I realize this - in fact, I am pretty certain that somewhere out there is a switchmode regulator "on-a-chip" - essentially a switchmode version of the 780x line. Likely only for small loads, of course. You are also right that a linear regulator is ok for small loads. Where they stink is on larger loads - when you have to start adding fans and heatsinks to your 7805, you might start wanting to rethink your design (all depending on application and need, of course - sometimes it is just fine to have a "hot running" 7805 in a circuit if it is getting the job done).
No - they are not stupid. They know the "price" of a human life, and are simply optimizing their profit for their shareholders based on this. If they can pay out settlements and fines, and those settlements and fines are less than the cost it would take to retrofit/add on extra components to prevent paying out that money, then it makes fiscal sense *not* to do so. Otherwise their ass would be in a sling for not doing right by thier shareholders (believe me, there are laws against that as well - damned if you do, damned if you don't).
What is stupid is the number of people who continue to believe that companies hold their customers interests and well being in the highest regard. They don't, and until more people stop believing they do, nothing will change (on a side note, it is in their interest that people continue to believe, whence the kind of marketing you see all over the place, such as GE's recent enviro-friendly marketing campaign). Their only interest is in their profit and to their shareholders - nothing more, nothing less.
Actually, we are programmed to be able to catch a fly ball at a baseball game.
Actually, we likely as not we aren't.
Try this experiment: Find a newborn baby, and throw a small wad of tissue at it. Notice what it does: not much. Part of the problem is vision, part of it is lack of motor skills. However, most likely the newborn will do nothing. Maybe it cry after the wad of tissue hits it.
Keep doing this, over and over, as the baby grows. Eventually, vision and motor skills come into play. The baby flails around with not too much skill, and every once in a while knocks the wad of tissue paper out of the way. Gradually, within the brain, a pattern of neural impulses form - that of the visual system seeing something arc and fly through the air, that of the vestibular system knowing orientation, that of the sound (if any) the thing coming toward it (or at least, the sound of the adult saying "catch!" just before throwing the soft object), that of the proprioception system recognizing the orientation of the arm/hand as it sometimes comes into contact with the wad of tissue, and sometimes not. All of these, and many, many more - gradually forming patterns in brain about how things freefalling through the air after being thrown and how to touch such an object, eventually catching it (which takes another set of skills and patterns built on top of the first).
Over time, as the human baby grows and has more objects thrown at it (and still getting hit by the softball in first grade trying to catch it while the sun is in his or her eyes), the pattern is strengthened, the pattern becomes better. Does it ever get "perfect"? In some sense, it gets really close (for some people) - but throw a ball to a major league catcher on the moon and see how well the patterns work there!
Once the pattern is in place though, it is hard to restrain it. Fake a ball throw to someone (who is paying attention - or yell "Catch!"), and watch how their arms and body respond. The pattern is playing back, even if all you "throw" is "air". Alternatively, without even pretending to throw something, just yell "Catch!" at a person - invariably they will move as if to catch something - something that isn't there and never was. The muscle playback pattern was stimulated by your aural input pattern.
In some cases, these patterns can be "reversed" - for instance, if you are used to one particular thing happenning while seeing another particular thing, and then you stop seeing this happen, and then a long time from now (after you have almost "forgot" about it at all) you see it happen again, or you smell a particular smell, or you hear something - you have this weird feeling. Pattern recording, recognition, and playback (and strengthening) explain perfectly the reasons behind such human brain phenomena as deja-vu, synesthesia, and recollection of memories (which of course all trigger off other patterns and playbacks). We likely don't get stuck in "endless loops" because of pattern propagation dieoff (like any analog copying/playback system, the signal degrades over time and distance). At least for short term memory (even for long term memory, over a long enough time). Even with this safeguard, how many times have you got "stuck on a tune"? Likely, it was a pattern playing back over and over, strengthening and become more "there" as you "sung" it to yourself. Only sleep or sometimes sheer will (such as "forcing" yourself to do a different pattern to get yourself out of the rut - listening to a variety of music or something else, for example) tends to rid you of the problem.
I don't think we have some kind of in-built mathematical processing system in our brains. Our minds are nothing more than patterns which have been learned and crosslinked over time within the neural net that makes up our brains. Does this mean there is no such thing as free will - that we do nothing more than play back learned patterns based on "external" stimulus? Sure - but does it seem to be a re
Personally, I don't think our brains are necessarily "non-deterministic". I think the reason why we haven't seen any successful AI concerns a couple of issues.
Number one, would we know such an intelligence if we saw it? Furthermore, could we determine what such an intelligence was thinking if we could? I think we could deduce that something was behaving in an intelligent manner, if we applied the right tools to the purpose. The danger would be in not knowing if the object we are studying feels that such testing is against its interests and acts to stop the testing. For example, a theory of emergent behavior within large groups of people (think large bureaucracies or societal constructs) might indicate the possibility of a "group" or "hive" mind arising from interactions between the individuals involved, that is both of the individuals yet outside of it (same as Mind is to Neurons). The output of such a "mind" might seem to be intelligent, but is there any way to actually know what it is thinking, or how it is communicating? Can a neuron ever know of the human, or brain, or mind? What would we (as a human) do if a neuron suddenly could understand? Is it in any way possible such a group mind would act in the same manner? Would we understand it if it did? Can we assume that such a thing isn't happenning already in our increasingly connected and interacting world?
Secondly, I think the other problem with building such an artificial mind is that of design and construction. Interestingly, we likely have both at hand. For design, I subscribe to the view that the mind (or at the very least, the cerebrum) is nothing more than a pattern recording and playback machine, as detailed by Jeff Hawkins in his book On Intelligence. I am pretty certain that this idea is spot-on, and is something that should be investigated much further. As for construction, the design of Dr. Hugo de Garis'sCAM-Brain Machine (CBM), as realized by Genobyte, seems to be the approach to use to build a system similar to what is described in On Intelligence. These machines were actually built, shipped, and used in a few research institutions around the world. Whether they still exist or not, or are buried in a back room, is anyone's guess. The fact is that they aren't a standard design for a computer, and furthermore they utilized Xilinx FPGAs that isn't manufactured anymore (whether a similar machine could be built using a different Xilinx FPGA is another matter), leads me to wonder what will happen to these machines as they end their useful lives and/or have hardware failures. Also, it doesn't appear that Genobyte is in business anymore, though their website still maintains "ghostship" status.
Maybe I am reading too much into either of these ideas? Maybe both are a bunch of hooey (indeed, the whole CAM-BRAIN machine thing is something that I am not sure whether to completely believe or not - I seem to remember a/. article a long time ago in which another company linked to this - STARLABS - was seen to be a hoax or something?). Even so, the ideas seem sound, even if the implementations don't exist in fact (although, all the research I have done seems to indicate that these systems do in fact exist).
Actually, a voltage regulator (like a 7805) is pretty wasteful. Granted, it isn't as wasteful as a voltage divider circuit, but it isn't better than a switched mode supply...
I mean, we're talking about a feature that would cost them pennies per unit in a device.
Right there - re-read it again, then go google up on the story behind the "exploding Pinto"...
The gist of that story was that Ford made the Pinto with a "saddle fuel tank" - that is, the fuel tank straddled the rear drive shaft of the vehicle. When the Pinto was in a rear-end accident, there was a high probability that the axle would be pushed up and into the fuel tank. There was also a small bolt involved, but the main thing is that the axle would tend to rupture the fuel tank, spilling fuel and ultimately causing fire and/or explosion.
The punchline? It was found that a simple 10 cent piece of metal or such placed at a certain critical area would stop such an accident from becoming a miserable fatality. When the CEO (at the time) of Ford was asked why they didn't add such a part to the Pinto, the response was that it cost too much money, and it was cheaper to simple settle the lawsuits as they happenned.
Yep, the beancounters at Ford and many other companies do have a price for human life, and they know compared to their profits, it doesn't amount to much. Is it any wonder that Ford also created the Crown Victoria Interceptor, another saddle tank design, which was responsible for many fires, including one that severely maimed a Phoenix police officer?
Of course, they settled on that one as well - offering retrofit kits (essentially puncture proof racing cell bladders) and such on all Interceptors being used by police departments across the country. Of course, a standard civvie Crown Victoria has the same design flaw, but there was never a recall there. Plus, many Interceptors were sold at city auction prior to the retrofit kits being available. Add this all up, and you may think twice before stepping into that cab (many cab companies and independant cabbies drive Crown Vics).
Think PWM hubmotors. Yeah, technically still a drivetrain, but when most people think of a drivetrain (including mechanics), they think of transmission, CV-joints (FWD) or driveshaft/differential (RWD)...
The closest real-world parallel to Hari Seldon's "Future History" would be Ray Kurzweil's Law of Accelerating Returns
Actually, the closest real-world parallel to Hari Seldon's science would be the application of Six Sigma methodologies to, well, everything. Since everything (macro level here, at least) is a process, and every process can be mapped, and you know the inputs and outputs of those processes (and accordingly how other processes affect them and how they affect other processes) - then in theory, for many things, you can "predict" (or at least change) the "future".
Interestingly, though, the "Law of Accelerating Returns" is being picked up by those who practice 6S methodologies and have seen George Land speak. He always hints at it (the quickening speed of the "Change of Change", as he puts it), and graphically depicts it with a series of S-curve graphs and such. He has never postulated on the concept of a technological singularity, though, at any of his talks I have attended, so I don't know his views on this bit - but it is there to an extent.
Damn, I am getting old. I had to get all the way to the second to the last sentence of your rant to realize you were talking about the new bastardization of BSG, rather than the original series. Gah!
Yeah, I had also read of a few other people that were accused of hacking phone systems by whistling but like you said, with today's technology - it's not going to happen with most phone systems and definitely not any important phone systems.
Why do you assume that just because a place has an "important phone system" that they are going to be secure in that or any other aspect?
I am not saying that every (or any, for that matter) phone system out there today can be "hacked" by whistling. What I am saying is that in this day and age, where you would expect there to be the utmost in security and privacy protections on data that one would assume to be "important", we instead find companies being hacked seemingly "at will" with millions of people's credit card information being distributed, or worse, companies loosing or having stolen anywhere from one to hundreds of laptops with critical data on them (unencrypted, of course).
A movie trying to show the real life of computers and sensitive data for today's world would look like a Laurel and Hardy show with them finding a ton of discarded laptops in a trash bin, then trying to fence them via Ebay (without even looking at the data on the hard drives, of course, to see if maybe that was worth something), all the while the Keystone Cops scratch their heads and run around stupidly (our government, police, and corporations in action, folks). Meanwhile, cut to some grandma being sued by the RIAA because her grandson downloaded a song off of myspace using her wifi-enable Dell notebook (or something equally stupid). It would have to be a comedy, because I keep laughing at the real world exploits I see...
I think, if you want a "good" computer movie, you have to take the computer out. Just have the hacker sit there and work and come in with his findings and thus get the team going. Use the hacker as a plot device, as your guy-in-back who knows all and who gets all the info and whatnot. But making him the focus just doesn't cut it. It's just not interesting enough for mainstream.
I think you are spot on there, but this is another example of something that I don't have the right word for, but it is definitely something to think about.
Throughout history, there have been human artifacts that have been created that have utterly changed the course of human history. In many if not most of these cases, these artifacts are so world changing and challenging to everyone who comes in contact with them that they become inextricably enmeshed with popular culture. Popular culture reacts with music and other art which incorporates these artifacts, in some cases showcasing them as main characters. A prime example would be the personal automobile.
This is where, with computers, things get weird. Despite the fact that the computer has forever altered the course of human history, despite the fact that it has entrenched itself in every facet of human existence, the showcasing of this artifact within popular culture has never seemed to take hold. I can probably count on one hand the number of popular songs in the past 20 years which have mentioned computers or the people that use them, and in most of those cases I couldn't really ascribe popular status to them as I doubt the masses have heard them. While the number of movies in popular culture incorporating computers seem greater, these movies invariably cast the computer (and/or its users/developers/etc) in a very negative light. The computer in these cases are seen as evil incarnate intent on wiping out the human race, or at least making it very uncomfortable.
Maybe the computer as an artifact is currently seen by popular culture as something more than human, or possibly the first real itteration of something constructed by humans to replace humans? While those that operate or know such machines are seen as collaborators in the destruction/downfall of mankind (classic mad-scientist run amok scenario)? The ignorant character, meanwhile is seen as virtuous, the "savior" of humanity, by not having subcumbed to the necessary levels of reason and logic needed to fully understand a computer.
Of course, I think I may reading way too much into all of this, but these ideas are definitely things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Yeah - that guy needs to drop his geek card - LOL!
I just don't understand why people think that in 1992 that 3D graphics of the type seen in JP were impossible? That is just stupid considering the dinosaurs themselves were rendered at that time. Just because it wasn't possible with OTS PC hardware of the period doesn't mean there wasn't some kind of hardware able to do it.
The comments about Disclosure share the same attitude: that somehow during that period what was shown was impossible or implausible. This is outright false. Considering that the device that the employer of Michael Douglas' was manufacturing was not completely ready, and that the VR system he was using to find the file was still a prototype, it isn't too hard to imagine that this prototype might be a tad better than what was available to the public (indeed, all the parts for the system that were shown were easily available, even if the programming of the system wasn't - from the tracking system to the HMD to the computers to run it - no problem for the time frame at all). It is in the same vein as Doom and Quake - dev on the most insane platform you can find and afford, then by the time of release hope (actually, plan) that the machine you will release on will have the same specs and be affordable. If you want to make fun of Disclosure, make fun of it for the fact that you had to *slowly* wander hallways of endless filecabinets and run through them by hand. That indeed is a terrible idea of a VR user interface (in fact, this is what makes VR a solution in search of a problem - transitions essentially 2D tasks into a 3D interface - unless your HMD has ungodly resolution at insane FOV sizes, it just isn't going to go well).
I believe that was in Sneakers, though it has been a while since I last saw the movie, and I certainly don't remember that part, but I do know one of the hackers was blind (ala Captain Crunch).
As far as the idea is concerned, maybe you mistook a braille screen reader for a keyboard? Or, certainly, if you can have something like a braille screenreader (which do exist, btw), then is it so much of a stretch to think you couldn't build (or have built for you) a combination keyswitch and solenoid actuator (or at minimum, some kind of feedback on the keys)? I certainly think such a keyboard could be built (if it hasn't already), though it would definitely be thicker than a regular keyboard (or need to be attached to and built into the desk), and a lot heavier. But I bet it would feel similar to a nice Model M.
Anyhow - the idea isn't insane, and does sound feasible enough that I wouldn't be surprised if such a thing wasn't available to the blind. If it isn't, then someone needs to build it - the market isn't huge, but the necessary high niche product pricing will still do the trick for you...
As one marketeer put it during a presentation - "My job is great - I sell a product that is 90% air and people pay a premium for it!!"
Let me guess - he's a marketer for "Yoplait Whips Dulce De Leche"-flavor yogurt?
Seriously - have you seen this stuff? It flies off the store shelves, and yes, I love the taste of it, too, when I can find it. Even so, I know I am being scammed, because it has a ton of nitrogen "whipped" into it - it is fluffy yogurt, mostly air - and if you visit your grocery store, they can't seem to keep it on the shelves!
I guess it depends on what you mean by "biofuels"?
Corn-based ethanol production? Thanks, but no thanks - that is a loser from the get-go, and the worst use of a valuable grain product to boot...
However, maybe if we used sugarcane or sugarbeets, that could work out. Or, we could use hemp - this would actually be a perfect solution for both ethanol (for the stalks and other cellulose) and biodiesel (from seed oils). Hemp can grown anywhere in just about any soil conditions, and it also acts as a nitrogen fixating crop. Planted in rotation with other crops (perhaps corn and soybean), fertilizer needs (and possibly other chemicals - herbicides, pesticides, etc) would be cut, possibly quite dramatically.
But hemp (and other crops) are only a small portion of a biofuel solution. It is possible to get both oils and hydrogen from ordinary pond scum (ever wonder why pond algae is so gross feeling - now you know). Hydrogen is the tougher of the two (you have to grow it in vats and submit the mess to some simple but funky moves, and it doesn't yield much output) - but the oil harvesting is simple: skim it off then grind/press it and collect the oil. This oil can then be easily processed into biodiesel.
There is also the idea and implementation of TDPs (thermal depolymerization plants) - so far, the only one I know about is the Tyson turkey offal TDP system, but in theory you can tune the plant to any feedstock. I suggest we build ones to use grass clippings and other yard/construction wastes. Rather than bury all of this useful mass in landfills, we should convert it to fuel. Every time I hear about what they did with the uprooted trees and demolished houses from Katrina cleanup (basically, most of it went into landfills), I just shake my head at the stupidity of the waste. Even if they had just dried everything out, ground it up, then made composite lumber from it, it would have been better. But no, let's just bury it instead (I see a possible future in buying up what will be "old" housing developments sitting on landfills, and tearing them up to stripmine the landfill for materials - in metals alone it might be worth doing it today if it weren't for the property value).
Maybe if we made our water and sewage treatment systems more effective by capturing the methane from such works and using that for fuel (maybe industrial uses only?), that is another example of biofuel most people don't think of. Methane digesters are fairly simple to build, if you don't mind the smell and maintenance involved. Right now, some landfills have sunk pipes into them to tap off methane being produced by the biodegradables in the landfill itself - no, it isn't as good as a landfill TDP plant, but at least it is something.
All of these solutions (and a bunch of others - wind, water, nuclear, and what is left of easy to reach fossil fuels) will be needed to create an alternative to our current "mostly fossil fuels only" system we have. I don't expect any one of them to be the solution, but rather all of them together can be.
Ask yourself this: you are standing on the corner of a busy intersection during rush hour in Los Angeles, next to a smoker. The light is red, and all those cars are backed up, idling. Are you a) likely to have health issues from the secondhand smoke from the smoker, or b) likely to have health issues from the "secondhand smoke" from the vehicles around you?
Do I think global warming is an issue? Yes, I do. Do I think humans have had a part in it? Yes, I do. Do I think that nature also has a part in it? Yes, I do.
As far as second-hand smoke is concerned, it certainly isn't healthy, especially in closed and poorly ventilated rooms. Do I think businesses (like bars and restaurants) should be forced to disallow smokers? No, I don't. Ultimately I think it should be up to each individual business and customer to decide, and let market forces sort it out. Unfortunately, too many people here in the states are reactionary, emotional knee jerkers who couldn't think rationally if their life depended on it (incidentally, many even test this in a variety of ways, most of them end up losing).
However, I don't think it is secondhand smoke that is killing us - it is our industrialized environment that is doing the job. The number of chemicals, residual and otherwise, in our environment from industrialization (and I am including transportation in this lot, too), is absolutely staggering. I recently heard about an article a journalist wrote for National Geographic in which he had a large blood test done for something like 300+ possible chemicals from the environment, many of them cancer causing agents or worse. Of those, he tested positive for something like over half. One test he had was on mercury levels - he fasted, had the test done, then "fish gorged" on a meal composed of halibut and swordfish, then had the test redone - the levels were really insane after that. He was also fairly sure that some of the longer-lived chemicals in his system (PCBs, bromides, etc) were partially the result of a dump he played near as a kid, which leached into the river that ran by his house, upstream of the water INTAKE for the town! One large substance amount he tested for with fairly high levels was a common chemical used for fire retardents in furniture and clothing (among other items). Who knows what they might find out about that one in the future, but it likely won't be good for you.
We are all living in a larger version of the "poorly ventilated room", pumping "secondhand smoke" (particulates, gases, heavy metals, mercury, PCBs, and a lot of other noxious crap) into our environment. Most of us don't see this, or when we do, we don't really SEE it (think about what may be in the laundry detergent, dish soap, or other common chemicals you use). I am not saying all of this is necessarily bad for the environment (much of it is benign overall) - but then again it wasn't that long ago that people were "frolicking" through dust clouds of DDT being sprayed in neighborhoods.
Secondhand smoke from tobacco is the least of my concerns. I am more concerned about how much my small truck (and the other cars around me) are slowly killing me and everyone else around while we sit, waiting for the light to turn green...
If you want to do miniature hydraulics, the best way to start is syringes, aquarium tubing, and vegetable or mineral oil (actually, for such a small system, water could be used as well, and cleanup would be easy). You can also start out with just pneumatic action by eliminating the oil (best to start learning this way anyhow). The difficult part of such small systems is obtaining switching valves - you can find miniature pneumatic valves, but they don't work well (or at all) with liquids (especially oils), and I don't know of any small hydraulic valves. What you might try to do is rig up a double sided syringe into a spool valve, then actuate that with a solenoid. Also, use plastic tubing connectors from an auto parts store (sold for use on vacuum lines) or from a hardware store (for water drip sprinklers). Connect all your parts with epoxy or similar (or, twist-tie with steel wire). Larger cylinders could be made with PVC or copper/steel/allumninum pipe/tubing (build your piston with a turned disk and a steel rod or dowel in the center, seal the piston with a silicone o-ring or similar, however sealing the end where the rod comes out won't be easy - look into homebrew stuffing boxes). At a certain point you will want to work with the "real stuff" - for this, you will need to go to a surplus or similar dealer in heavy-duty and industrial machinery - some industrial pneumatics can be driven for a little while using oil or water (although the seals probably won't last). Also note that real hydraulic/pneumatic systems utilize something called a "pressure accumulator", which is essentially a fancy word for a pressure tank - it is to store compression energy in the working fluid to allow for high-speed movements - whereas otherwise you can only work as fast as your pump. For pneumatic pumps, you can get by with a small air compressor or (even better) a high-cfm airbrush compressor. However, I know of no such similar pump for small hydraulic systems. You can get self-contained electric hydraulic pumps (you see them used on electric log splitters and automobile lifts), but they are overkill for small hydraulics (and likely you couldn't homebrew hydraulics that could withstand the pressure anyway). One other note when working with hydraulics - in a true hydraulic system, leaks can be deadly. While you won't encounter the pressures you would see in a commercial system with a homebrew system, it is something to keep in mind. A small leak on a commercial system can spew a stream of pressurized oil out that can cut through just about anything. So, keep this in mind when you homebrew - wear goggles at least. Also realize that as the fluids are worked (whether air or oil/water), they will heat up, so think about a radiator/cooling system as well.
Replying late on this - but I can't believe I made the "bonehead" move of writing "360" - I meant 180, of course.
I get what you're saying, but it seems to be complexifying everything for the sake of being power-user-y. it seems (to me) inefficient and relatively unadvantageous.
No, it isn't overcomplicating things just to be "power-user-y" - it is making a system that is very wide open to allow your PC to be a Personal Computer. Let's say the backplane consisted of 10 slots. Someone may want to fill up 9 of those slots with cards holding 4 dual-core opterons or something, and each has flash RAM and some DDR - a 72-core multi-processing system. The 10th slot? Myrinet or something! Another guy may just stick a CPU card in one, a DDR interface card (with only two of the 20 slots filled!), a SuperIO card (with USB, SATA, and ethernet), and a video card - giving him a regular PC. But, this second guy could easily upgrade his system.
This is how personal computers used to be - just look at any old S-100 bus machine (like an Altair), and you will see what I mean. Granted, this won't let you have a small form factor, but for most uses this shouldn't be an issue. I think both have a place in the market, but unfortunately it is becoming more and more clear over time that your vision (single board all-in-one machine) is what is fast becoming reality for the consumer market. The ever expandable, ever hackable machine like I describe will be something only available to the corporate market (perhaps even illegal for a regular joe to posess - but there will be black market devices available).
Actually, I think it would be possible to recover data off of even a recent model hard-drive if you know what you are doing and are willing to spend the money for some equipment and time. If the data is really worth something, it just might be worth the expense, because you can sell the info you gather on the black market for much, much more.
Basically, rather than using expensive electronics and such to gather the data, you use the drive itself. Your first task is to attempt to identify and source the various chips (chipset) used on the IDE interface board. Then, you need to somehow get copies of the spec sheets for these devices. This is probably the most difficult part, because such devices may actually be custom made (or programmed, as in the case of PGA or DSP) especially for the drive manufacturer - and thus their IP. You would need to get really creative here - you might even have to reverse-engineer the blackbox that is the chipset. Not impossible, but very difficult. Once you have identified how the chipset works (whether via RE or spec sheets), you then need to identify all the other parts on the PCB, and their interconnections - you need to RE the controller board. If you are lucky, it is based on a reference design - but don't count on getting lucky. The best way to accomplish this task is to take a high-contrast, very high resolution scan of the front and back of the PCB in question. Then you want to load these into your favorite photo editing software, and using the fill tool in zoom mode, fill a trace on the scanned image of the PCB. If you have done your contrast right, the trace should fill all or most of the way to the end node. In this way you can reconstruct the schematic. Slow and tedious, but it does work. You might also set up multiple layers in the photo editor, one layer with the front, and another layer with the back, flipped and rotated so they match real world conditions (you need quality aligned scans here). Other layers could be used to paint (using a mask or something) the traces - so some of your layers are "trace layer", used to hold the traces only, and color coded, perhaps.
Once you have everything mapped out, and you know how things are connected and used, you can then develop your interface with it. You need to interface to the heads, so you can both position them and get signals from them. You also want control of the motor which rotates the spindles. All of this should be mapped from above, and with the knowledge of the chipset and such, you should be able to figure out a method to do both of the following: 1) Microstepping the head position arm(s), and 2) Varying the speed of the spindle. Both of these are doable, and it may even be likely that the chipset allows for such control, but to the final IDE interface it isn't available. It doesn't matter though - what you are going to want to do is build your own interface, but in this case the chipset is going to be simulated, by a fast PC. Your interface card could easily be interfaced on the PC side via USB 2.0. If you went with an embedded solution instead of a full PC (using a custom programmed microcontroller), it is even conceivable that standard serial comms would work. At any rate, though, you are going to be writing some software.
Basically, your software is going to read the sector and alignment information from the drive's sensors, and then via software it is going to allow expert control over where the head is positioned (either via the alignment information, or +/- offsets to that information, or an arbitrary amount). The software should also have the ability to command the drive to speed up or slow down spindle rotation. You are going to use all of this information to allow you to microstep into the "valleys" between the tracks, and read whatever data you find. You could scan across the band of the track area and valleys, multiple times, and build up a magnetic region average map - a three dimensional array of data which can then be sliced and analysed by the software to determine exac
I appologize for my assumption - your original post seemed to indicate a lack of knowledge on the subject. You are right on all points, which is what I tried to make clear that I understood in my previous post, although you did add some info that I didn't acknowledge (ie, number of twists, different cables changing sigs, etc). It just seemed that your original post indicated that it couldn't be done at all, not that it wasn't practical to do it (for the above stated reasons we both have pointed out). All in all, it is an interesting thought experiment (though of course, not new) of how to identify hardware from a unique signature of the signal output (and/or possibly noise output, as well). Unfortunately, most of this falls in the RF/analog side of electronics which I am familiar with, but have always considered it nearly "magic"...
Your post seems to indicate that what you want in a machine is 360 degrees opposite from what I want, which is interesting...
You seem to want an "all-on-motherboard", no-slots (or maybe a couple), make it small and quiet as possible. While I can see the utility in such a box, it also feels limiting to me for some tasks.
What I want to see is a return to the system designs of old - just give me a backplane I can slot cards into, and nothing more. Let me have five CPU cards (each with a different CPU!), a couple of RAM cards, a sound card, four dual-head graphics cards, etc. Make it all work and sit on the backplane bus. Given a standard bus design and the right configuration, it is easily possible. The only possible downside is whether it could be made to work with today's bus speeds - maybe the backplane would need to use optical interconnects?
I know such a machine is possible, because it is the way they used to build and design minicomputers and early microcomputer. I have an Altair 8800 in my shop awaiting restoration. Originally, it was sold with an Intel 8080 CPU, but a later upgrade (which mine had) was a Z-80. Since the layout of the system was an S-100 bus backplane and the CPUs and RAM were on different cards, some people stuck both in their machines. I am not sure how they used them, but likely they were switchable via software or hardware (a toggle switch or something) so they could run code for either CPU, and I am sure some people used one or the other as a "coprocessor" to help the other along on certain tasks. Nothing stopped you from adding other cards, either, other than running out of slots (and I am sure there were "slot extender" cabinets and backplanes hooked up via a few lengths of ribbon cable).
I want something nearly infinitely expandable, so I can make the machine my machine - a real "personal" computer. Sadly, it doesn't seem to be happennning. Indeed, it seems like your vision for computing is becoming the reality more than mine, beyond things like blade servers and such (which are way out of my price range).
I have a couple of passive RFID tags that I got from books purchased at B&N's B&M stores - both of these tags are alike, and were "blown in" between the pages of the books. What is interesting is that they are UPC stickers - on one side you can see the RFID traces (little square in the middle with a long lead "antenna" spiralling around it), the other side is a UPC - both tags, from two different books and two different days were identical - so I think it was some kind of technology test they were running, where they randomly stuck them in books (but didn't want to stick them ON the books) and later tested scanning them or something.
So, your idea isn't too far off - the UPC -is- the RFID...
You obviously don't understand how wired ethernet cards work. What you are implying is the same thing as saying that "cable TV is different from broadcast because it uses a 'wire'". Let me let you in on a little secret - it's called a "shielded waveguide". In the case of cable TV, that shielded waveguide is the coaxial cable itself. In the case of ethernet, it is twisted pair. One wire of the pair is twisted around the other to act as a shield at the RF frequencies being used (it isn't a "perfect" shield - nothing like a coax braided outer conductor or anything - but it works as designed to prevent crosstalk both internally with the RX/TX pairs and externally with outside signals).
So, yes, you could use this same system to "fingerprint" wired cards. Where you run into problems is the only way to detect the card via fingerprint is before the "end" of that cable is connected to a switch or hub - so the "man in the middle" doing the comparison would have to be right on the line. You are correct that this "doesn't make much sense" - but not that it can't work the same because it is wired (the "wires" form a shielded waveguide for the radio frequency signals instead of using an amplifier and antenna). It just ultimately isn't practical because after the hub or switch, you would see the "fingerprint" of the hub or switch (or other cards, etc). Also, it isn't clear whether intermediate connections (like the jack in the wall you plug your patch cord into) would effect the fingerprint signature...
While you were responded to with an article on a real aircraft that actually flew (there are movies out there showing it taking off, flying level, and landing - the Air Force did some weird stuff back in the 50's and 60's) - I don't think that is what you were looking for.
While I too have also witnessed at an airshow what you are talking about (indeed, it is called a "tail-slide" - also, as a kid I once flew a paper airplane I made which did the same, but it only happenned once), I have also seen an airplane hang by it prop. This was at a more recent airshow a few years back at the Williams Gateway Airpark in Mesa/Tempe, at the annual airshow they run there. The plane was some kind of sport/stunt plane which had a huge power/weight ratio, and an oversized prop (IIRC). The body of the plane itself was very lightweight and made mostly of alluminum, fiberglass, and carbon-fiber. The pilot flew it very slowly (just over stall speed) over the runway, nosed up while throttling up, and then just "floated" there as the plane slowly moved down the runway in front of the crowd. The pilot was working the all the controls very rapidly - it seemed he was doing all he could just the keep the plane steady. After about 30 seconds, he increased the power of the engine (yeah, he still had some headroom!), and powered up, over and out (kinda like an "L" portion of an outside loop, starting vertically) of the hover and flew off to perform a few more stunts.
The announcer made it clear that the plane was designed purposefully for extreme stunts like that, and had I not been there to witness it I probably would have been sceptical, but there it was. It was a very amazing stunt to see, if only for the fact that had something gone wrong, it would have all went very wrong. I don't have any more details beyond this anecdotal story...
You bring up an interesting idea, though I doubt the validity of it - most likely DNF has become one of those "career" projects (all coders out there know what I mean)...
Even so, there was a bit of technology out there at the time of DN3D that was interesting, but I never saw it implemented in a real game. Somewhere I have a demo of it for DOS. It was a 3D engine written as a demonstration of something called "voxel rendering" - it wasn't raycasted, and it wasn't done using a 3D primative system (ie, mesh of triangles) - instead, it rendered objects and such as virtual "3d pixels" - and it did it fast. Textures were "real" (not "painted on" then "specially lit" - like people were playing with at the time), objects were "solid" (they were not "hollow 3D objects"), and amazingly, it was very fast (considering the timeframe we are talking about).
I never saw anything beyond the demo made - the world quickly moved on to triangle meshes and soon, OpenGL and Direct3D, and nothing more was made of software-only renderers. It was a technology that barely made a blip, but the idea was fascinating. Kinda landed on the same "scrapheap" as that "Pyramid" graphics card/chipset that was going to be released by that one PC/Amiga Demo Group (BitBrothers?)...
Slashdot Mirror
I realize this - in fact, I am pretty certain that somewhere out there is a switchmode regulator "on-a-chip" - essentially a switchmode version of the 780x line. Likely only for small loads, of course. You are also right that a linear regulator is ok for small loads. Where they stink is on larger loads - when you have to start adding fans and heatsinks to your 7805, you might start wanting to rethink your design (all depending on application and need, of course - sometimes it is just fine to have a "hot running" 7805 in a circuit if it is getting the job done).
What is stupid is the number of people who continue to believe that companies hold their customers interests and well being in the highest regard. They don't, and until more people stop believing they do, nothing will change (on a side note, it is in their interest that people continue to believe, whence the kind of marketing you see all over the place, such as GE's recent enviro-friendly marketing campaign). Their only interest is in their profit and to their shareholders - nothing more, nothing less.
Actually, we likely as not we aren't.
Try this experiment: Find a newborn baby, and throw a small wad of tissue at it. Notice what it does: not much. Part of the problem is vision, part of it is lack of motor skills. However, most likely the newborn will do nothing. Maybe it cry after the wad of tissue hits it.
Keep doing this, over and over, as the baby grows. Eventually, vision and motor skills come into play. The baby flails around with not too much skill, and every once in a while knocks the wad of tissue paper out of the way. Gradually, within the brain, a pattern of neural impulses form - that of the visual system seeing something arc and fly through the air, that of the vestibular system knowing orientation, that of the sound (if any) the thing coming toward it (or at least, the sound of the adult saying "catch!" just before throwing the soft object), that of the proprioception system recognizing the orientation of the arm/hand as it sometimes comes into contact with the wad of tissue, and sometimes not. All of these, and many, many more - gradually forming patterns in brain about how things freefalling through the air after being thrown and how to touch such an object, eventually catching it (which takes another set of skills and patterns built on top of the first).
Over time, as the human baby grows and has more objects thrown at it (and still getting hit by the softball in first grade trying to catch it while the sun is in his or her eyes), the pattern is strengthened, the pattern becomes better. Does it ever get "perfect"? In some sense, it gets really close (for some people) - but throw a ball to a major league catcher on the moon and see how well the patterns work there!
Once the pattern is in place though, it is hard to restrain it. Fake a ball throw to someone (who is paying attention - or yell "Catch!"), and watch how their arms and body respond. The pattern is playing back, even if all you "throw" is "air". Alternatively, without even pretending to throw something, just yell "Catch!" at a person - invariably they will move as if to catch something - something that isn't there and never was. The muscle playback pattern was stimulated by your aural input pattern.
In some cases, these patterns can be "reversed" - for instance, if you are used to one particular thing happenning while seeing another particular thing, and then you stop seeing this happen, and then a long time from now (after you have almost "forgot" about it at all) you see it happen again, or you smell a particular smell, or you hear something - you have this weird feeling. Pattern recording, recognition, and playback (and strengthening) explain perfectly the reasons behind such human brain phenomena as deja-vu, synesthesia, and recollection of memories (which of course all trigger off other patterns and playbacks). We likely don't get stuck in "endless loops" because of pattern propagation dieoff (like any analog copying/playback system, the signal degrades over time and distance). At least for short term memory (even for long term memory, over a long enough time). Even with this safeguard, how many times have you got "stuck on a tune"? Likely, it was a pattern playing back over and over, strengthening and become more "there" as you "sung" it to yourself. Only sleep or sometimes sheer will (such as "forcing" yourself to do a different pattern to get yourself out of the rut - listening to a variety of music or something else, for example) tends to rid you of the problem.
I don't think we have some kind of in-built mathematical processing system in our brains. Our minds are nothing more than patterns which have been learned and crosslinked over time within the neural net that makes up our brains. Does this mean there is no such thing as free will - that we do nothing more than play back learned patterns based on "external" stimulus? Sure - but does it seem to be a re
Number one, would we know such an intelligence if we saw it? Furthermore, could we determine what such an intelligence was thinking if we could? I think we could deduce that something was behaving in an intelligent manner, if we applied the right tools to the purpose. The danger would be in not knowing if the object we are studying feels that such testing is against its interests and acts to stop the testing. For example, a theory of emergent behavior within large groups of people (think large bureaucracies or societal constructs) might indicate the possibility of a "group" or "hive" mind arising from interactions between the individuals involved, that is both of the individuals yet outside of it (same as Mind is to Neurons). The output of such a "mind" might seem to be intelligent, but is there any way to actually know what it is thinking, or how it is communicating? Can a neuron ever know of the human, or brain, or mind? What would we (as a human) do if a neuron suddenly could understand? Is it in any way possible such a group mind would act in the same manner? Would we understand it if it did? Can we assume that such a thing isn't happenning already in our increasingly connected and interacting world?
Secondly, I think the other problem with building such an artificial mind is that of design and construction. Interestingly, we likely have both at hand. For design, I subscribe to the view that the mind (or at the very least, the cerebrum) is nothing more than a pattern recording and playback machine, as detailed by Jeff Hawkins in his book On Intelligence. I am pretty certain that this idea is spot-on, and is something that should be investigated much further. As for construction, the design of Dr. Hugo de Garis's CAM-Brain Machine (CBM), as realized by Genobyte, seems to be the approach to use to build a system similar to what is described in On Intelligence. These machines were actually built, shipped, and used in a few research institutions around the world. Whether they still exist or not, or are buried in a back room, is anyone's guess. The fact is that they aren't a standard design for a computer, and furthermore they utilized Xilinx FPGAs that isn't manufactured anymore (whether a similar machine could be built using a different Xilinx FPGA is another matter), leads me to wonder what will happen to these machines as they end their useful lives and/or have hardware failures. Also, it doesn't appear that Genobyte is in business anymore, though their website still maintains "ghostship" status.
Maybe I am reading too much into either of these ideas? Maybe both are a bunch of hooey (indeed, the whole CAM-BRAIN machine thing is something that I am not sure whether to completely believe or not - I seem to remember a
Actually, a voltage regulator (like a 7805) is pretty wasteful. Granted, it isn't as wasteful as a voltage divider circuit, but it isn't better than a switched mode supply...
Right there - re-read it again, then go google up on the story behind the "exploding Pinto"...
The gist of that story was that Ford made the Pinto with a "saddle fuel tank" - that is, the fuel tank straddled the rear drive shaft of the vehicle. When the Pinto was in a rear-end accident, there was a high probability that the axle would be pushed up and into the fuel tank. There was also a small bolt involved, but the main thing is that the axle would tend to rupture the fuel tank, spilling fuel and ultimately causing fire and/or explosion.
The punchline? It was found that a simple 10 cent piece of metal or such placed at a certain critical area would stop such an accident from becoming a miserable fatality. When the CEO (at the time) of Ford was asked why they didn't add such a part to the Pinto, the response was that it cost too much money, and it was cheaper to simple settle the lawsuits as they happenned.
Yep, the beancounters at Ford and many other companies do have a price for human life, and they know compared to their profits, it doesn't amount to much. Is it any wonder that Ford also created the Crown Victoria Interceptor, another saddle tank design, which was responsible for many fires, including one that severely maimed a Phoenix police officer?
Of course, they settled on that one as well - offering retrofit kits (essentially puncture proof racing cell bladders) and such on all Interceptors being used by police departments across the country. Of course, a standard civvie Crown Victoria has the same design flaw, but there was never a recall there. Plus, many Interceptors were sold at city auction prior to the retrofit kits being available. Add this all up, and you may think twice before stepping into that cab (many cab companies and independant cabbies drive Crown Vics).
Think PWM hubmotors. Yeah, technically still a drivetrain, but when most people think of a drivetrain (including mechanics), they think of transmission, CV-joints (FWD) or driveshaft/differential (RWD)...
Actually, the closest real-world parallel to Hari Seldon's science would be the application of Six Sigma methodologies to, well, everything. Since everything (macro level here, at least) is a process, and every process can be mapped, and you know the inputs and outputs of those processes (and accordingly how other processes affect them and how they affect other processes) - then in theory, for many things, you can "predict" (or at least change) the "future".
Interestingly, though, the "Law of Accelerating Returns" is being picked up by those who practice 6S methodologies and have seen George Land speak. He always hints at it (the quickening speed of the "Change of Change", as he puts it), and graphically depicts it with a series of S-curve graphs and such. He has never postulated on the concept of a technological singularity, though, at any of his talks I have attended, so I don't know his views on this bit - but it is there to an extent.
We live in interesting times, to be sure...
Damn, I am getting old. I had to get all the way to the second to the last sentence of your rant to realize you were talking about the new bastardization of BSG, rather than the original series. Gah!
Why do you assume that just because a place has an "important phone system" that they are going to be secure in that or any other aspect?
I am not saying that every (or any, for that matter) phone system out there today can be "hacked" by whistling. What I am saying is that in this day and age, where you would expect there to be the utmost in security and privacy protections on data that one would assume to be "important", we instead find companies being hacked seemingly "at will" with millions of people's credit card information being distributed, or worse, companies loosing or having stolen anywhere from one to hundreds of laptops with critical data on them (unencrypted, of course).
A movie trying to show the real life of computers and sensitive data for today's world would look like a Laurel and Hardy show with them finding a ton of discarded laptops in a trash bin, then trying to fence them via Ebay (without even looking at the data on the hard drives, of course, to see if maybe that was worth something), all the while the Keystone Cops scratch their heads and run around stupidly (our government, police, and corporations in action, folks). Meanwhile, cut to some grandma being sued by the RIAA because her grandson downloaded a song off of myspace using her wifi-enable Dell notebook (or something equally stupid). It would have to be a comedy, because I keep laughing at the real world exploits I see...
I think you are spot on there, but this is another example of something that I don't have the right word for, but it is definitely something to think about.
Throughout history, there have been human artifacts that have been created that have utterly changed the course of human history. In many if not most of these cases, these artifacts are so world changing and challenging to everyone who comes in contact with them that they become inextricably enmeshed with popular culture. Popular culture reacts with music and other art which incorporates these artifacts, in some cases showcasing them as main characters. A prime example would be the personal automobile.
This is where, with computers, things get weird. Despite the fact that the computer has forever altered the course of human history, despite the fact that it has entrenched itself in every facet of human existence, the showcasing of this artifact within popular culture has never seemed to take hold. I can probably count on one hand the number of popular songs in the past 20 years which have mentioned computers or the people that use them, and in most of those cases I couldn't really ascribe popular status to them as I doubt the masses have heard them. While the number of movies in popular culture incorporating computers seem greater, these movies invariably cast the computer (and/or its users/developers/etc) in a very negative light. The computer in these cases are seen as evil incarnate intent on wiping out the human race, or at least making it very uncomfortable.
Maybe the computer as an artifact is currently seen by popular culture as something more than human, or possibly the first real itteration of something constructed by humans to replace humans? While those that operate or know such machines are seen as collaborators in the destruction/downfall of mankind (classic mad-scientist run amok scenario)? The ignorant character, meanwhile is seen as virtuous, the "savior" of humanity, by not having subcumbed to the necessary levels of reason and logic needed to fully understand a computer.
Of course, I think I may reading way too much into all of this, but these ideas are definitely things that make you go "hmmmm"...
I just don't understand why people think that in 1992 that 3D graphics of the type seen in JP were impossible? That is just stupid considering the dinosaurs themselves were rendered at that time. Just because it wasn't possible with OTS PC hardware of the period doesn't mean there wasn't some kind of hardware able to do it.
The comments about Disclosure share the same attitude: that somehow during that period what was shown was impossible or implausible. This is outright false. Considering that the device that the employer of Michael Douglas' was manufacturing was not completely ready, and that the VR system he was using to find the file was still a prototype, it isn't too hard to imagine that this prototype might be a tad better than what was available to the public (indeed, all the parts for the system that were shown were easily available, even if the programming of the system wasn't - from the tracking system to the HMD to the computers to run it - no problem for the time frame at all). It is in the same vein as Doom and Quake - dev on the most insane platform you can find and afford, then by the time of release hope (actually, plan) that the machine you will release on will have the same specs and be affordable. If you want to make fun of Disclosure, make fun of it for the fact that you had to *slowly* wander hallways of endless filecabinets and run through them by hand. That indeed is a terrible idea of a VR user interface (in fact, this is what makes VR a solution in search of a problem - transitions essentially 2D tasks into a 3D interface - unless your HMD has ungodly resolution at insane FOV sizes, it just isn't going to go well).
As far as the idea is concerned, maybe you mistook a braille screen reader for a keyboard? Or, certainly, if you can have something like a braille screenreader (which do exist, btw), then is it so much of a stretch to think you couldn't build (or have built for you) a combination keyswitch and solenoid actuator (or at minimum, some kind of feedback on the keys)? I certainly think such a keyboard could be built (if it hasn't already), though it would definitely be thicker than a regular keyboard (or need to be attached to and built into the desk), and a lot heavier. But I bet it would feel similar to a nice Model M.
Anyhow - the idea isn't insane, and does sound feasible enough that I wouldn't be surprised if such a thing wasn't available to the blind. If it isn't, then someone needs to build it - the market isn't huge, but the necessary high niche product pricing will still do the trick for you...
Let me guess - he's a marketer for "Yoplait Whips Dulce De Leche"-flavor yogurt?
Seriously - have you seen this stuff? It flies off the store shelves, and yes, I love the taste of it, too, when I can find it. Even so, I know I am being scammed, because it has a ton of nitrogen "whipped" into it - it is fluffy yogurt, mostly air - and if you visit your grocery store, they can't seem to keep it on the shelves!
Corn-based ethanol production? Thanks, but no thanks - that is a loser from the get-go, and the worst use of a valuable grain product to boot...
However, maybe if we used sugarcane or sugarbeets, that could work out. Or, we could use hemp - this would actually be a perfect solution for both ethanol (for the stalks and other cellulose) and biodiesel (from seed oils). Hemp can grown anywhere in just about any soil conditions, and it also acts as a nitrogen fixating crop. Planted in rotation with other crops (perhaps corn and soybean), fertilizer needs (and possibly other chemicals - herbicides, pesticides, etc) would be cut, possibly quite dramatically.
But hemp (and other crops) are only a small portion of a biofuel solution. It is possible to get both oils and hydrogen from ordinary pond scum (ever wonder why pond algae is so gross feeling - now you know). Hydrogen is the tougher of the two (you have to grow it in vats and submit the mess to some simple but funky moves, and it doesn't yield much output) - but the oil harvesting is simple: skim it off then grind/press it and collect the oil. This oil can then be easily processed into biodiesel.
There is also the idea and implementation of TDPs (thermal depolymerization plants) - so far, the only one I know about is the Tyson turkey offal TDP system, but in theory you can tune the plant to any feedstock. I suggest we build ones to use grass clippings and other yard/construction wastes. Rather than bury all of this useful mass in landfills, we should convert it to fuel. Every time I hear about what they did with the uprooted trees and demolished houses from Katrina cleanup (basically, most of it went into landfills), I just shake my head at the stupidity of the waste. Even if they had just dried everything out, ground it up, then made composite lumber from it, it would have been better. But no, let's just bury it instead (I see a possible future in buying up what will be "old" housing developments sitting on landfills, and tearing them up to stripmine the landfill for materials - in metals alone it might be worth doing it today if it weren't for the property value).
Maybe if we made our water and sewage treatment systems more effective by capturing the methane from such works and using that for fuel (maybe industrial uses only?), that is another example of biofuel most people don't think of. Methane digesters are fairly simple to build, if you don't mind the smell and maintenance involved. Right now, some landfills have sunk pipes into them to tap off methane being produced by the biodegradables in the landfill itself - no, it isn't as good as a landfill TDP plant, but at least it is something.
All of these solutions (and a bunch of others - wind, water, nuclear, and what is left of easy to reach fossil fuels) will be needed to create an alternative to our current "mostly fossil fuels only" system we have. I don't expect any one of them to be the solution, but rather all of them together can be.
Do I think global warming is an issue? Yes, I do. Do I think humans have had a part in it? Yes, I do. Do I think that nature also has a part in it? Yes, I do.
As far as second-hand smoke is concerned, it certainly isn't healthy, especially in closed and poorly ventilated rooms. Do I think businesses (like bars and restaurants) should be forced to disallow smokers? No, I don't. Ultimately I think it should be up to each individual business and customer to decide, and let market forces sort it out. Unfortunately, too many people here in the states are reactionary, emotional knee jerkers who couldn't think rationally if their life depended on it (incidentally, many even test this in a variety of ways, most of them end up losing).
However, I don't think it is secondhand smoke that is killing us - it is our industrialized environment that is doing the job. The number of chemicals, residual and otherwise, in our environment from industrialization (and I am including transportation in this lot, too), is absolutely staggering. I recently heard about an article a journalist wrote for National Geographic in which he had a large blood test done for something like 300+ possible chemicals from the environment, many of them cancer causing agents or worse. Of those, he tested positive for something like over half. One test he had was on mercury levels - he fasted, had the test done, then "fish gorged" on a meal composed of halibut and swordfish, then had the test redone - the levels were really insane after that. He was also fairly sure that some of the longer-lived chemicals in his system (PCBs, bromides, etc) were partially the result of a dump he played near as a kid, which leached into the river that ran by his house, upstream of the water INTAKE for the town! One large substance amount he tested for with fairly high levels was a common chemical used for fire retardents in furniture and clothing (among other items). Who knows what they might find out about that one in the future, but it likely won't be good for you.
We are all living in a larger version of the "poorly ventilated room", pumping "secondhand smoke" (particulates, gases, heavy metals, mercury, PCBs, and a lot of other noxious crap) into our environment. Most of us don't see this, or when we do, we don't really SEE it (think about what may be in the laundry detergent, dish soap, or other common chemicals you use). I am not saying all of this is necessarily bad for the environment (much of it is benign overall) - but then again it wasn't that long ago that people were "frolicking" through dust clouds of DDT being sprayed in neighborhoods.
Secondhand smoke from tobacco is the least of my concerns. I am more concerned about how much my small truck (and the other cars around me) are slowly killing me and everyone else around while we sit, waiting for the light to turn green...
If you want to do miniature hydraulics, the best way to start is syringes, aquarium tubing, and vegetable or mineral oil (actually, for such a small system, water could be used as well, and cleanup would be easy). You can also start out with just pneumatic action by eliminating the oil (best to start learning this way anyhow). The difficult part of such small systems is obtaining switching valves - you can find miniature pneumatic valves, but they don't work well (or at all) with liquids (especially oils), and I don't know of any small hydraulic valves. What you might try to do is rig up a double sided syringe into a spool valve, then actuate that with a solenoid. Also, use plastic tubing connectors from an auto parts store (sold for use on vacuum lines) or from a hardware store (for water drip sprinklers). Connect all your parts with epoxy or similar (or, twist-tie with steel wire). Larger cylinders could be made with PVC or copper/steel/allumninum pipe/tubing (build your piston with a turned disk and a steel rod or dowel in the center, seal the piston with a silicone o-ring or similar, however sealing the end where the rod comes out won't be easy - look into homebrew stuffing boxes). At a certain point you will want to work with the "real stuff" - for this, you will need to go to a surplus or similar dealer in heavy-duty and industrial machinery - some industrial pneumatics can be driven for a little while using oil or water (although the seals probably won't last). Also note that real hydraulic/pneumatic systems utilize something called a "pressure accumulator", which is essentially a fancy word for a pressure tank - it is to store compression energy in the working fluid to allow for high-speed movements - whereas otherwise you can only work as fast as your pump. For pneumatic pumps, you can get by with a small air compressor or (even better) a high-cfm airbrush compressor. However, I know of no such similar pump for small hydraulic systems. You can get self-contained electric hydraulic pumps (you see them used on electric log splitters and automobile lifts), but they are overkill for small hydraulics (and likely you couldn't homebrew hydraulics that could withstand the pressure anyway). One other note when working with hydraulics - in a true hydraulic system, leaks can be deadly. While you won't encounter the pressures you would see in a commercial system with a homebrew system, it is something to keep in mind. A small leak on a commercial system can spew a stream of pressurized oil out that can cut through just about anything. So, keep this in mind when you homebrew - wear goggles at least. Also realize that as the fluids are worked (whether air or oil/water), they will heat up, so think about a radiator/cooling system as well.
I get what you're saying, but it seems to be complexifying everything for the sake of being power-user-y. it seems (to me) inefficient and relatively unadvantageous.
No, it isn't overcomplicating things just to be "power-user-y" - it is making a system that is very wide open to allow your PC to be a Personal Computer. Let's say the backplane consisted of 10 slots. Someone may want to fill up 9 of those slots with cards holding 4 dual-core opterons or something, and each has flash RAM and some DDR - a 72-core multi-processing system. The 10th slot? Myrinet or something! Another guy may just stick a CPU card in one, a DDR interface card (with only two of the 20 slots filled!), a SuperIO card (with USB, SATA, and ethernet), and a video card - giving him a regular PC. But, this second guy could easily upgrade his system.
This is how personal computers used to be - just look at any old S-100 bus machine (like an Altair), and you will see what I mean. Granted, this won't let you have a small form factor, but for most uses this shouldn't be an issue. I think both have a place in the market, but unfortunately it is becoming more and more clear over time that your vision (single board all-in-one machine) is what is fast becoming reality for the consumer market. The ever expandable, ever hackable machine like I describe will be something only available to the corporate market (perhaps even illegal for a regular joe to posess - but there will be black market devices available).
Basically, rather than using expensive electronics and such to gather the data, you use the drive itself. Your first task is to attempt to identify and source the various chips (chipset) used on the IDE interface board. Then, you need to somehow get copies of the spec sheets for these devices. This is probably the most difficult part, because such devices may actually be custom made (or programmed, as in the case of PGA or DSP) especially for the drive manufacturer - and thus their IP. You would need to get really creative here - you might even have to reverse-engineer the blackbox that is the chipset. Not impossible, but very difficult. Once you have identified how the chipset works (whether via RE or spec sheets), you then need to identify all the other parts on the PCB, and their interconnections - you need to RE the controller board. If you are lucky, it is based on a reference design - but don't count on getting lucky. The best way to accomplish this task is to take a high-contrast, very high resolution scan of the front and back of the PCB in question. Then you want to load these into your favorite photo editing software, and using the fill tool in zoom mode, fill a trace on the scanned image of the PCB. If you have done your contrast right, the trace should fill all or most of the way to the end node. In this way you can reconstruct the schematic. Slow and tedious, but it does work. You might also set up multiple layers in the photo editor, one layer with the front, and another layer with the back, flipped and rotated so they match real world conditions (you need quality aligned scans here). Other layers could be used to paint (using a mask or something) the traces - so some of your layers are "trace layer", used to hold the traces only, and color coded, perhaps.
Once you have everything mapped out, and you know how things are connected and used, you can then develop your interface with it. You need to interface to the heads, so you can both position them and get signals from them. You also want control of the motor which rotates the spindles. All of this should be mapped from above, and with the knowledge of the chipset and such, you should be able to figure out a method to do both of the following: 1) Microstepping the head position arm(s), and 2) Varying the speed of the spindle. Both of these are doable, and it may even be likely that the chipset allows for such control, but to the final IDE interface it isn't available. It doesn't matter though - what you are going to want to do is build your own interface, but in this case the chipset is going to be simulated, by a fast PC. Your interface card could easily be interfaced on the PC side via USB 2.0. If you went with an embedded solution instead of a full PC (using a custom programmed microcontroller), it is even conceivable that standard serial comms would work. At any rate, though, you are going to be writing some software.
Basically, your software is going to read the sector and alignment information from the drive's sensors, and then via software it is going to allow expert control over where the head is positioned (either via the alignment information, or +/- offsets to that information, or an arbitrary amount). The software should also have the ability to command the drive to speed up or slow down spindle rotation. You are going to use all of this information to allow you to microstep into the "valleys" between the tracks, and read whatever data you find. You could scan across the band of the track area and valleys, multiple times, and build up a magnetic region average map - a three dimensional array of data which can then be sliced and analysed by the software to determine exac
I appologize for my assumption - your original post seemed to indicate a lack of knowledge on the subject. You are right on all points, which is what I tried to make clear that I understood in my previous post, although you did add some info that I didn't acknowledge (ie, number of twists, different cables changing sigs, etc). It just seemed that your original post indicated that it couldn't be done at all, not that it wasn't practical to do it (for the above stated reasons we both have pointed out). All in all, it is an interesting thought experiment (though of course, not new) of how to identify hardware from a unique signature of the signal output (and/or possibly noise output, as well). Unfortunately, most of this falls in the RF/analog side of electronics which I am familiar with, but have always considered it nearly "magic"...
You seem to want an "all-on-motherboard", no-slots (or maybe a couple), make it small and quiet as possible. While I can see the utility in such a box, it also feels limiting to me for some tasks.
What I want to see is a return to the system designs of old - just give me a backplane I can slot cards into, and nothing more. Let me have five CPU cards (each with a different CPU!), a couple of RAM cards, a sound card, four dual-head graphics cards, etc. Make it all work and sit on the backplane bus. Given a standard bus design and the right configuration, it is easily possible. The only possible downside is whether it could be made to work with today's bus speeds - maybe the backplane would need to use optical interconnects?
I know such a machine is possible, because it is the way they used to build and design minicomputers and early microcomputer. I have an Altair 8800 in my shop awaiting restoration. Originally, it was sold with an Intel 8080 CPU, but a later upgrade (which mine had) was a Z-80. Since the layout of the system was an S-100 bus backplane and the CPUs and RAM were on different cards, some people stuck both in their machines. I am not sure how they used them, but likely they were switchable via software or hardware (a toggle switch or something) so they could run code for either CPU, and I am sure some people used one or the other as a "coprocessor" to help the other along on certain tasks. Nothing stopped you from adding other cards, either, other than running out of slots (and I am sure there were "slot extender" cabinets and backplanes hooked up via a few lengths of ribbon cable).
I want something nearly infinitely expandable, so I can make the machine my machine - a real "personal" computer. Sadly, it doesn't seem to be happennning. Indeed, it seems like your vision for computing is becoming the reality more than mine, beyond things like blade servers and such (which are way out of my price range).
So, your idea isn't too far off - the UPC -is- the RFID...
So, yes, you could use this same system to "fingerprint" wired cards. Where you run into problems is the only way to detect the card via fingerprint is before the "end" of that cable is connected to a switch or hub - so the "man in the middle" doing the comparison would have to be right on the line. You are correct that this "doesn't make much sense" - but not that it can't work the same because it is wired (the "wires" form a shielded waveguide for the radio frequency signals instead of using an amplifier and antenna). It just ultimately isn't practical because after the hub or switch, you would see the "fingerprint" of the hub or switch (or other cards, etc). Also, it isn't clear whether intermediate connections (like the jack in the wall you plug your patch cord into) would effect the fingerprint signature...
While I too have also witnessed at an airshow what you are talking about (indeed, it is called a "tail-slide" - also, as a kid I once flew a paper airplane I made which did the same, but it only happenned once), I have also seen an airplane hang by it prop. This was at a more recent airshow a few years back at the Williams Gateway Airpark in Mesa/Tempe, at the annual airshow they run there. The plane was some kind of sport/stunt plane which had a huge power/weight ratio, and an oversized prop (IIRC). The body of the plane itself was very lightweight and made mostly of alluminum, fiberglass, and carbon-fiber. The pilot flew it very slowly (just over stall speed) over the runway, nosed up while throttling up, and then just "floated" there as the plane slowly moved down the runway in front of the crowd. The pilot was working the all the controls very rapidly - it seemed he was doing all he could just the keep the plane steady. After about 30 seconds, he increased the power of the engine (yeah, he still had some headroom!), and powered up, over and out (kinda like an "L" portion of an outside loop, starting vertically) of the hover and flew off to perform a few more stunts.
The announcer made it clear that the plane was designed purposefully for extreme stunts like that, and had I not been there to witness it I probably would have been sceptical, but there it was. It was a very amazing stunt to see, if only for the fact that had something gone wrong, it would have all went very wrong. I don't have any more details beyond this anecdotal story...
Even so, there was a bit of technology out there at the time of DN3D that was interesting, but I never saw it implemented in a real game. Somewhere I have a demo of it for DOS. It was a 3D engine written as a demonstration of something called "voxel rendering" - it wasn't raycasted, and it wasn't done using a 3D primative system (ie, mesh of triangles) - instead, it rendered objects and such as virtual "3d pixels" - and it did it fast. Textures were "real" (not "painted on" then "specially lit" - like people were playing with at the time), objects were "solid" (they were not "hollow 3D objects"), and amazingly, it was very fast (considering the timeframe we are talking about).
I never saw anything beyond the demo made - the world quickly moved on to triangle meshes and soon, OpenGL and Direct3D, and nothing more was made of software-only renderers. It was a technology that barely made a blip, but the idea was fascinating. Kinda landed on the same "scrapheap" as that "Pyramid" graphics card/chipset that was going to be released by that one PC/Amiga Demo Group (BitBrothers?)...