Damn, people still don't understand this...
on
We Are All Nerds Now
·
· Score: 1
Rarely have I seen it discussed, which is probably why the confusion still persists. First off, generally when you see black people calling each other, it is "nigga" (as in "yo, ma nigga!" greeting expression), not the "other word". Typically said among close friends, perhaps family, most of the time between males. It is typically meant as a friendly expression (similar to white males calling each other "dude" or something). However, it is looked down upon for anyone outside of the black culture to use the same term - consider yourself lucky if you are told to "get your white-ass outta here" or something similar.
Personally, I think it is all strange, from a socialogical viewpoint - these words we use, the way we speak depending on our race, the fact we see races at all - all of it serves only to divide us, instead of bringing us together to strengthen our one commonality:
Ok - then you are making things: now show others how to do it. It doesn't take much. If you take a look at my site, you will *easily* see that I have done it (however, I will concede that I don't have kids - only a wife and a dog). I have all kinds of projects, both software based and hardware based, and I put my stuff up that I learn and use, and my knowledge - so that others may gain.
That information you would want to save, on multiple backups, possibly. I keep a copy of my stuff on a few CDs (I have a ton of stuff I have done over time that hasn't been made public much, simply because it wasn't either finished, or whatnot - but still valuable to me). The stuff that is "public" is on my site, on my local drive, and on a CD backup.
Yes, it does cost me money, but I figure it in as a part of my online presence. By having a site, I feel that I can give back a little of what I take/learn from others online and elsewhere.
...the wise man, however, knows how to make cyanide, makes it, tests it (to make sure it works and that his knowledge is correct), then realizes what is so horrible about it - and doesn't make nor use it again in the future.
Cyanide is actually a poor example - WMDs are much better examples of this. Unfortunately, for some reason most humans and human societies are very, very UNWISE. It may prove to be the death of us.
Could they "nail you" for building an autonomous or semi-autonomous robotic pulse-jet powered model airplane carrying a 10kg wad of silly putty? Should they be able to?
I doubt this guy was going to arm this thing with explosives - obtaining the explosives would have been one thing, plus none of this projects dealt with explosives, and why would he put explosives that could destroy his one-off prototype into said prototype?
Personally, he set himself up - he should have *never* put any verbage in about a "cruise missile" - it should have been "autonomous robotic jet plane project" or similar. Sure, that is all a cruise missle is - but ignorant (and I would daresay stupid in this world of instant information and learning) people see the words "cruise missle" and think "death" and "scary", whereas they see "autonomous robotic jet plane" and think "???".
I know I have emailed you in the past - I have admired your work from afar, and I respect the projects you have done, and the information you have given out to the community (of pulsejet and jet engine builders). I only wish I had the space and time to do what you are doing - maybe someday I will.
With that said, what you need to do now is put in some kind of deadman's escrow the plans, etc for the missle, as well as for the pulsejet. This way - should you be "disappeared", these plans would be distributed far and wide (torrent files, p2p systems, freenet, usenet, etc) - spread the info.
I would try to immediately put up and have mirrored any and all ideas you have on the "building a pulsejet using parts from auto parts stores" or whatever it is called. No government can stop the flow of information - they can only stop the people. Look at things like DeCSS - enough people wanted it, now it is everywhere (and actually better stuff has superceeded it), the genie can't be stuffed back. You need to make your stuff the same.
I realize that you wanted to make a business out of this - and I sincerely wish you could. But in the here and now, you have two choices: let the secrets be silenced and/or die with you - or distribute them far and wide. Personally, I would rather give away something that I knew how to do, than to keep it in the hopes of profiting on it later - especially if the government has already shown me it doesn't care about my welfare by taking my house, etc - who says they won't take your life to take your ideas and knowledge from the world away?
I suppose it could have been a hoax, but this guy knew what he was doing - I have no doubt that he did build something.
Basically, all he was building was a scaled down version of a German V-1 "buzz bomb", with probably some GPS guidance hardware (whereas the V-1 was a fire in a straight line type device). The real technology was the pulse jet it was to be powered by - his design was supposed to way better than anything else available (a lot of thrust for the pulse jet) - not sure if it was going to be better than Mark Pauline/SRL's pulsejets as used on their hovercraft (which I got to see and help set up one for him here in Phoenix back in 2001 at a nighttime non-publicized "demo" for an SRL show that got canned by our lovely fire department) - those jets used a reedless resonant design (no moving parts) - I think that is where this guy was headed.
It would have been nice - because reedless pulsejets can be powerful (when tuned properly) and with no moving parts, they can run for as long as fuel is supplied. A perfect hobbiest jet engine (cheap and works well). He made mention of showing how to build a similar engine (can't remember now whether it was to be a reedless or reeded design, though) from auto exhaust parts and other parts from "Home Depot" type stores.
A pulsejet is something I have wanted to build for a while now after seeing my first SRL show - maybe one day I will get board, buy some pipe, break out my welder and experiment...
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
(my emphasis added)
Where in the text of the second amendment does it say "conventional firearms"? The truth is, it doesn't. The truth is, at the time the Bill of Rights was written up, people could and did own weapons as powerful as their own government's weapons, whether that was flintlock rifles, or cannons drawn behind horses or mounted to private ships. Why? Because often, these same people were the "well regulated militia"!
You may say "well, that is the role of the Army/Navy/Air Force today" - and you would be wrong again. At the time, it was seen that a government with a standing army was a dangerous government (to the people it governs). It was argued (I believe in the various Federalist Papers and elsewhere) that such a system should not be put into place. Alas, it was never codified in the Constitution that such a standing army not be erected.
You may tell yourself that the citizens of this country have no need for weapons that equal the government's, that the government would never turn its weapons and soldiers on its own people, that the soldiers would never fire upon their own countrymen - and you would be WRONG.
I am sure there are more recent examples, but Kent State is one U.S. example - and to invoke Godwin's Law, have we forgotten Nazi Germany?
What the hell is it going to take to open your eyes and see what our government has already done to our rights? Need I list them?
Actually, automobiles have a law (can't remember what it is called - Grey-Mossen Act or something) that requires auto manufacturers to continue making replacement parts for a certain number of years after discontinuing a model. Also, in the automobile industry, recycling has always been a huge thing, which is why it is still possible to find (hard to, but possible) refurbished Model-T parts, among everything else. Auto recycling has been going on ever since there were autos being made in mass quantities, just because at first in order to get replacement parts you *had* to go to the dealer. Now, only certain stuff (but it seems like more every year) is a dealer part - a lot can be bought from auto parts stores/dealers. These parts are either reman (ie, recycled, cleaned, repaired, tested) or "new" (licensed or otherwise, not sure).
I attempted to - for a speeding ticket I recieved in California (I am a resident of Arizona). Ultimately, I paid the fine (I was guilty as charged), but I was curious of what law I exactly broke. Fortunately, CA has all (supposedly) of the "laws" online, for anyone to read and "understand". What I saw was a nightmare:
The legalese was one thing - I can understand the need for it, to limit overly broad and possibly ambiguous speech, which can make or break laws. But the rest was a complete mess. As I went through the laws, I started to realize that the law was really one large program (and it reads like code as well), where a set of inputs leads to a set of outputs. However, due to the large number or possible inputs, the large number of possible outputs, and the fact that legislators and lawyers are not programmers - it is all spaghetti code, filled with numerous goto's and other such nonsense. In fact, what I saw was a monolithic, top-down code structure, which was badly maintained.
I have since come to the conclusion that for law coding, our Constitution seems to be the best example of code we have - easily read, somewhat easy to interpret, stays fairly reliable over the years, easily maintainable with a declared maintenance interface, some parts even seem object oriented. The founding fathers were lawyers-cum-code hackers, of some ye olde sort.
Those that came afterward have lost that ability to code - and have left us citizens with an extreme mess.
However, one data point does not make a fair sample, so I turned to the laws of my own state - and found the same thing. I looked at surrounding states (NV, CO, NM, etc) - and found the same thing (some were better, some were worse - all were pretty bad, though).
Citizens in no way can know the law, because they are least versed of all to be able to read it. Even lawyers will tell you they don't know all of the law - there is too much of it, it is too convoluted, and some of it doesn't even matter anymore because it has been usurped by "case law" (hidden code, anyone?). Yet, the common citizen isn't allowed to claim "ignorance of the law" as a defence - even though it is a perfectly valid and logical defence given the current poor structure of our law systems. I doubt most judges know all of the laws for the jurisdiction they are in, and how they all interrelate - in fact, it would be crazy to think they could or should - which is why when you go into a courthouse or a lawyers office, you notice all of those books everywhere? Guess what those contain (no, it current fiction for the lobby): the current law, as well as TONS of case law, for reference. It is scattered everywhere in every nook and cranny on miles of bookshelves because there is so much of it and it is so convoluted.
What individual can ever hope to be able to understand and KNOW all of this? NONE - that's who. Yet ignorance of the law isn't a defense. Sound like a set up for the common man yet?
Yeah - forking of code in the proprietary world happens all the time, its just you rarely hear about it. Much of today's vertical market applications (large b2b apps) are all forks of each other. Employees, etc become disgruntled, steal code, leave, start new business (most of this happenning in the early 80's - today would be tougher, but not impossible) - you end up with all sorts of companies today...
Well, a "glove" needn't be some horrendous construct, like Nintendo's Power Glove (ick.)
Of course not - gloves can be really nice. The problem is (as always) - patents.
You see, part of the PG's technology was licensed from Jaron Lanier's company of the time, VPL. They made what could be considered "the ultimate" glove - the DataGlove.
It was made of lycra or spandex - very flexy and comfortable, like bicycle gloves. IIRC, there were no fingertips, so you could type with it on. The sensors were lightweight loops of fiber optic (which, when bent, would leak light out, the more light leaked, the more the finger was bent, and an optical sensor at the end of the loop could read this).
For position tracking, you typically used a magnetic tracker like a Polhemus system - which utilized a small sugar-cube sized position/orientation sensor (basically three orthogonal coils) that was stuck on the back of the hand of the glove.
Very lightweight, very comfortable, excellent response. Its only real drawback was calibration, as the lycra/spandex of the glove tended to shift as you used the glove, shifting the sensors away from the bend points. I also think it had problems with sensing finger abduction (side to side movement) - but all glove devices at the time (even today) have that issue.
So, the technology is there, but it is still wrapped up in patents. VPL no longer exists, I don't know who has the patents today (used to be Thompson/Phillips, but that may not be true anymore). A lot of physical 3D human interface technology is locked up in those patents - the DataGlove, some HMD stuff, various display software patents, the BodyGlove (full body tracking)...
What we have come to know as the "Desktop Metaphor" was arguably wholly invented and demonstrated by Douglas Engelbart back in 1968. In that demonstration, he showed nearly all the elements of the modern GUI desktop computer, nearly 20 years before they became commonplace (with the Mac). Some of the things he showed in that demo didn't become "common" until recently, and a few of them didn't become common at all.
One of these was the use of two mice. Yep, it's true. He discovered that using two mice (as well as footpedals - yet another thing that hasn't caught on) could be very beneficial to some tasks. There are probably a lot of tasks where such a system could be beneficial, but he couldn't explore them due to computer limits of the time (btw, consider those limits, then watch the video of the demonstration and be prepared to bow in AWE - these guys, guys like Engelbart, guys like Sutherland and his "Ultimate Display", aka "The Sword of Damocles" for 3D virtual environment display - described in 1965, and ultimately ready by January 1970!).
Sorry, your not the first to suggest it - as always, it seems like Doug was there first...
As numerous others have pointed out, you have many options. Personally, I like the "hack an audio jukebox" and "hack the USB jukebox" options. For ease, the USB one would probably be it. As you have probably noted already (and others here have as well), the cost for real jukebox cdrom systems are *insane*, considering what is really in them.
Why is this?
Well, they aren't priced for you! You see, a successful business doesn't offer just the lowest price on a product, but the lowest price on the product that the market will bear. Apparently, businesses (as a market) are *incredibly stupid*, and will bear the cost of multi-thousand dollar equipment that is probably produced for sub-$500 per unit (one can easily speculate as to the why of this, there are many possible, and probably interrelated, reasons).
Anyhow - you won't be spending this kind of money - so what about other options?
I have a good one: organize your disks and catalog them by a serial number in a database of some sort, and put the disks into Case Logic bindersheets in cheap binders. Store the binders (number the binders, too) on a bookshelf. Build the database so that you have some meta information, the cd number, and the binder number. Select on the meta, return the two numbers (maybe even a page number if you want), and you should be able to easily find the disk you want.
Not high-tech, not on-line, but fairly cheap, and easily expandable and resusable in the future.
The other thing to do: realize that most of your data is worthless. Yeah, MP3s, gamez, warez, pr0nz, whatever - it is worthless. If you want to justify the time/money/etc for a real cdrom/dvd jukebox or hard drive archive solution, then you need worthy data! This is one reason why businesses are willing to spend the money - because the data on those machines is their business. So start making data. Create movies, produce music, express artwork! You only have in front of you the most astounding machine mankind has EVER made!. That, and the rest of your life. Think of what Da Vinci made and left of his life - imagine if he had a computer!
...but I also own both these books, as well as the "lost third" book (came about it by accident at a used book store, never have seen it anywhere else), called "Big Computer Games", also by Ahl. I also own two old volumes of "The Secret Guide to Computers" (found at a yard sale) - which is still published.
No, processor speed isn't where it is at - you have hit the nail on the head. You are right that adding RAM is one of the best improvements you can make (I am currently typing this on my main box - a 366 Celeron with 768 meg running SuSE 7.2 - the extra RAM makes all the difference) to any computer system. In fact, it should be looked at before adding CPU. Graphics card memory is important too. You are also right that there should be more distributed processor type support. Current graphics cards have it, but mainly only for 3D work - and it is still not completely independent of the CPU. Sound cards and network cards should be the same way (in fact, most all cards currently are).
It isn't as perfect as it could be, though. I was once a die-hard Amiga fan (still love the old beasts), there were things you could do with them that at the time were *impossible* to do on a PC, even one with a processor 4-5x faster, with soundcard and VGA - it just wasn't possible. It wasn't until VESA and other improvements that we really saw the PC take off. The Amiga had a very tightly integrated chipset, with each facet (CPU of course, but also sound and graphics) being completely independently programmable and not CPU bound - each worked on its own. There are similarities in PC architechture today (DSPs, DMA, coprocessors on various graphics and sound boards, etc) - but it isn't as seemless as what the Amiga had.
Part of the problem is the need for the PC to support so many different standards and interfaces, legacy and otherwise - that holds it back. Part of it is not having a common base (there wasn't much difference between one Amiga and another - at least within models - but even across the whole line it was pretty consistent).
Has a big problem - though it is an interesting solution. The problem is that simple opaque contacts would not sheild the whites of the eyes (sclera or something like that) from UV - so if the user opened their eyes, they could get a sunburn on their eyeballs.
Let me tell you, this isn't a fun thing - it is also known as "welder's blindness" - if you try to arc weld without proper dark shielding (or the arc light creeps under your sheild, for example, while wearing a white shirt), this is what happens. It feels like your eyeballs are on fire, massive pain. In severe cases, you won't be able to see for a couple of hours (in very severe cases, you will be permanently blinded). In almost all cases, your vision will be affected.
Perhaps your invention would be OK if they made the user's wear regular sunglasses with UV protection over the top of the contacts, plus sign a waiver/contract (might already be in most tanning salon contracts) - that would work. It would be either that, or full sclera contact lenses (such as used in the FX industry, which tend to be very uncomfortable to wear for any extended periods).
Nuclear weapons probably would have made (nuclear) war "go away" had the exchange been larger. War itself will probably never go away. Nuclear war, however, while it has been in stasis, has not yet gone away (every so often some yahoo comes up with what are essentially tactical nukes - ie, the new "bunker buster" bombs they want to make).
What hasn't happened yet is that humanity has not yet shocked itself with its own capacity for violence. A full scale nuclear exchange, with millions or billions dead, and more dying over the course of years, would probably do it (not that it would matter in the end, because at that point, it would be too late).
The most disturbing thing about all of this is that I can sit here and say this, already knowing what the likely outcome would be, and I can "feel" some of the possible suffering (ie, I can put myself into a "vision" of the aftermath and see the consequences). I am not a genious. Yet there are those out there who honestly think nuclear bombs are the answer for many questions - for some reason, they just don't understand the horror of these weapons, and more importantly, the horror of knowing it is mankind against mankind that came up with the need and uses of these weapons.
This is in regards to nanotechnology, and to a certain extent, artificial intelligence.
We humans, for some strange reason, seem to think that if it is complex, then it must come from complex processes. Nanotechnology is no exception.
We seem to think that in order to make a nanoassembler, it must be some complex assemblage akin to an atomic level robot with AI intelligence or something (at the very least, a rod processing computer), when so much staring at us in the face tells us that such things simply aren't so.
Many of you may roll your eyes, but I honestly believe that Stephen Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science" will prove to be a pivotal book in the history of mankind. To the naysayers who cry "plagerism", I respond with "Read the damn book!" - if you had, you would realize that it seems like every other page the author is saying something about those which came before him: the author is in wonderment at the work done prior to his, and why the pieces weren't put together until he gathered it all up and tried it out.
In essence, the book boils down to a theory that is basically saying that all of the universe (matter, processes, life - everything) can be reduced down to a simple one dimensional cellular automata ruleset of 5 or 6 rules - that complexity arises from simple algorithms.
I believe that the fundamentals of this theory hold the keys to many of the "hard problems" we humans have been trying to implement. I believe a combination of NKS, network theory (as described in up-to-date detail in Albert- Laszlo Barabasi's book "Linked"), and emergence/complexity theory could help to solve many of the problems in nanotechnolgy and artificial intelligence we have been struggling with for so long.
This is the next step - figuring out how these three things define our world: in a way, it is a GUT for almost everything, the problem domain it could be applied to is vast. It won't be easy, but it is something that definitely needs more exploring and explorers.
Is essentially a high-resolution head-mounted display (HMD) with attached video camera(s). You *will not* be able to find such a thing in the price range you note. Multiply that range by 10x, and you will be coming close to something.
You will be running into a classic problem of HMD design - you can have high-res, low field-of-view (FOV), or low-res, wide FOV - anything else either looks like ass, or costs megabucks (think LEEP optic sets). A large FOV promotes immersion (ie, the visual sense of being "there"), but comes at a cost of resolution - because to approximate a large FOV you need to magnify the video device. A smaller FOV has better resolution (pixels are more and close together), but leaves the user feeling like he is look through two toilet paper tubes. Large FOVs are most useful for immersive environments (walking about outside certainly qualifies), small FOV for detail work (reading or simulating a microscope, or microsurgical uses).
The resolution issue is one of the type of display being used. High-res used to require CRT displays, but LCDs have shrunk enough and are high enough res to eliminate this (mostly). Even so, not many miniature LCDs would be beyond the requirements of "legally blind", unless you are willing to spend the cash. So, for your application CRTs may be the only route, which are still expensive and bulky.
Another problem you will likely run into is that there aren't many vendors of this equipment. Small demand (the niche market is in simulation and data visualization - both markets with few players, but those players have big bucks - auto manufacturers, oil exploration, military - and so the hardware is priced accordingly). It used to be you could get ok/decent consumer style hardware, but none of it would meet the requirements you need (not even an old $800.00 Sony Glasstron, let alone a Forte VFX-1, a Phillips Scuba, or some I-Glasses). The consumer stuff just isn't being made any more (there isn't any interest, among other problems and issues). I haven't seen anything for the consumer market in a long time. Even so, the stuff that was available ranged from $500-1000.00.
Finally, you would need to mate it to some video cameras, and not just any video cameras, but high-resolution video cameras to match the HMD - these tend to be bulky and not too cheap (hi-res CCD security cameras are where you have to start) - and if you want a wide FOV, you need the lenses and res to accomodate that (big bucks for lenses and larger CCD imagers). Finally, you have to mate it all together - it just won't bolt together, you might need some custom case work.
A best, you are going to end up with an expensive prototype built with off-the-shelf components and being a pain to use: It will be bulky and heavy. It will likely work, but not for the people you intend to use it. Such systems have been built as test beds, since VR first made its true appearance in the early 1990's - likely, experiments were done with the early HMDs in the 1980's, as well (which were very bulky).
If you are serious about pursuing this, you will need to learn what you can about virtual reality, augmented reality, and wearable computer systems to get an idea of where to start. The technology is what you are interested in, and how to apply it to your application. However, there is nothing off-the-shelf for what you want - and what is available will likely be very expensive.
Read the book "Linked" by Albert-laszlo Barabasi to find out more on this and other topics of recent discoveries in network theory (most notably the fact that there is *no way* that they have nor can map the entire internet, simply due to the way it, and other robust networks, are structured - hint: it is not simply a random collection of linked nodes).
I encourage anyone and everyone who are interested in networks (of any sort, whether they be social, neurological, chemical, or electronic) and network theory to read this book.
Finally, if you want a real treat, in addition to the above book read Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science", and Kelly's "Out of Control" - I would also throw in a few good books on AI, but most notably Minsky's "The Society of Mind". Once you start reading about these things, and give some real thought to it all - you will start to see how a lot of this all ties together (not that you will have instant understanding, mind you, just that you will begin to see how it is all interelated, and how some interesting discoveries and/or inventions are yet to appear)...
I would say "no" - you can do this. That is the purpose of patents - they exist to help "further the arts" of invention. Regardless of whether the patented invention is in production or not.
The idea is this: say you build the invention from the patent in question - and while building it, you notice a way to increase the efficiency of the device by oh, 50% - by some method or process the original inventor nor others recognized prior to you. Perhaps you needed to build it in order to see this! You would then be able to patent this new addition (and/or maybe the entire thing), referencing the original patent.
Patents were created as the exchange an inventor could have - a monopoly on the production, sale, and/or licensing of the item in the patent, in exchange for showing how to build the device in a clear reproducible manner, so that others could build it after the patent monopoly expired, or in order to make the device better (and thus create new inventions).
Now, you couldn't sell the creation you had made, but I don't believe it is illegal to do so - consult a lawyer specializing in patent law if you are serious about this...
Personally, I think my Bronco has proven it's reliabilty (though yes, it has had a good amount of work done on it, and more to be done - but show me any 20+ year old car that doesn't need such work - parts wear out). It still runs! It even passed emissions (6.6L/400ci V8 carbed engine with little to count for a computer)!
I expect to drive my Ranger into the ground (140,000 miles on it since 1994 when it was built, and still going strong - I have heard stories of Rangers going for 250,000+ miles - technically, my Bronco is a Ranger, so in theory this may be truth - of course, I don't think you can count an engine rebuild on that)
Yes, every car manufacturer does produce lemons, and yes, there are a lot of old Hondas and Datsuns being driven around everyday. But I don't have problems with either of my purchases. For now, I know that they both run. While some parts (ah, hell, who am I kidding - a lot of parts) are hard to find for the Bronco, they are still out there - and it is *very* easy to work on (just this evening fixed the steering shaft flex coupler in a couple of hours - lots of room to work in, easy to do).
Finally, and most importantly of all - they are both *paid for*. I don't make payments on them, I do most repair work on them myself (unless it is something I don't understand or don't have the tools for). I don't have to worry about paying interest on them. I don't think I will ever buy another "new" car - any cars from here on out will likely be used cars purchased with cash...
No ones yet mentioned Flinger, which is a customized MIDI-adapted singing Festival thingamibob...
Personally, I think the best examples to download are "The Easy Way" (song 15) and "K'ai - Eyes swim" (song 16).
While no where near perfect, Flinger and the samples really show where things are heading - I have said it before, but this type stuff (perfected, of course), plus tech like machinima (once again, as it becomes better) are truely going to alter what we think of movies, acting, etc - virtual actors, virtual singers, virtual movies...
Sounds like you got screwed on a used car. Happens all the time. Most of today's vehicles are "throw-away" models anyhow. If you want something that is likely to last you for a while, it is best to get something pre-1980 or a large truck.
I recently purchased a 1979 Bronco 4x4 - it needs quite a bit of work on it, but nothing really serious (mainly seals between engine/tranny/transfer case). The engine was rebuilt before I bought it, and the rest of it is damn sound (rides better than my 94 Ranger). I have no clue how many miles it truely has on it - either 190,000 or 290,000 (the odometer reads 90,000 - so I know it has to be one of the two, because my Ranger already has 140,000). Unfortunately for me, I have had to put a good grand of money in it just to get it to pass emissions (it had *no* emission controls on it). But it has been worth it - it is only for off-roading anyhow (my Ranger is my everyday vehicle).
I knew its problems before I bought the truck, but when I went to the shop to get the first set of emission related stuff put on it (before I had a manual that showed everything - hard to find info on old stuff like this), they asked why I didn't bring it to them first (they do a check on everything for like $35.00 - keep that in mind cause most shops will do this checking for a fee, and can help you decide whether to buy the car). It really wouldn't have mattered to me - this Bronco was *exactly* what I wanted for a 4x4, so the money and time I have spent has been all worth it.
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, I think it is all strange, from a socialogical viewpoint - these words we use, the way we speak depending on our race, the fact we see races at all - all of it serves only to divide us, instead of bringing us together to strengthen our one commonality:
Being human
You are likely going to want a VFD - these will be the only thing bright enough to do the job, especially in daylight.
That information you would want to save, on multiple backups, possibly. I keep a copy of my stuff on a few CDs (I have a ton of stuff I have done over time that hasn't been made public much, simply because it wasn't either finished, or whatnot - but still valuable to me). The stuff that is "public" is on my site, on my local drive, and on a CD backup.
Yes, it does cost me money, but I figure it in as a part of my online presence. By having a site, I feel that I can give back a little of what I take/learn from others online and elsewhere.
Cyanide is actually a poor example - WMDs are much better examples of this. Unfortunately, for some reason most humans and human societies are very, very UNWISE. It may prove to be the death of us.
I doubt this guy was going to arm this thing with explosives - obtaining the explosives would have been one thing, plus none of this projects dealt with explosives, and why would he put explosives that could destroy his one-off prototype into said prototype?
Personally, he set himself up - he should have *never* put any verbage in about a "cruise missile" - it should have been "autonomous robotic jet plane project" or similar. Sure, that is all a cruise missle is - but ignorant (and I would daresay stupid in this world of instant information and learning) people see the words "cruise missle" and think "death" and "scary", whereas they see "autonomous robotic jet plane" and think "???".
We really need to seriously cull the herd...
With that said, what you need to do now is put in some kind of deadman's escrow the plans, etc for the missle, as well as for the pulsejet. This way - should you be "disappeared", these plans would be distributed far and wide (torrent files, p2p systems, freenet, usenet, etc) - spread the info.
I would try to immediately put up and have mirrored any and all ideas you have on the "building a pulsejet using parts from auto parts stores" or whatever it is called. No government can stop the flow of information - they can only stop the people. Look at things like DeCSS - enough people wanted it, now it is everywhere (and actually better stuff has superceeded it), the genie can't be stuffed back. You need to make your stuff the same.
I realize that you wanted to make a business out of this - and I sincerely wish you could. But in the here and now, you have two choices: let the secrets be silenced and/or die with you - or distribute them far and wide. Personally, I would rather give away something that I knew how to do, than to keep it in the hopes of profiting on it later - especially if the government has already shown me it doesn't care about my welfare by taking my house, etc - who says they won't take your life to take your ideas and knowledge from the world away?
Basically, all he was building was a scaled down version of a German V-1 "buzz bomb", with probably some GPS guidance hardware (whereas the V-1 was a fire in a straight line type device). The real technology was the pulse jet it was to be powered by - his design was supposed to way better than anything else available (a lot of thrust for the pulse jet) - not sure if it was going to be better than Mark Pauline/SRL's pulsejets as used on their hovercraft (which I got to see and help set up one for him here in Phoenix back in 2001 at a nighttime non-publicized "demo" for an SRL show that got canned by our lovely fire department) - those jets used a reedless resonant design (no moving parts) - I think that is where this guy was headed.
It would have been nice - because reedless pulsejets can be powerful (when tuned properly) and with no moving parts, they can run for as long as fuel is supplied. A perfect hobbiest jet engine (cheap and works well). He made mention of showing how to build a similar engine (can't remember now whether it was to be a reedless or reeded design, though) from auto exhaust parts and other parts from "Home Depot" type stores.
A pulsejet is something I have wanted to build for a while now after seeing my first SRL show - maybe one day I will get board, buy some pipe, break out my welder and experiment...
First off, the second amendment (source):
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
(my emphasis added)
Where in the text of the second amendment does it say "conventional firearms"? The truth is, it doesn't. The truth is, at the time the Bill of Rights was written up, people could and did own weapons as powerful as their own government's weapons, whether that was flintlock rifles, or cannons drawn behind horses or mounted to private ships. Why? Because often, these same people were the "well regulated militia"!
You may say "well, that is the role of the Army/Navy/Air Force today" - and you would be wrong again. At the time, it was seen that a government with a standing army was a dangerous government (to the people it governs). It was argued (I believe in the various Federalist Papers and elsewhere) that such a system should not be put into place. Alas, it was never codified in the Constitution that such a standing army not be erected.
You may tell yourself that the citizens of this country have no need for weapons that equal the government's, that the government would never turn its weapons and soldiers on its own people, that the soldiers would never fire upon their own countrymen - and you would be WRONG.
I am sure there are more recent examples, but Kent State is one U.S. example - and to invoke Godwin's Law, have we forgotten Nazi Germany?
What the hell is it going to take to open your eyes and see what our government has already done to our rights? Need I list them?
War on (some) Drugs (aka, Prohibition Redux)
DMCA
UCITA
Gun control laws
PATRIOT Act
Echelon
Carnivore
Driving Laws removing the Right to Travel
and on and on...
WAKE UP, PEOPLE (if it isn't already too late)!!!
Actually, automobiles have a law (can't remember what it is called - Grey-Mossen Act or something) that requires auto manufacturers to continue making replacement parts for a certain number of years after discontinuing a model. Also, in the automobile industry, recycling has always been a huge thing, which is why it is still possible to find (hard to, but possible) refurbished Model-T parts, among everything else. Auto recycling has been going on ever since there were autos being made in mass quantities, just because at first in order to get replacement parts you *had* to go to the dealer. Now, only certain stuff (but it seems like more every year) is a dealer part - a lot can be bought from auto parts stores/dealers. These parts are either reman (ie, recycled, cleaned, repaired, tested) or "new" (licensed or otherwise, not sure).
The legalese was one thing - I can understand the need for it, to limit overly broad and possibly ambiguous speech, which can make or break laws. But the rest was a complete mess. As I went through the laws, I started to realize that the law was really one large program (and it reads like code as well), where a set of inputs leads to a set of outputs. However, due to the large number or possible inputs, the large number of possible outputs, and the fact that legislators and lawyers are not programmers - it is all spaghetti code, filled with numerous goto's and other such nonsense. In fact, what I saw was a monolithic, top-down code structure, which was badly maintained.
I have since come to the conclusion that for law coding, our Constitution seems to be the best example of code we have - easily read, somewhat easy to interpret, stays fairly reliable over the years, easily maintainable with a declared maintenance interface, some parts even seem object oriented. The founding fathers were lawyers-cum-code hackers, of some ye olde sort.
Those that came afterward have lost that ability to code - and have left us citizens with an extreme mess.
However, one data point does not make a fair sample, so I turned to the laws of my own state - and found the same thing. I looked at surrounding states (NV, CO, NM, etc) - and found the same thing (some were better, some were worse - all were pretty bad, though).
Citizens in no way can know the law, because they are least versed of all to be able to read it. Even lawyers will tell you they don't know all of the law - there is too much of it, it is too convoluted, and some of it doesn't even matter anymore because it has been usurped by "case law" (hidden code, anyone?). Yet, the common citizen isn't allowed to claim "ignorance of the law" as a defence - even though it is a perfectly valid and logical defence given the current poor structure of our law systems. I doubt most judges know all of the laws for the jurisdiction they are in, and how they all interrelate - in fact, it would be crazy to think they could or should - which is why when you go into a courthouse or a lawyers office, you notice all of those books everywhere? Guess what those contain (no, it current fiction for the lobby): the current law, as well as TONS of case law, for reference. It is scattered everywhere in every nook and cranny on miles of bookshelves because there is so much of it and it is so convoluted.
What individual can ever hope to be able to understand and KNOW all of this? NONE - that's who. Yet ignorance of the law isn't a defense. Sound like a set up for the common man yet?
Yeah - forking of code in the proprietary world happens all the time, its just you rarely hear about it. Much of today's vertical market applications (large b2b apps) are all forks of each other. Employees, etc become disgruntled, steal code, leave, start new business (most of this happenning in the early 80's - today would be tougher, but not impossible) - you end up with all sorts of companies today...
Of course not - gloves can be really nice. The problem is (as always) - patents.
You see, part of the PG's technology was licensed from Jaron Lanier's company of the time, VPL. They made what could be considered "the ultimate" glove - the DataGlove.
It was made of lycra or spandex - very flexy and comfortable, like bicycle gloves. IIRC, there were no fingertips, so you could type with it on. The sensors were lightweight loops of fiber optic (which, when bent, would leak light out, the more light leaked, the more the finger was bent, and an optical sensor at the end of the loop could read this).
For position tracking, you typically used a magnetic tracker like a Polhemus system - which utilized a small sugar-cube sized position/orientation sensor (basically three orthogonal coils) that was stuck on the back of the hand of the glove.
Very lightweight, very comfortable, excellent response. Its only real drawback was calibration, as the lycra/spandex of the glove tended to shift as you used the glove, shifting the sensors away from the bend points. I also think it had problems with sensing finger abduction (side to side movement) - but all glove devices at the time (even today) have that issue.
So, the technology is there, but it is still wrapped up in patents. VPL no longer exists, I don't know who has the patents today (used to be Thompson/Phillips, but that may not be true anymore). A lot of physical 3D human interface technology is locked up in those patents - the DataGlove, some HMD stuff, various display software patents, the BodyGlove (full body tracking)...
One of these was the use of two mice. Yep, it's true. He discovered that using two mice (as well as footpedals - yet another thing that hasn't caught on) could be very beneficial to some tasks. There are probably a lot of tasks where such a system could be beneficial, but he couldn't explore them due to computer limits of the time (btw, consider those limits, then watch the video of the demonstration and be prepared to bow in AWE - these guys, guys like Engelbart, guys like Sutherland and his "Ultimate Display", aka "The Sword of Damocles" for 3D virtual environment display - described in 1965, and ultimately ready by January 1970!).
Sorry, your not the first to suggest it - as always, it seems like Doug was there first...
Why is this?
Well, they aren't priced for you! You see, a successful business doesn't offer just the lowest price on a product, but the lowest price on the product that the market will bear. Apparently, businesses (as a market) are *incredibly stupid*, and will bear the cost of multi-thousand dollar equipment that is probably produced for sub-$500 per unit (one can easily speculate as to the why of this, there are many possible, and probably interrelated, reasons).
Anyhow - you won't be spending this kind of money - so what about other options?
I have a good one: organize your disks and catalog them by a serial number in a database of some sort, and put the disks into Case Logic bindersheets in cheap binders. Store the binders (number the binders, too) on a bookshelf. Build the database so that you have some meta information, the cd number, and the binder number. Select on the meta, return the two numbers (maybe even a page number if you want), and you should be able to easily find the disk you want.
Not high-tech, not on-line, but fairly cheap, and easily expandable and resusable in the future.
The other thing to do: realize that most of your data is worthless. Yeah, MP3s, gamez, warez, pr0nz, whatever - it is worthless. If you want to justify the time/money/etc for a real cdrom/dvd jukebox or hard drive archive solution, then you need worthy data! This is one reason why businesses are willing to spend the money - because the data on those machines is their business. So start making data. Create movies, produce music, express artwork! You only have in front of you the most astounding machine mankind has EVER made!. That, and the rest of your life. Think of what Da Vinci made and left of his life - imagine if he had a computer!
What is stopping you?
Damn, I'm really really dating myself now...
It isn't as perfect as it could be, though. I was once a die-hard Amiga fan (still love the old beasts), there were things you could do with them that at the time were *impossible* to do on a PC, even one with a processor 4-5x faster, with soundcard and VGA - it just wasn't possible. It wasn't until VESA and other improvements that we really saw the PC take off. The Amiga had a very tightly integrated chipset, with each facet (CPU of course, but also sound and graphics) being completely independently programmable and not CPU bound - each worked on its own. There are similarities in PC architechture today (DSPs, DMA, coprocessors on various graphics and sound boards, etc) - but it isn't as seemless as what the Amiga had.
Part of the problem is the need for the PC to support so many different standards and interfaces, legacy and otherwise - that holds it back. Part of it is not having a common base (there wasn't much difference between one Amiga and another - at least within models - but even across the whole line it was pretty consistent).
Let me tell you, this isn't a fun thing - it is also known as "welder's blindness" - if you try to arc weld without proper dark shielding (or the arc light creeps under your sheild, for example, while wearing a white shirt), this is what happens. It feels like your eyeballs are on fire, massive pain. In severe cases, you won't be able to see for a couple of hours (in very severe cases, you will be permanently blinded). In almost all cases, your vision will be affected.
Perhaps your invention would be OK if they made the user's wear regular sunglasses with UV protection over the top of the contacts, plus sign a waiver/contract (might already be in most tanning salon contracts) - that would work. It would be either that, or full sclera contact lenses (such as used in the FX industry, which tend to be very uncomfortable to wear for any extended periods).
Other than that - great invention!
What hasn't happened yet is that humanity has not yet shocked itself with its own capacity for violence. A full scale nuclear exchange, with millions or billions dead, and more dying over the course of years, would probably do it (not that it would matter in the end, because at that point, it would be too late).
The most disturbing thing about all of this is that I can sit here and say this, already knowing what the likely outcome would be, and I can "feel" some of the possible suffering (ie, I can put myself into a "vision" of the aftermath and see the consequences). I am not a genious. Yet there are those out there who honestly think nuclear bombs are the answer for many questions - for some reason, they just don't understand the horror of these weapons, and more importantly, the horror of knowing it is mankind against mankind that came up with the need and uses of these weapons.
F'in apes slingin' poo, the lot of us...
We humans, for some strange reason, seem to think that if it is complex, then it must come from complex processes. Nanotechnology is no exception.
We seem to think that in order to make a nanoassembler, it must be some complex assemblage akin to an atomic level robot with AI intelligence or something (at the very least, a rod processing computer), when so much staring at us in the face tells us that such things simply aren't so.
Many of you may roll your eyes, but I honestly believe that Stephen Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science" will prove to be a pivotal book in the history of mankind. To the naysayers who cry "plagerism", I respond with "Read the damn book!" - if you had, you would realize that it seems like every other page the author is saying something about those which came before him: the author is in wonderment at the work done prior to his, and why the pieces weren't put together until he gathered it all up and tried it out.
In essence, the book boils down to a theory that is basically saying that all of the universe (matter, processes, life - everything) can be reduced down to a simple one dimensional cellular automata ruleset of 5 or 6 rules - that complexity arises from simple algorithms.
I believe that the fundamentals of this theory hold the keys to many of the "hard problems" we humans have been trying to implement. I believe a combination of NKS, network theory (as described in up-to-date detail in Albert- Laszlo Barabasi's book "Linked"), and emergence/complexity theory could help to solve many of the problems in nanotechnolgy and artificial intelligence we have been struggling with for so long.
This is the next step - figuring out how these three things define our world: in a way, it is a GUT for almost everything, the problem domain it could be applied to is vast. It won't be easy, but it is something that definitely needs more exploring and explorers.
You will be running into a classic problem of HMD design - you can have high-res, low field-of-view (FOV), or low-res, wide FOV - anything else either looks like ass, or costs megabucks (think LEEP optic sets). A large FOV promotes immersion (ie, the visual sense of being "there"), but comes at a cost of resolution - because to approximate a large FOV you need to magnify the video device. A smaller FOV has better resolution (pixels are more and close together), but leaves the user feeling like he is look through two toilet paper tubes. Large FOVs are most useful for immersive environments (walking about outside certainly qualifies), small FOV for detail work (reading or simulating a microscope, or microsurgical uses).
The resolution issue is one of the type of display being used. High-res used to require CRT displays, but LCDs have shrunk enough and are high enough res to eliminate this (mostly). Even so, not many miniature LCDs would be beyond the requirements of "legally blind", unless you are willing to spend the cash. So, for your application CRTs may be the only route, which are still expensive and bulky.
Another problem you will likely run into is that there aren't many vendors of this equipment. Small demand (the niche market is in simulation and data visualization - both markets with few players, but those players have big bucks - auto manufacturers, oil exploration, military - and so the hardware is priced accordingly). It used to be you could get ok/decent consumer style hardware, but none of it would meet the requirements you need (not even an old $800.00 Sony Glasstron, let alone a Forte VFX-1, a Phillips Scuba, or some I-Glasses). The consumer stuff just isn't being made any more (there isn't any interest, among other problems and issues). I haven't seen anything for the consumer market in a long time. Even so, the stuff that was available ranged from $500-1000.00.
Finally, you would need to mate it to some video cameras, and not just any video cameras, but high-resolution video cameras to match the HMD - these tend to be bulky and not too cheap (hi-res CCD security cameras are where you have to start) - and if you want a wide FOV, you need the lenses and res to accomodate that (big bucks for lenses and larger CCD imagers). Finally, you have to mate it all together - it just won't bolt together, you might need some custom case work.
A best, you are going to end up with an expensive prototype built with off-the-shelf components and being a pain to use: It will be bulky and heavy. It will likely work, but not for the people you intend to use it. Such systems have been built as test beds, since VR first made its true appearance in the early 1990's - likely, experiments were done with the early HMDs in the 1980's, as well (which were very bulky).
If you are serious about pursuing this, you will need to learn what you can about virtual reality, augmented reality, and wearable computer systems to get an idea of where to start. The technology is what you are interested in, and how to apply it to your application. However, there is nothing off-the-shelf for what you want - and what is available will likely be very expensive.
I encourage anyone and everyone who are interested in networks (of any sort, whether they be social, neurological, chemical, or electronic) and network theory to read this book.
Finally, if you want a real treat, in addition to the above book read Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science", and Kelly's "Out of Control" - I would also throw in a few good books on AI, but most notably Minsky's "The Society of Mind". Once you start reading about these things, and give some real thought to it all - you will start to see how a lot of this all ties together (not that you will have instant understanding, mind you, just that you will begin to see how it is all interelated, and how some interesting discoveries and/or inventions are yet to appear)...
I would say "no" - you can do this. That is the purpose of patents - they exist to help "further the arts" of invention. Regardless of whether the patented invention is in production or not.
The idea is this: say you build the invention from the patent in question - and while building it, you notice a way to increase the efficiency of the device by oh, 50% - by some method or process the original inventor nor others recognized prior to you. Perhaps you needed to build it in order to see this! You would then be able to patent this new addition (and/or maybe the entire thing), referencing the original patent.
Patents were created as the exchange an inventor could have - a monopoly on the production, sale, and/or licensing of the item in the patent, in exchange for showing how to build the device in a clear reproducible manner, so that others could build it after the patent monopoly expired, or in order to make the device better (and thus create new inventions).
Now, you couldn't sell the creation you had made, but I don't believe it is illegal to do so - consult a lawyer specializing in patent law if you are serious about this...
I expect to drive my Ranger into the ground (140,000 miles on it since 1994 when it was built, and still going strong - I have heard stories of Rangers going for 250,000+ miles - technically, my Bronco is a Ranger, so in theory this may be truth - of course, I don't think you can count an engine rebuild on that)
Yes, every car manufacturer does produce lemons, and yes, there are a lot of old Hondas and Datsuns being driven around everyday. But I don't have problems with either of my purchases. For now, I know that they both run. While some parts (ah, hell, who am I kidding - a lot of parts) are hard to find for the Bronco, they are still out there - and it is *very* easy to work on (just this evening fixed the steering shaft flex coupler in a couple of hours - lots of room to work in, easy to do).
Finally, and most importantly of all - they are both *paid for*. I don't make payments on them, I do most repair work on them myself (unless it is something I don't understand or don't have the tools for). I don't have to worry about paying interest on them. I don't think I will ever buy another "new" car - any cars from here on out will likely be used cars purchased with cash...
Personally, I think the best examples to download are "The Easy Way" (song 15) and "K'ai - Eyes swim" (song 16).
While no where near perfect, Flinger and the samples really show where things are heading - I have said it before, but this type stuff (perfected, of course), plus tech like machinima (once again, as it becomes better) are truely going to alter what we think of movies, acting, etc - virtual actors, virtual singers, virtual movies...
I recently purchased a 1979 Bronco 4x4 - it needs quite a bit of work on it, but nothing really serious (mainly seals between engine/tranny/transfer case). The engine was rebuilt before I bought it, and the rest of it is damn sound (rides better than my 94 Ranger). I have no clue how many miles it truely has on it - either 190,000 or 290,000 (the odometer reads 90,000 - so I know it has to be one of the two, because my Ranger already has 140,000). Unfortunately for me, I have had to put a good grand of money in it just to get it to pass emissions (it had *no* emission controls on it). But it has been worth it - it is only for off-roading anyhow (my Ranger is my everyday vehicle).
I knew its problems before I bought the truck, but when I went to the shop to get the first set of emission related stuff put on it (before I had a manual that showed everything - hard to find info on old stuff like this), they asked why I didn't bring it to them first (they do a check on everything for like $35.00 - keep that in mind cause most shops will do this checking for a fee, and can help you decide whether to buy the car). It really wouldn't have mattered to me - this Bronco was *exactly* what I wanted for a 4x4, so the money and time I have spent has been all worth it.
Good luck on your car...