you shop right). They have an FOV of about 60H x 40V, with a resolution of around 640x480, all the optics are adjustable (independant focus and IPD adjust), built in headphones and microphone, and nose weight is low (fairly well balanced).
If you can find one of those, my all time favorite consumer HMD is the Forte VFX-1 - resolution and FOV sucks, but the FOV is just big enough that after playing for a little while, your focus and the FOV seem to "expand" (this may be another trick of the brain, but while I have experienced it, I haven't read anything on it). The really cool features are the great headphones and the flip-up visor (excellent for 3D game development work for HMD use). The bad part about the device is that it used the VGA feature connector, which is all but missing on current generation cards - plus the interface was EISA, so new motherboards are completely out. Not sure how you would get around that...
While the outer casing of these batteries are rectangular, the cells within are not. Take apart one of these batteries (and they truely are batteries, as opposed to cells), and you will find cells wired together inside (6 x 1.5V cells in a 9V alkaline, 4 x 1.5V cells in a 6V lantern battery - of course, if rechargable, the cell voltage size varies as to type).
Take a look around as you drive - see if you can spot the "repo trucks" in your area. Once you know what to look for (most of the time it will be a relatively unmarked truck with the special grabber, white or black, usually - if there is any signage on the truck, look for the words "asset recovery" and the like). Interestingly, also, some repo men do side jobs as tow trucks - for short, in-town runs such trucks work great.
It wouldn't surprise me a bit if there were car thefts being performed with repo trucks - maybe an errant driver who lost his repo job for drug use, drunk driving, or other - or maybe a used repo truck - now being used to steal cars...
...YellowSnowRiver...
This was on Sunday, the last day of the Maricopa (AZ) County Fair. Also the day of Demolition Derby. I love Demolition Derby, but I wonder if its days are numbered?
You see, for a good demolition derby, you have to have cars that run, and continue running, even after all kinds of crap have happenned to them. To do this, derby drivers typically run RWD vehicles, mostly old Buicks, Caddilacs, and an assortment of old station wagons. I have yet to see a single FWD vehicle in one of these competitions. Why?
Because power and steer are combined in one unit, and that unit is fairly fragile. There are typically two main rules in Demolition Derby: No head-to-head (front) collision impacts (that is, direct head to head - side-front impacts are allowed), and no driver side door impacts. You will actually see drivers avoid this at all costs (you get disqualified). However, because front-side impacts are allowed, and rear to front impacts are allowed, you will see other drivers attempting to "take out the engine" in this manner.
Invariably, this does nothing to the engine (most are welded and chained in place), but some damage does occur to the radiator and such. However, since the engine still supplies power, even if the steering is damaged, the driver can still "drive" the car, if they are good (turns-in-reverse driving, anyone?). Power to the back wheels is unaffected.
Not so in a FWD car - you break the steering on such a thing, and power output is invariably screwed as well, because any side impact that can break the steering will invariably break the axles and CV joints of the FWD vehicle - which breaks the transmission, etc. Maybe the rules will change where no front impacts will be allowed? Do they run demolition derbys in other countries where RWD cars aren't as prevalent anymore? What do they do there?
Nothing was more fun than watching these cars and drivers destroy each other. One car's engine caught fire and couldn't be started again, the driver was out. They brought a water truck by and hosed the fire (and driver) off thoroughly, to put the fire and such out (extinguishers were tried, but the fire was too hot). Even so, at the end of the competition, my wife and I stayed to watch the "clean up" - they eventually got the car started again and drove it out of the arena. It is always amazing to watch the amount of damage a car can inflict (and receive), and still move around (for various degrees of "move").
I just wonder if these demolition derby competitions are going to be things of the past, as there isn't much in the way of RWD vehicles any more (unless they switch to trucks, I suppose). I just wonder if one day it will be no more, or if the rules will change, or what. It isn't for everyone, but I enjoy watching it (and if I had the time and room for a car of my own, I would enter myself)...
The idea was pretty bold at the time - elimination of the OS (at least as it is currently conceived) on the desktop, no less. Everyone was on this bandwagon (IBM had the NetStation, Sun had their own network terminals and Java, SGI dabbled, etc). I even remember a couple of guys who built a "WebOS" for IE using Javascript and some backend magic (basically doing a crude form of what is termed AJAX today).
Microsoft went after this with a vengence because it would mean that their core product would be unnecessary - event their server OS would be unnecessary, because Netscape was supplying that as well in the form of the application server system. It was a business tactic that worked very well.
Unfortunately (regarless of the merits of such a "Web Operating System", etc) - Microsoft may have set back personal computing by a decade or so (to their profit, to be sure!). I mean, look at what is happenning today - we are looking at "Web 2.0" applications, AJAX, WebOS's are springing up again... I don't know if all of this is just solutions in search of a problem, or if it is an idea so "insanely great" that it must be made real, even if a certain business doesn't want it. Will it fall on it's face this time? I don't know - but I do wonder where we would be today if what was happenning yesterday could have been let go to fruition (or death, as the case might have been). Instead, we have had to wait 10 years (almost) to "try again"...