Because of the VPL (Jaron Lanier) patents. Most of what makes a good dataglove is wrapped up in those patents. These patents aren't due to expire for a little while, so we are unlikely to see anything soon. As far as I know, VPL doesn't exist anymore - I can't remember what company holds the patents (one of those "patents aquired for portfolio" shuffle things).
First off, learn to weld, use a torch, and grind steel - I guarantee you will find a use for that someday. Maybe not robotics (depending on the size of your machines), but someday when you have a house, a car, etc - you will thank me.
See if there is an electronics junk yard in your area. Here in Phoenix, Arizona, we have an excellent one called "Apache Reclamation and Electronics". There is also a place here called "Equipment Exchange" - last time I was there they had a full size Unimate, hydraulic pump, end-effector, and control computer - just waiting for someone. Also, there is a place here called "EMC - Electronic Materials and Computers" that sometimes has good, smaller stuff (but mostly computer parts).
Learn to scavenge and dumpster dive - great parts just waiting there from old copiers and printers behind office buildings.
Auto parts suppliers are also great places to find parts - check out salvage yards as well.
Depending on the area, you might be able to root around in a metal scrap yard, though it can be extremely dangerous - still, some interesting gems can be found in such places, hopefully before they meet the shredder (which is an impressive machine on its own).
4) Homebrew switcher (described below) hooked to parallel port
5) Custom software (for whatever OS you use) to control the switcher.
Build the switcher by using 8 RF relays, or by using an analog multiplexer/switching chip. If you go the relay route, hook it up to the parallel port by tying each data output line via a 1K resistor to the base of an NPN switching transistor. Connect the emitter to ground (ie, negative on your relay power supply, and the ground line on the parallel port). Connect the collector to one side of the relay coil, the other side of the coil goes to your positive of the relay power supply. Connect a diode across the coil in the proper direction to keep the coil from spiking the transistor and killing it. Hook up the video to each relay, have the shielding of the video cables be VIDEO GROUND (do NOT hook this up to the other ground unless you want a crappy signal).
If you want to get fancy (and be safe), add a buffer chip (hex buffer or similar) between the inputs to the transistor drivers and the parallel port data lines. Also, you may want to add logic circuitry to allow only one relay to be latched at a time (a binary to decimal conversion IC would do here, then you would send the byte to represent the relay wanted to be switched, and one of "N" lines on the chip would be brought high). You only want one camera active at a time because the extra signals could cause problems with the other cameras as well as cause "ghosting" effects on the final output.
All in all, such a switcher would be easy and cheap to create, and could be mounted inside the PC if you wanted (on a card, or in a drive bay, for instance). I am thinking maybe $20.00 in parts.
BTW - don't go by the directions I gave above - I can't be certain my circuit is completely right, since I don't have such a thing "memorized" - search Google for parallel port interfacing before actually building the thing. I will take no responsibility for what I described should it fry your PC...
I read the article all the way through. Toward the end of the article, the reporter comments on wearing a Sony Glasstron hooked up to an artificial vision system that shows a 32x32 matrix of what he is "seeing" through a camera, to get an idea of how such a system would work in the future.
At first, he is shown a lower res image (lower than 32x32) - he then is upgraded to 32x32 and asked if he can see anything. He can see blobs of color and such - but then suddenly, he says things "resolve", and he can see things more clearly. He asked if they upped the res again, and they responded "No", that his brain was re-learning the "see" the new image.
Now, I don't know what kind of image processing software and such they were using (for all I know it may be some simple image mosaic tiling software like is used to mask peoples faces on TV), but I wonder how "sharp" or well defined the image he saw was? Further I wonder if you did look at one of those mosaic images on a TV in the right conditions (ie, through an HMD with no outside light penetrating like the reporter wore), if the res would "pop up", and you could see who the real person was?
Also, this effect seems real similar to what was noted a long time ago back when VR was just getting started (early 90's), in that when using a low-res HMD (320x200 or less pixels), you had to "learn" to "look past" the pixels, and the image would slowly become clearer.
So, in the area of VR HMD research, I am wondering if resolution really matters at all, or if there is a minimum resolution you can give the eyes, and let the brain fill in the rest? If this is really the case, then wide FOV HMDs, using lower-res displays and some training (so the brain can learn to "see" in one of these things) could possibily bring VR back in the limelight.
I wonder how that interface goes through the membrane (can't remember the name) that surrounds the brain - as well as how it heals. This membrane (from what I understand) has nerve endings to feel "pain" (the brain cannot feel pain), and also acts to protect the brain from infection as well. It lies between the brain and the inner surface of the skull, so I wonder if the socket pierces this, or if only the electrode wires do (which would be better, but not much).
But the way I read it seemed to indicate that the controls for the device were on the device itself. Is this true?
It doesn't make sense to make it this way, as an alternative would be easy to devise: Put optical (or even mechanical) switches on the inside of the "drive" hole, and add a small piezo beeper to the thing. When the user hits "play" on the tape deck, the device senses the speed of the capstan through the hole, and if it is slowly moving one way, it is playing, fast moving one direction is track advance, other direction is previous track. For each track advanced, beep, so that the user can guage when to stop the advancing to continue to listen to the tracks.
Not quite as convienient as random access controls, but this device doesn't have them anyhow, and it would utilise the controls already standard on the deck, which are designed from a usability standpoint (and many times for a vehicle, at least with OEM equipment, the controls are designed for ease-of-use while driving).
I read the article, and I have to agree - things do seem bleak.
I find it difficult to explain to family and friends why I don't have a DVD player or movies. They look at me like I am a wierd person for not buying into it. It isn't that I don't like DVDs - the tech is great. But I despise supporting what I feel is an unethical power structure built on top of unconstitutional law (the DMCA, and others).
I wonder if some day I will walk into a store and not be able to find blank video tapes (not because recordable DVD or whatever has replaced them, but because recording becomes illegal)...
The issue at hand isn't about the distribution of copyrighted IP - it is about the distribution of copyrighted IP that Hollywood doesn't control.
This is what has Hollywood running scared, it is what has caused them to buy the draconian and illegal laws they love so much.
The only thing that keeps me going is that some small part of me believes that they are too late - that the coin has been tossed, and it has landed in the public's favor. Consider:
1) A complete, open, end-to-end, digital distribution channel - the Internet/P2P - currently exists.
2) Digital creation tools - various software (some expensive, most cheap, some even Free!) to allow video editing and creation on the desktop exist.
3) The ability to create complete synthetic, scriptable "actors" using software, is a reality. Think machinema display/rendering systems, 3D editing tools, even synthetic voice rendering systems - much of this stuff is Free or cheap.
4) Digital cinema's coupled with independent distibution via #1 - also keep in mind digital distribution to players on the user's computer (and before you bring up the tired saw about watching video on a computer monitor, realise that there are other ways to view the output - hell, if the market is there, the products will be built for it).
In other words, quality desktop-produced video is what scares Hollywood. It is bound to happen. They are trying to stand in the way, but in the end, it won't matter. The internet is the distribution media, the computer will become (is?) the display engine.
The TV tuner and television? So what?
Unless they somehow get a (albeit unconstitutional, mind you) law passed that says only Hollywood can make, sell and distribute videos and movies...
I wouldn't put it past them to try - but such a law would be a blatent First Amendment violation - and it wouldn't stop those outside America from creating these digital movies.
I suppose they could try to close off the internet to the outside world - but I would hope the People would have woken up by then and realised just what kind of government/system they are under...
What, exactly, is the science and process behind making good and wholesome gravy?
Seriously, Alton - my wife yesterday, when I mentioned that this was going to be an "Ask/." interview, told me that she wanted to pay YOU $1000.00 (US) to come over to our house to teach her how to make gravy. I am almost ready to front that amount, too.
It seems like every time we have tried to make gravy, it either never thickens, or we get paste. It seems like a simple thing to do - leave some pan drippings (and the grungy gunk too - flavor bits!), add a tiny bit of flour, mix and brown to create a nice roue (or however that is spelled), then add some milk, and perhaps a little more flour to thicken (salt, pepper, and spicing to taste).
How many of you have read the "reports" regarding supposed cattle mutilations coupled with UFOs, and how the incisions/cuts on the carcesses seem to be made with surgical precision, but no loss of blood at the incision (ie, the cuts seem to have been cauterized)?
I know there is at least one account I have read of that described the "aliens" seen using a laser like device, about one foot long...
When I think funky, I think "non-anthromorphic" - this definitely doesn't fit that description, though it does seem to be a cool (if a bit pricy) item (especially since there is a site describing how to build those same actuators cheaply).
No, when I think "funky robot hand" - I always think of that extremely dextrous, three-fingered robot hand that was shown way back in the 1980's on such shows like "That's Incredible" and "Beyond 2000" - I can't find any pictures online of it, though I think it was one of the incarnations of the Utah/MIT Dextrous Hand Master system (I found plenty on the system, but they don't have the same hand I remember). One thing I remember that was most funky about the hand was that the fingers could flex inward and outward, to hold and manipulate large ring type pieces. Each finger had base abduction, and multiple flexing movement - it seemed to be driven by steppers with flexible cables. They had a demo (which seemed staged, and the hand without feedback sensors at the time) showing it handling and manipulating various items - very impressive, fluid, and beautiful to watch in action.
Does anyone here know of what I am talking about - and can anyone find images? I admit I didn't do a major exhaustive Google search - only delved a few pages in the results...
When I moved into my new house I had some problems with the box I brought from the old place I lived. The cable tech came out and replaced it with a newer box, and on the setup screens I noticed that it had more RAM than the old box (I have two boxes, only one was replaced, so I could compare old to new). Flipping through the guide was faster, so was changing channels.
You might see if you can upgrade the box - you will probably have to take it down to one of the cable bill payment centers to do this, and might be charged a fee as well (on a side note, I visited one of these places once to trade in my old Lancity cable modem for a Motorola Surfboard - I noticed the office was only a tiny portion of the entire building, and the fire exit map seemed to indicate that the building was actually one of the main "head-end" nodes for the fiber ring of the system - huge).
Yes, it does crash from time to time - and on occasion it seems to crash real hard. But there is one thing I like about it:
XUL/XPCOM
Using XUL and XPCOM, plus a bit of Javascript (which has been enhanced as well), and some back-end server glue logic - one can relatively easily create cross platform applications that look and work the same on any platform Mozilla is on.
Seriously - it is possible to use simple XUL to create the UI, open it up in Mozilla and it pops open in a separate window (or you can fire up Mozilla to simply show the XUL, instead of the whole browser) - minimize Mozilla, and the app looks like a regular application - with the right skin you couldn't tell it WASN'T a native app for the system.
But the real power comes when you want to use another platform the browser is on - the app looks and acts the same!
All of this is handled with simple XUL text files. XUL is derived from XML - simple tags, etc to design GUIs - if you can write HTML, you can create full GUIs, and with XPCOM and Javascript - link them to back-end servers for data manipulation. Three-tier application programming is simple, and cross-platform.
If you browse around the Mozilla site, you can find XUL applications that do all kinds of things - the most ambitious (that I can tell is mostly XUL/XPCOM, at least) is an RPG engine/game system.
True, Java already allows you to do most of this - however, the creation of the GUI (using Swing) is one of the more difficult parts, unless you use a tool like Forte to create the front end - and you still have to worry and work the rest of the layers (middle and DB comm, which while not too difficult, still can be a minor pain). The problem with Forte is it is so resource hungry - with XUL all you need is Mozilla (to see how it looks) and a text editor (to create the XUL). A lot of the development project are concentrating on using Java servlets on the back-end for the communication, business-logic, and DB handling (with JDBC) - Mozilla, XUL, and XPCOM on the front end for GUI.
This is a real strength - I am hoping it will lead to interesting developments...
If you are into "conspiracy theories"...
on
Voices in Your Head
·
· Score: 2
Google on "Voice to Skull" technology - and be afraid...
You seem to have a handle on this, so I want to ask:
I have been investigating the use of XUL/XPCOM/Javascript for the creation of a user application with a database backend (after "discovering" how XUL works in Moz). However, I have ran into a bit of a stumbling block.
The application I am wanting to develop will replace a current 2-tier application based on VB/Access. What I wanted to do was create a front-end using XUL/Javascript to access (initially, but would be migrated to PostgreSQL later) the MS Access DB via ODBC - however, I haven't been able to find a way to do that which doesn't flag security (I even tried a convoluted method of creating a java applet that referenced a java application class that used JDBC to connect, but when it tried it throws an access violation error).
I understand the reasons this is happening (sandbox model and all) - and I ran across many people seeing this same problem. The only solution I could think of was essentially going toward a CGI-style 3-tier model - having the Javascript communicate to the backend scripts (most of the examples used Java servelets, but I imagine the same could be done using CGI) via HTTP, which would then pass the info back via the same route which the Javascript would present back to the user.
Is this truely the only way? For a long term solution, realize that this is what I want to do, but the initial conversion I am doing is really for a demo (to show the PHB's what can be done), and I don't really want to go through the whole trouble of trying to set up a backend server for a demo which might not even get the project the go-ahead (plus the attendent task of getting the permission to do it anyhow).
Or does this system need to be a "walk up" style system, for use at "any" time?
If not, you might think about using a standard touch screen system, then building (or buying, if they exist - probably don't) pressure sensitive "gloves". For the sensors (at the finger tips), buy thin ribbon plastic tubing (multiple tubes joined in a ribbon - used in many continuous ink kits for ink-jet printers, so you should be able to buy it somewhere by itself), spread one end and seal the ends of each tube, apply gentle heat and blow "bubbles" at the end of each tube (this may be difficult, but not impossible). Then, attach these bubbles to the fingertips of the gloves, and use a T-connector on the other end of the cable to hook the tubing to a very low pressure air supply and the other side of the T-connector to a air-pressure transducer. Hook the transducers up to a PIC or Stamp (or other ADC system) to measure the pressure change (the positive pressure keeps the bubbles inflated at all times, and reinflates them after being depressed - a closed system might work too, with no active pressurisation - you might have to experiment here).
Other cool things to do with the gloves:
1. Touch gestures (like a chorded keyboard)
2. Use water instead of air, then warm or cool the water with a peltier to provide feedback.
3. Pulse the pressure for other feedback needs.
What I find really interesting about this story (as well as the assertations I have read of it being illegal for an American to own lunar surface artifacts) is the high value placed on these things.
While I understand that the properties of lunar dust and rocks is unique, it is still just "dirt". Nothing really that special. What makes these things so valuable isn't their properties, or the rarity - but rather the amount of money and time it took to go there and get them, and bring them back.
The only way these items could ever drop in value would be if travel to the moon became more routine, especially if artifacts were brought back. However, I wonder if certain interests want to prevent this from happenning.
Here we are, the world, a couple of years into a new millenium, and the greatest acheivement ever in mankind's history happened 30 years ago, and has never been repeated. Instead, we wage war on each other, stifle each other's rights, are ground up and spit out, and if we are lucky, we die leaving a little something behind for our children.
Recently at my work a demo of a pretty cool projector was given (it was small, lightweight - about the size of a book, and had great res - too bad I didn't find out who made it, but I couldn't afford one anyhow). While the projector was something to behold, the screen it was being projected on was even better.
Imagine a tube with one side slightly "flattened" - this side had two "feet" that rotated perpendicular to tube, so that the tube was well supported. You sat the tube on the feet, flat with the floor, pull the handle on top and the screen unrolled - let go, and it just sat there, seemingly by magic. Grab the handle again, pull up slightly, then let it slide in the tube, fold the feet, and walk away.
It was a great presentation system, all in all - the screen was pretty cheap (for what it did) - $300.00 for 60 inch diagonal.
Now, imagine if instead of it being a simple projection screem, it was instead really THE SCREEN - maybe the video jack on the end or something. Can you say swwweeeetttt?
Yes, that engine is the same type. It really isn't a new design - I have an old Popular Mechanix from the 1950's with such a free-piston engine featured prominently on the cover.
This is the kind of thinking that we need - while such an engine isn't new or revolutionary, it does have few moving parts, which can equal greater efficiency - and isn't that what this is all about?
But it isn't really anything "new" or "revolutionary". Fuel cells running on hydrogen or hydrocarbons? Which power electric motors? Or hybrids using conventional engines, doing the same?
Bah!
What would I like to see succeed?
How about the McMaster Motor? Two moving parts, light weight, innovative fuel source (but could be run off of steam in a pinch!), simple design - similar to a Nutating Disk Displacement Meter.
Or, how about the Ball Piston Engine? An interesting design that looks more like a ball bearing than an engine. The nice thing about the engine is the "standard" parts - ie, all the cylinders look the same and operate the same, parts can be swapped almost at will. I would bet one of these could be prototyped using parts from Home Depot.
Yet another twist on engines, The Henry Engine is a rotary steam engine, not a turbine.
These are the kind of mechanics I want to see in a future car. Something different, maybe based on older tech (I am sure all of these examples I have given are based on older principles/ideas).
Another kind of engine, one that I think would actually make for a better and lighter hybrid vehicle: the free-piston engine. Basically this engine consists of a piston that is fired on both side (alternatingly), with the shaft that extends through the piston driving linear hydraulic pumps, with the hydraulic fluid being conveyed in the normal manner to power hydraulic motors which drive the wheels. I would suggest that instead of the piston driving pumps (more indirection=more friction=more heat=wasted energy), make the piston a magnet of sorts, wrap a coil around the cylinder (or make the cylinder be the coil), and extract the electricity directly as the piston is bounced back and forth between the ends. I would think such a system could be made to use the fuel in a super-efficient fashion (not perfect, but better than a standard piston engine). I can think of a number of design issues (ie, how to make a piston be a magnet with the heat of combustion working at odds, among others) - but these can be worked out.
Think about how (relatively) simple a free-piston engine is - a tube, a piston inside the tube, and inlet/outlet ports (and controlling valves) plus spark plugs at the ends. I would think a good spud-gun builder could build a prototype (that would run for a while, then melt from the heat) from ABS/PVC pipe, sprinkler valves, etc from Home Depot - make the piston from a chunk of wood with steel end plates, magnets set in holes around the edge, wrap wire around the middle. Control the solenoid valves and plugs with reed magnet switches, maybe some relays (or Hall Effect sensors) - hmm, if I had the time I would do it myself!
Someone should try to build this - I guarantee you will get/.'ed in seconds if you do (heck, it will be a better story than another one about case mods)...
I can see the mess this brings up when one uses a software tool to "automagically" create clothing or other accessories for a mesh (like a tablecloth for a table). It should be a simple matter - it isn't the mesh, it is something separate from the mesh. But look at it from the company's POV:
Say instead of a "suit of clothes", you wanted to instead make a "bodysuit" (shades of "Silence of the Lambs" here) - that is only one step removed from being the mesh, in a way. What is to stop you from "deriving" a +/- 1 voxel position mesh from the original mesh? Nothing.
This is what they are afraid of - in a way, this kind of legal issue is merely the precursor to what will surround nano-assembly systems, if they should come about. It is actually a closer precursor to what will happen in the Rapid Prototype Development community. Right now it is "virtual" - but soon it will bleed into the real.
It is just another example of bits eliminating scarcity, which totally breaks the system of capitalism. A copy is a copy is a copy - but your copy works the same as mine, and you haven't lost anything by me making a copy (except for an ephemeral "potential sale"). Capitalism requires that the control of means of production be separate from the control by the consumers of the goods produced. When the consumers directly control (as opposed to the indirect manner of the so-called "free market forces") the means of production, the system of capitalism breaks.
As production of goods become more dependent on digital design and "bits", this will become more and more apparent. When the goods are the "bits" (ie, nano-created materials, medicines, food, etc), all hell will probably break loose: Capitalists cannot "afford" to lose the control over scarcity, otherwise wealth becomes meaningless (when everyone is wealthy, who is wealthier?)...
People here who are "bashing" this don't seem to understand why this technology is being used.
VR systems (both immersive HMD systems as well as "CAVE" type displays) are good for "walkthroughs", "walkarounds", even "testing" (such as for ergonomic placement of controls, or viewing angles from seats, etc) - but neither technology (as of yet) allows for "real size" views.
Most VR systems do NOT represent the objects in a one-to-one unit basis - most of the time the virtual world is scaled or distorted in some manner. This is normally because of the viewing system used - with an HMD, if the objects were represented at real scale and perspective, things would look slightly odd (especially in the higher-res, low FOV HMDs). CAVEs tend to distort things as well to fit the projection screens and minimize the distortions at the wall joining edges. Lower-res, high FOV HMDs can't be used, because resolution is lost, and thus accuracy for measurement. HMDs do not allow for real rulers, only virtual ones. CAVEs allow for real rulers, but if the image is slightly distorted, it is useless for engineers. Another thing against HMDs and CAVEs is "simulator sickness"...
I am not saying that either technology is completely useless - there are aspects that make both appealing for engineering use, but prototype display for design reconfiguration probably isn't one of them. I also think that the accuracy could be preserved, but it would be expensive. I think at some point the tech will come down in price to allow this.
However, this hologram technology allows for the fast "duplication" of a CAD/CAM drawing (which may or may not be represented in real size on a monitor) into a medium that allows the engineers (and non-engineers!) to view at real size, as well as (possibly) take real size measurements using real measuring equipment. The hologram in this case is a real size volumetric image of a virtual design. It is probably the fastest method of rapid prototyping for large scale objects that we will have for a while.
Build your own optical data link from common elementary parts - Ronja is an Open-Hardware optical datalink that connects two PC's point-to-point. Ronja's design is licensed under the GNU Public License: you get all the necessary documentation and construction guides free. The construction costs are minimal; it's probably the cheapest wireless system ever. The operation is very reliable and immune to interference.
Take note, people - when the USA Patriot Act enforcers of protocol come, laser may be the only way to comm...
Ok, the O2 sensor may be the most expensive (I think it uses some kind of ionization with the heater, the exhaust, and a palladium or platinum coating) - it may also be a bit more complicated, but I am not sure - it may only emit a varying voltage, directly, whereas the MAP sensor takes input from a stress gauge, then passes it through that custom IC (I am not sure why this is, but that is what I saw when I openned the old MAP sensor). Of course, this may just be for that model of MAP sensor - for others it might be less contained or complicated...
To be honest, I never checked it out that far, and it was obvious from the checking I did (with a multimeter) that it had a "dead" spot (can't remember if it was an open or short).
You also bring up good points about the longevity and environment it was in. However, I still believe that Ford (it was an F-150) was selling them at a HUGE markup. The thing was made of plastic, with a plastic inner "knob" that the throttle shaft passed through to engage it. It was probably made pretty sturdy for the environment, but I doubt it cost much to manufacture - certainly not anywhere close to $50.00...
Slashdot Mirror
Because of the VPL (Jaron Lanier) patents. Most of what makes a good dataglove is wrapped up in those patents. These patents aren't due to expire for a little while, so we are unlikely to see anything soon. As far as I know, VPL doesn't exist anymore - I can't remember what company holds the patents (one of those "patents aquired for portfolio" shuffle things).
See if there is an electronics junk yard in your area. Here in Phoenix, Arizona, we have an excellent one called "Apache Reclamation and Electronics". There is also a place here called "Equipment Exchange" - last time I was there they had a full size Unimate, hydraulic pump, end-effector, and control computer - just waiting for someone. Also, there is a place here called "EMC - Electronic Materials and Computers" that sometimes has good, smaller stuff (but mostly computer parts).
Learn to scavenge and dumpster dive - great parts just waiting there from old copiers and printers behind office buildings.
Auto parts suppliers are also great places to find parts - check out salvage yards as well.
Depending on the area, you might be able to root around in a metal scrap yard, though it can be extremely dangerous - still, some interesting gems can be found in such places, hopefully before they meet the shredder (which is an impressive machine on its own).
Good luck!
2) 8 cheap video cameras
3) PC with parallel printer port
4) Homebrew switcher (described below) hooked to parallel port
5) Custom software (for whatever OS you use) to control the switcher.
Build the switcher by using 8 RF relays, or by using an analog multiplexer/switching chip. If you go the relay route, hook it up to the parallel port by tying each data output line via a 1K resistor to the base of an NPN switching transistor. Connect the emitter to ground (ie, negative on your relay power supply, and the ground line on the parallel port). Connect the collector to one side of the relay coil, the other side of the coil goes to your positive of the relay power supply. Connect a diode across the coil in the proper direction to keep the coil from spiking the transistor and killing it. Hook up the video to each relay, have the shielding of the video cables be VIDEO GROUND (do NOT hook this up to the other ground unless you want a crappy signal).
If you want to get fancy (and be safe), add a buffer chip (hex buffer or similar) between the inputs to the transistor drivers and the parallel port data lines. Also, you may want to add logic circuitry to allow only one relay to be latched at a time (a binary to decimal conversion IC would do here, then you would send the byte to represent the relay wanted to be switched, and one of "N" lines on the chip would be brought high). You only want one camera active at a time because the extra signals could cause problems with the other cameras as well as cause "ghosting" effects on the final output.
All in all, such a switcher would be easy and cheap to create, and could be mounted inside the PC if you wanted (on a card, or in a drive bay, for instance). I am thinking maybe $20.00 in parts.
BTW - don't go by the directions I gave above - I can't be certain my circuit is completely right, since I don't have such a thing "memorized" - search Google for parallel port interfacing before actually building the thing. I will take no responsibility for what I described should it fry your PC...
At first, he is shown a lower res image (lower than 32x32) - he then is upgraded to 32x32 and asked if he can see anything. He can see blobs of color and such - but then suddenly, he says things "resolve", and he can see things more clearly. He asked if they upped the res again, and they responded "No", that his brain was re-learning the "see" the new image.
Now, I don't know what kind of image processing software and such they were using (for all I know it may be some simple image mosaic tiling software like is used to mask peoples faces on TV), but I wonder how "sharp" or well defined the image he saw was? Further I wonder if you did look at one of those mosaic images on a TV in the right conditions (ie, through an HMD with no outside light penetrating like the reporter wore), if the res would "pop up", and you could see who the real person was?
Also, this effect seems real similar to what was noted a long time ago back when VR was just getting started (early 90's), in that when using a low-res HMD (320x200 or less pixels), you had to "learn" to "look past" the pixels, and the image would slowly become clearer.
So, in the area of VR HMD research, I am wondering if resolution really matters at all, or if there is a minimum resolution you can give the eyes, and let the brain fill in the rest? If this is really the case, then wide FOV HMDs, using lower-res displays and some training (so the brain can learn to "see" in one of these things) could possibily bring VR back in the limelight.
Anybody have any thoughts or comments on this?
I wonder how that interface goes through the membrane (can't remember the name) that surrounds the brain - as well as how it heals. This membrane (from what I understand) has nerve endings to feel "pain" (the brain cannot feel pain), and also acts to protect the brain from infection as well. It lies between the brain and the inner surface of the skull, so I wonder if the socket pierces this, or if only the electrode wires do (which would be better, but not much).
It doesn't make sense to make it this way, as an alternative would be easy to devise: Put optical (or even mechanical) switches on the inside of the "drive" hole, and add a small piezo beeper to the thing. When the user hits "play" on the tape deck, the device senses the speed of the capstan through the hole, and if it is slowly moving one way, it is playing, fast moving one direction is track advance, other direction is previous track. For each track advanced, beep, so that the user can guage when to stop the advancing to continue to listen to the tracks.
Not quite as convienient as random access controls, but this device doesn't have them anyhow, and it would utilise the controls already standard on the deck, which are designed from a usability standpoint (and many times for a vehicle, at least with OEM equipment, the controls are designed for ease-of-use while driving).
I find it difficult to explain to family and friends why I don't have a DVD player or movies. They look at me like I am a wierd person for not buying into it. It isn't that I don't like DVDs - the tech is great. But I despise supporting what I feel is an unethical power structure built on top of unconstitutional law (the DMCA, and others).
I wonder if some day I will walk into a store and not be able to find blank video tapes (not because recordable DVD or whatever has replaced them, but because recording becomes illegal)...
The issue at hand isn't about the distribution of copyrighted IP - it is about the distribution of copyrighted IP that Hollywood doesn't control.
This is what has Hollywood running scared, it is what has caused them to buy the draconian and illegal laws they love so much.
The only thing that keeps me going is that some small part of me believes that they are too late - that the coin has been tossed, and it has landed in the public's favor. Consider:
1) A complete, open, end-to-end, digital distribution channel - the Internet/P2P - currently exists.
2) Digital creation tools - various software (some expensive, most cheap, some even Free!) to allow video editing and creation on the desktop exist.
3) The ability to create complete synthetic, scriptable "actors" using software, is a reality. Think machinema display/rendering systems, 3D editing tools, even synthetic voice rendering systems - much of this stuff is Free or cheap.
4) Digital cinema's coupled with independent distibution via #1 - also keep in mind digital distribution to players on the user's computer (and before you bring up the tired saw about watching video on a computer monitor, realise that there are other ways to view the output - hell, if the market is there, the products will be built for it).
In other words, quality desktop-produced video is what scares Hollywood. It is bound to happen. They are trying to stand in the way, but in the end, it won't matter. The internet is the distribution media, the computer will become (is?) the display engine.
The TV tuner and television? So what?
Unless they somehow get a (albeit unconstitutional, mind you) law passed that says only Hollywood can make, sell and distribute videos and movies...
I wouldn't put it past them to try - but such a law would be a blatent First Amendment violation - and it wouldn't stop those outside America from creating these digital movies.
I suppose they could try to close off the internet to the outside world - but I would hope the People would have woken up by then and realised just what kind of government/system they are under...
What, exactly, is the science and process behind making good and wholesome gravy?
Seriously, Alton - my wife yesterday, when I mentioned that this was going to be an "Ask /." interview, told me that she wanted to pay YOU $1000.00 (US) to come over to our house to teach her how to make gravy. I am almost ready to front that amount, too.
It seems like every time we have tried to make gravy, it either never thickens, or we get paste. It seems like a simple thing to do - leave some pan drippings (and the grungy gunk too - flavor bits!), add a tiny bit of flour, mix and brown to create a nice roue (or however that is spelled), then add some milk, and perhaps a little more flour to thicken (salt, pepper, and spicing to taste).
I think we managed ONCE to create a real gravy.
So Alton, my question is:
HOW DO YOU MAKE GRAVY???!!!
How many of you have read the "reports" regarding supposed cattle mutilations coupled with UFOs, and how the incisions/cuts on the carcesses seem to be made with surgical precision, but no loss of blood at the incision (ie, the cuts seem to have been cauterized)?
I know there is at least one account I have read of that described the "aliens" seen using a laser like device, about one foot long...
No, when I think "funky robot hand" - I always think of that extremely dextrous, three-fingered robot hand that was shown way back in the 1980's on such shows like "That's Incredible" and "Beyond 2000" - I can't find any pictures online of it, though I think it was one of the incarnations of the Utah/MIT Dextrous Hand Master system (I found plenty on the system, but they don't have the same hand I remember). One thing I remember that was most funky about the hand was that the fingers could flex inward and outward, to hold and manipulate large ring type pieces. Each finger had base abduction, and multiple flexing movement - it seemed to be driven by steppers with flexible cables. They had a demo (which seemed staged, and the hand without feedback sensors at the time) showing it handling and manipulating various items - very impressive, fluid, and beautiful to watch in action.
Does anyone here know of what I am talking about - and can anyone find images? I admit I didn't do a major exhaustive Google search - only delved a few pages in the results...
You might see if you can upgrade the box - you will probably have to take it down to one of the cable bill payment centers to do this, and might be charged a fee as well (on a side note, I visited one of these places once to trade in my old Lancity cable modem for a Motorola Surfboard - I noticed the office was only a tiny portion of the entire building, and the fire exit map seemed to indicate that the building was actually one of the main "head-end" nodes for the fiber ring of the system - huge).
XUL/XPCOM
Using XUL and XPCOM, plus a bit of Javascript (which has been enhanced as well), and some back-end server glue logic - one can relatively easily create cross platform applications that look and work the same on any platform Mozilla is on.
Seriously - it is possible to use simple XUL to create the UI, open it up in Mozilla and it pops open in a separate window (or you can fire up Mozilla to simply show the XUL, instead of the whole browser) - minimize Mozilla, and the app looks like a regular application - with the right skin you couldn't tell it WASN'T a native app for the system.
But the real power comes when you want to use another platform the browser is on - the app looks and acts the same!
All of this is handled with simple XUL text files. XUL is derived from XML - simple tags, etc to design GUIs - if you can write HTML, you can create full GUIs, and with XPCOM and Javascript - link them to back-end servers for data manipulation. Three-tier application programming is simple, and cross-platform.
If you browse around the Mozilla site, you can find XUL applications that do all kinds of things - the most ambitious (that I can tell is mostly XUL/XPCOM, at least) is an RPG engine/game system.
True, Java already allows you to do most of this - however, the creation of the GUI (using Swing) is one of the more difficult parts, unless you use a tool like Forte to create the front end - and you still have to worry and work the rest of the layers (middle and DB comm, which while not too difficult, still can be a minor pain). The problem with Forte is it is so resource hungry - with XUL all you need is Mozilla (to see how it looks) and a text editor (to create the XUL). A lot of the development project are concentrating on using Java servlets on the back-end for the communication, business-logic, and DB handling (with JDBC) - Mozilla, XUL, and XPCOM on the front end for GUI.
This is a real strength - I am hoping it will lead to interesting developments...
Google on "Voice to Skull" technology - and be afraid...
I have been investigating the use of XUL/XPCOM/Javascript for the creation of a user application with a database backend (after "discovering" how XUL works in Moz). However, I have ran into a bit of a stumbling block.
The application I am wanting to develop will replace a current 2-tier application based on VB/Access. What I wanted to do was create a front-end using XUL/Javascript to access (initially, but would be migrated to PostgreSQL later) the MS Access DB via ODBC - however, I haven't been able to find a way to do that which doesn't flag security (I even tried a convoluted method of creating a java applet that referenced a java application class that used JDBC to connect, but when it tried it throws an access violation error).
I understand the reasons this is happening (sandbox model and all) - and I ran across many people seeing this same problem. The only solution I could think of was essentially going toward a CGI-style 3-tier model - having the Javascript communicate to the backend scripts (most of the examples used Java servelets, but I imagine the same could be done using CGI) via HTTP, which would then pass the info back via the same route which the Javascript would present back to the user.
Is this truely the only way? For a long term solution, realize that this is what I want to do, but the initial conversion I am doing is really for a demo (to show the PHB's what can be done), and I don't really want to go through the whole trouble of trying to set up a backend server for a demo which might not even get the project the go-ahead (plus the attendent task of getting the permission to do it anyhow).
Thank you for any response you can give...
Even so, as this page shows, walking machines and designs have been around for a long while, even "ride on" models.
If not, you might think about using a standard touch screen system, then building (or buying, if they exist - probably don't) pressure sensitive "gloves". For the sensors (at the finger tips), buy thin ribbon plastic tubing (multiple tubes joined in a ribbon - used in many continuous ink kits for ink-jet printers, so you should be able to buy it somewhere by itself), spread one end and seal the ends of each tube, apply gentle heat and blow "bubbles" at the end of each tube (this may be difficult, but not impossible). Then, attach these bubbles to the fingertips of the gloves, and use a T-connector on the other end of the cable to hook the tubing to a very low pressure air supply and the other side of the T-connector to a air-pressure transducer. Hook the transducers up to a PIC or Stamp (or other ADC system) to measure the pressure change (the positive pressure keeps the bubbles inflated at all times, and reinflates them after being depressed - a closed system might work too, with no active pressurisation - you might have to experiment here).
Other cool things to do with the gloves:
1. Touch gestures (like a chorded keyboard)
2. Use water instead of air, then warm or cool the water with a peltier to provide feedback.
3. Pulse the pressure for other feedback needs.
Hope this helps...
While I understand that the properties of lunar dust and rocks is unique, it is still just "dirt". Nothing really that special. What makes these things so valuable isn't their properties, or the rarity - but rather the amount of money and time it took to go there and get them, and bring them back.
The only way these items could ever drop in value would be if travel to the moon became more routine, especially if artifacts were brought back. However, I wonder if certain interests want to prevent this from happenning.
Here we are, the world, a couple of years into a new millenium, and the greatest acheivement ever in mankind's history happened 30 years ago, and has never been repeated. Instead, we wage war on each other, stifle each other's rights, are ground up and spit out, and if we are lucky, we die leaving a little something behind for our children.
So fucking pathetic.
Recently at my work a demo of a pretty cool projector was given (it was small, lightweight - about the size of a book, and had great res - too bad I didn't find out who made it, but I couldn't afford one anyhow). While the projector was something to behold, the screen it was being projected on was even better.
Imagine a tube with one side slightly "flattened" - this side had two "feet" that rotated perpendicular to tube, so that the tube was well supported. You sat the tube on the feet, flat with the floor, pull the handle on top and the screen unrolled - let go, and it just sat there, seemingly by magic. Grab the handle again, pull up slightly, then let it slide in the tube, fold the feet, and walk away.
It was a great presentation system, all in all - the screen was pretty cheap (for what it did) - $300.00 for 60 inch diagonal.
Now, imagine if instead of it being a simple projection screem, it was instead really THE SCREEN - maybe the video jack on the end or something. Can you say swwweeeetttt?
Yes, that engine is the same type. It really isn't a new design - I have an old Popular Mechanix from the 1950's with such a free-piston engine featured prominently on the cover.
This is the kind of thinking that we need - while such an engine isn't new or revolutionary, it does have few moving parts, which can equal greater efficiency - and isn't that what this is all about?
Bah!
What would I like to see succeed?
How about the McMaster Motor? Two moving parts, light weight, innovative fuel source (but could be run off of steam in a pinch!), simple design - similar to a
Nutating Disk Displacement Meter.
Or, how about the Ball Piston Engine? An interesting design that looks more like a ball bearing than an engine. The nice thing about the engine is the "standard" parts - ie, all the cylinders look the same and operate the same, parts can be swapped almost at will. I would bet one of these could be prototyped using parts from Home Depot.
Yet another twist on engines, The Henry Engine is a rotary steam engine, not a turbine.
These are the kind of mechanics I want to see in a future car. Something different, maybe based on older tech (I am sure all of these examples I have given are based on older principles/ideas).
Another kind of engine, one that I think would actually make for a better and lighter hybrid vehicle: the free-piston engine. Basically this engine consists of a piston that is fired on both side (alternatingly), with the shaft that extends through the piston driving linear hydraulic pumps, with the hydraulic fluid being conveyed in the normal manner to power hydraulic motors which drive the wheels. I would suggest that instead of the piston driving pumps (more indirection=more friction=more heat=wasted energy), make the piston a magnet of sorts, wrap a coil around the cylinder (or make the cylinder be the coil), and extract the electricity directly as the piston is bounced back and forth between the ends. I would think such a system could be made to use the fuel in a super-efficient fashion (not perfect, but better than a standard piston engine). I can think of a number of design issues (ie, how to make a piston be a magnet with the heat of combustion working at odds, among others) - but these can be worked out.
Think about how (relatively) simple a free-piston engine is - a tube, a piston inside the tube, and inlet/outlet ports (and controlling valves) plus spark plugs at the ends. I would think a good spud-gun builder could build a prototype (that would run for a while, then melt from the heat) from ABS/PVC pipe, sprinkler valves, etc from Home Depot - make the piston from a chunk of wood with steel end plates, magnets set in holes around the edge, wrap wire around the middle. Control the solenoid valves and plugs with reed magnet switches, maybe some relays (or Hall Effect sensors) - hmm, if I had the time I would do it myself!
Someone should try to build this - I guarantee you will get /.'ed in seconds if you do (heck, it will be a better story than another one about case mods)...
Say instead of a "suit of clothes", you wanted to instead make a "bodysuit" (shades of "Silence of the Lambs" here) - that is only one step removed from being the mesh, in a way. What is to stop you from "deriving" a +/- 1 voxel position mesh from the original mesh? Nothing.
This is what they are afraid of - in a way, this kind of legal issue is merely the precursor to what will surround nano-assembly systems, if they should come about. It is actually a closer precursor to what will happen in the Rapid Prototype Development community. Right now it is "virtual" - but soon it will bleed into the real.
It is just another example of bits eliminating scarcity, which totally breaks the system of capitalism. A copy is a copy is a copy - but your copy works the same as mine, and you haven't lost anything by me making a copy (except for an ephemeral "potential sale"). Capitalism requires that the control of means of production be separate from the control by the consumers of the goods produced. When the consumers directly control (as opposed to the indirect manner of the so-called "free market forces") the means of production, the system of capitalism breaks.
As production of goods become more dependent on digital design and "bits", this will become more and more apparent. When the goods are the "bits" (ie, nano-created materials, medicines, food, etc), all hell will probably break loose: Capitalists cannot "afford" to lose the control over scarcity, otherwise wealth becomes meaningless (when everyone is wealthy, who is wealthier?)...
VR systems (both immersive HMD systems as well as "CAVE" type displays) are good for "walkthroughs", "walkarounds", even "testing" (such as for ergonomic placement of controls, or viewing angles from seats, etc) - but neither technology (as of yet) allows for "real size" views.
Most VR systems do NOT represent the objects in a one-to-one unit basis - most of the time the virtual world is scaled or distorted in some manner. This is normally because of the viewing system used - with an HMD, if the objects were represented at real scale and perspective, things would look slightly odd (especially in the higher-res, low FOV HMDs). CAVEs tend to distort things as well to fit the projection screens and minimize the distortions at the wall joining edges. Lower-res, high FOV HMDs can't be used, because resolution is lost, and thus accuracy for measurement. HMDs do not allow for real rulers, only virtual ones. CAVEs allow for real rulers, but if the image is slightly distorted, it is useless for engineers. Another thing against HMDs and CAVEs is "simulator sickness"...
I am not saying that either technology is completely useless - there are aspects that make both appealing for engineering use, but prototype display for design reconfiguration probably isn't one of them. I also think that the accuracy could be preserved, but it would be expensive. I think at some point the tech will come down in price to allow this.
However, this hologram technology allows for the fast "duplication" of a CAD/CAM drawing (which may or may not be represented in real size on a monitor) into a medium that allows the engineers (and non-engineers!) to view at real size, as well as (possibly) take real size measurements using real measuring equipment. The hologram in this case is a real size volumetric image of a virtual design. It is probably the fastest method of rapid prototyping for large scale objects that we will have for a while.
What lasercomm discussion would be complete without it?
From the Ronja homepage:
Build your own optical data link from common elementary parts - Ronja is an Open-Hardware optical datalink that connects two PC's point-to-point. Ronja's design is licensed under the GNU Public License: you get all the necessary documentation and construction guides free. The construction costs are minimal; it's probably the cheapest wireless system ever. The operation is very
reliable and immune to interference.
Take note, people - when the USA Patriot Act enforcers of protocol come, laser may be the only way to comm...
Ok, the O2 sensor may be the most expensive (I think it uses some kind of ionization with the heater, the exhaust, and a palladium or platinum coating) - it may also be a bit more complicated, but I am not sure - it may only emit a varying voltage, directly, whereas the MAP sensor takes input from a stress gauge, then passes it through that custom IC (I am not sure why this is, but that is what I saw when I openned the old MAP sensor). Of course, this may just be for that model of MAP sensor - for others it might be less contained or complicated...
To be honest, I never checked it out that far, and it was obvious from the checking I did (with a multimeter) that it had a "dead" spot (can't remember if it was an open or short).
You also bring up good points about the longevity and environment it was in. However, I still believe that Ford (it was an F-150) was selling them at a HUGE markup. The thing was made of plastic, with a plastic inner "knob" that the throttle shaft passed through to engage it. It was probably made pretty sturdy for the environment, but I doubt it cost much to manufacture - certainly not anywhere close to $50.00...