I have very little doubt that as the technology matures, they will be able to build a car that ONLY runs on "dealer gas", which has certain molecular marker "tags" in the gasoline to identify it, custom sensors (similar to that used for DNA analysis, only MUCH faster) in the fuel lines, etc hooked up to the computer. When I mean "dealer gas", though, it will probably be a "cooperative" agreement between a gas company and the manufacturer - or maybe it will be something where all gas will work, but a "certain" gas will work "best" - literally.
Actually, it probably only cost $5.00 max - the MAP sensor tends to be one of the most complicated sensors in a vehicle today, but even so it is typically only a stress gauge mounted in a custom body that is part of the air intake so that as air passes by, it exerts a force - typically a custom chip inside interprets this force and relays it back to the computer (in some manner).
But back to your assertion - my brother-in-law's truck was having problems, and one of the codes in the ODB-I system said that he needed a new throttle position sensor - we found it was a dealer part - the dealer wanted $50.00! Since he needed it, he bought it. But guess what this "sensor" was...
Yup, a 100K potentiometer with spring return to zero, in a custom molded body.
The way it looked was like it was one of those ultra-kooky conspiracy things...
Anyhow, it was something about how the new bills will be called something else (instead of a US Dollar, it will be US Currency), and that it was only to be used inside the US, not outside.
Sounded crazy...
But given all the other TONS, AND TONS OF FUNKY SHIT - the DMCA, CCDBTA (sp?), USA Patriot Act, recent events - does it not seem like something possible?
Why do I have this impending feeling of gloom and doom - like some MAJOR SHIT is happenning, that very few are paying attention to, that Americans in general, and the world maybe, are ignoring - like we are sliding into a "Brave New World"/"1984" REAL DYSTOPIA - but in a way no one seems to care? I have this VERY REAL FEAR that I am going to "wake up" and cry "WHAT HAPPENED! WHERE DID MY LIFE GO!" - all to the sound of others screaming the same...
I'm curious: what's your reason for wanting to control the digital camera with a computer?
BTW, this is a "free idea" for those wanting to go into business on it:
Imagine that you had this "kiosk" type device, perhaps set up in a small room. The device has a "fixed focus" (ie 3ft to infinity), high resolution digital camera on a controllable pan/tilt mount. Imagine that it is all in a nice "self contained" housing, with only the camera facing the wall, and maybe a small monitor or display of some sort on the kiosk.
At the wall, which is painted white, is a spot aligned with the camera, and on the floor is a "pad", also aligned, that has two "feet marks". The pad is a pressure sensitive switch.
Need to make an ID card for the user?
Tell him/her to go into the room, and stand on the "feet marks", facing the camera. The computer would "aim" the camera using the pan/tilt mount to align the head and shoulders area of the person up with a "bit mask", until the majority filled the bit mask, signifying that the image was mostly centered (maybe have lights on the front of the camera kiosk, or display on the monitor - red for alignment, yellow for get ready, green for taking picture). The picture would then be taken, and the person would exit the room - the image would go into a database (card ID, picture), whoever was issuing the card would enter in other info as needed (guest, temporary worker, permanent worker, name, age, etc), then the card would be printed with the picture and whatever other info (for mag stripe, etc) and given to the individual.
It would be an almost completely automated, turnkey ID card generation system. I bet if you made the kiosk system slick enough, you could sell it for big $$$.
Actually, considering how easy this sounds - I bet it has already been done...
Thank you for pointing it out - maybe I should pay attention to the maps better. There isn't an I-17 path.
Hopefully what you say about the Red Line will carry over to the light rail. I am also wondering if in the future the line will be extended to ASU West - would make a good way to get between the two campuses.
As far as Anthem/I-17 - hopefully this thing will be extended in that direction in the future. Should be interesting to watch...
Let's take the I-17 route for instance - where will these trains run? I can only think of two areas off the top of my head: 1) the freeway median (ie, in the center of the freeway), or 2) along the access roads (ie, on either side of the freeway).
There are problems with either of these methods.
To perform number "1", you would have to either build an elevated track, or take up both the north and southbound HOV lanes, effectively removing a lane from commuter use. Now, in theory this is OK, because those same commuters should use the train - guess what, they won't. Instead, we'll have half empty trains running, and gridlock as usual, but worse, because we have eliminated a lane (or possibly two, if they create a new HOV lane). Furthermore, how do you get past/under the overhead crossings? The only way to do it is to take over the HOV lane - no other way. There isn't room to add another lane past the emergency lanes on the right hand side of the road - because you would be cutting into the above freeway level access roads. If you elevate the train in the center, then you have to restructure (and redo signals) at the overhead crossings, mucking up traffic on surface streets (people drive like shit here, as they do everywhere - I can just see the accidents if there is a train in the middle of the crossing).
So, for number "2", you have to either take up an access lane (reducing the two we have now going in each direction down to one in each direction), place the train overhead (that would look real pretty, and I am sure for the length of the run it would be cheap), with the access road running under it, or how about this: declare eminent domain on the houses and businesses that are in the way along the highway, and just get rid of the buildings, etc in the way, then build there! Yeah, that will go over great (although they did do that with the 51). It still doesn't account for the major restructuring, etc needed to get around the off-ramp areas - especially funky ones like the East/West cloverleafs at Thunderbird, or the massive turnoffs at Bell (though I don't remember if it is extending this far north). Still, some of the other turnoffs are just as crazy - so I can't see how they will fit it in.
Suffice to say, I will be very interested to see how and where this whole thing goes, and how they plan on implementing it. I will also be interested in seeing how many people really use it, and whether traffic will improve. My money is on that very few of the people it is meant to serve will actually use it. Furthermore, it won't help the the many people who now live in Anthem - you think they will "Park-and-Ride" - ha! If it gets built at all (thanks for the site link, still, something tells me the money will quietly "disappear")...
This may be the next big thing, but right now most of what the usual geek could get into seems mostly hype. What I am talking about is the field of Bioinformatics. From what I understand, Bioinformatics is basically "data mining of biotech databases" - more or less. I know there are a few books available on the subject (including one by Oreilly). The main problems with "breaking into the scene" is most positions, when offered, require you to have some kind of science degree (biology related, generally) - even though it is just data-mining. I tend to wonder if it is because you really have to know the terminology behind the data you are looking through (maybe), or if it is just such a young field that the employers thinks they need such people right now.
It is something I would like to get into: I live in Phoenix, and the city is trying to get something going here called the "International Genomics Commission" (IGC - the "C" part I am hazy on) - basically a huge research lab for biotech, etc - so far, it is seemingly being sucessful. Anyhow, I haven't got a chance in hell of possibly getting onboard "early", so to speak, because not only do I not have a degree in any bio science area, but I don't have a degree at all (ok, I take that back, I do have an Associates, but from a tech school - read: Near Worthless). All I do have is 10+ years of professional experience in software development and database applications - but I am not sure that will count for much, at least at this point in time.
Another area to consider: Alternative Energy Research - I am not talking solar, etc - but more on funky engine and prime mover designs, etc - I am seeing more of this stuff crop up all over the place.
Think about it - it is a train that only goes 40 mph, only travels a small distance (as one poster here said, he could walk it in 5 minutes), and sucks electricity like a pig. Where are the advantages?
Sure, it looks and sounds cool, but until electricity if free (or near free), it is a near worthless application of the technology (that of magnetic levitation and propulsion - I realise that there ARE some practical uses of the tech, but not "people mover" - yet). What are the advantages of this train over, say, a standard small light-rail train? Or something smaller like a BART system?
If smoothness of ride is wanted, why not use "sprung" linear ball bearing tracks, and a smooth bottom train, coupled with propelling "booster" wheels (like that used to get roller coasters away from the stations) along the track every so often, activated as the train approached, deactivated after it had gone by (heck, make it cheaper - drop the ball bearing track and use good sprung bogeys, with a bottom friction plate on the train).
What further galls me is the idea that this is planned to be extended, for larger area use. The cost for this (and light rail) is very high, but there are other alternatives. Phoenix, AZ recently passed its own "light rail initiative", called Transit 2000 - the original website is gone, but "they" chose to go with a standard light rail system. There was a competing system, which was passed over (more on that in a bit). Funny thing about the Phoenix system - I haven't heard much of anything on it since the initiative passed the voters (ie, the tax got passed) - likely it is being funneled and used to line pockets. Plus, I haven't got the slightest idea how they plan to put it in the area proposed - if you live in Phoenix, and look at the map of the route, you know that there is NO WAY IT WILL FIT, at least not without serious restructuring of a major freeway.
Anyhow, as far as the other system is concerned? The other system was Doug Malewicki's SkyTran. The concept seems sound, he has presented his plan in a clear fashion on his website. I still hope one day he will get the funding to make this invention a reality (hell, if he could just sell his Robosaurus he could probably get a prototype going)...
There used to be a company (can't remember off the top of my head) a few years back that was creating a "vestibular" stimulation system - apparently they had patents on the tech, and according to those patents, an AC signal of a certain frequency and amplitude is induced in the skin from the forehead to just behind and below the ears, which in some manner stimulates the vestibular region of the brain (in some manner, I don't know how), and by varying the amplitude, frequency and difference between each side, etc - the device, while under computer control, could make the user feel like they were tilting, moving, or falling. The company claimed they could even make people fall off their seats. Supposedly it was a more advanced and developed version of a certain device used by doctors to treat motion sickness, except it was directional and computer controllable. They were supposed to "go beta" and release a development SDK and API for game developers, but I don't know what happened to them (and as a part-time homebrew VR developer, I was interested).
Aside from that, you have two other options - increase the amount of stimulus, or decrease it.
By that I mean:
Increase the amount - right now only your eyes are sensing the "movement" in the game, and your ears are also getting cues. You may want to have some form of "touch", beyond the joystick, perhaps also a sense of real movement for your inner ear. Try to move around a bit, to simulate the walking. Or, try to set up a full immersive VR system, with sound, HMD, two-axis treadmill (ok, that last one will be hard - look into the DOD's dismounted soldier project), maybe some fans for "wind". Smell won't play much a role here.
Decrease the amount - are you sitting to close to the monitor, or do you have the image on a large monitor or projection system (ie, big screen TV)? You may be getting "immersed" - but without actually standing and moving in the environment (simulator sickness wasn't much of a problem for me playing such games as "Dactyl Nighmare", because you had to stand and move around - and I get sick while trying to read in a vehicle), your inner ear is getting different signals from what your eye is telling you - you either need motion to your body (see above), or you need a non-moving frame of reference - so play on a smaller screen, or move your field of vision back so that the edge of the screen (and surroundings) come into view. On occasion you may want to glance around the room (when you are at a point in play when you can - it doesn't need to be a long stare, just a brief one).
Also - don't play in a dark or dimly lit room - even if you aren't close to the screen, in a dark or dimly lit room, after a while, the screen will seem to "fill" your view (it is some kind of psychological thing), further immersing you. This happens with HMDs that have small FOV's as well (it doesn't compensate, but it is an interesting thing to keep in mind when shopping for an HMD). This "effect" can make a small 15 inch monitor seem to "suck you in". This is just something I have experienced - I don't know if it is universal, or just me. But keep it in mind.
Also, keep play time down, take breaks every so often (in VR circles it was recommended to take a break every half hour or so of full immersion - not sure if this was just one of those "8 glasses of water per day things", or what - but it seems like good advice).
Other than those things, your only other option is to not play...
Get out of the idea of "geek house" mode (ie, cables and shit everywhere). Transition to "geek haus" mode (cables and shit everywhere, hidden discretely).
Granted, doing this in an apartment may be a bit of a problem, so you might either have to go wireless or learn how to install wires (and deinstall them when you move) in a place you don't own. Don't worry - the experience will be more than helpful when you finally do get a house in the future (everything needs fixing).
That there may be part of the problem - you need more space. But, like hard drives, you will never have enough space for your crap. I recently moved into my first house, and I can already envision not having enough space for my junk (my next step: a guy I know is starting a "geek junk storage" collective, where will rent out a storage unit for communal junk swapping - which sounds like a cool thing to do, and may help others). Maybe you need to learn to live with less.
One compromise I made with my wife was that I get one room for an "office", to decorate and make however I want it - and she gets the rest of the living space to make the way she wants it. I handle all networking and cabling management (ie, setting up the stereo, her computer, etc) - but she handles all the "look" of the house. It is a good thing, because my idea of style is metal shelving. She knows how to make a house a home, and make it comfortable. Oh, and she doesn't like to look at wires, so if a wire has to be run somewhere, it is up in the attic I go to do it.
It is a good tradeoff - she already knows my plans to set up a welder in the garage (only nearby source of 220VAC). She has no problems with that. She just wants things to look nice, in the areas people can see - what happens "behind the scenes", I handle.
Oh, BTW - a network jack in the bathroom seems like overkill. However, setting things up to handle video and music in the bathroom, perhaps control lights, etc - might be worthwhile - just make it look nice - ie, professional.
Re:The docs make 3D graphics sound easy
on
OGRE GPL'ed 3D Engine
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I would agree with this - but I would go one step further and say that what is really hard (other than making it fast, which is pretty tough) is going beyond simple polygons with shading (which isn't the easiest at first), to full texture mapping, then shading, then all the other effects.
Also, moving from a single "cube" (your standard first object, IMO) to multiple cubes, to world representation with cameras, light sources, etc - gets tough, especially in regards to speed (ie, object culling based on view, etc). Most of the time, you have to learn funky methods of object culling (bsp trees, quad trees, etc) that are almost an art/science in themselves, that to get the required speed...
Let's just say I learned a long time ago that when it comes to 3D graphics I knew I would never become the next "Carmack" and that those that can do this stuff, and provide us engines that bring the coding and knowledge down to a more managable level for us more average 3D coders - these guys are worth their weight in gold.
Not that I don't enjoy reading and trying to learn about the latest in 3D coding - but I know that such coding isn't something I excel in, and probably never will (my best project: before I got into Linux I used to do a lot of personal coding in VB - I managed to code a custom perspective correct texture mapping 3D engine in pure VB, later added a custom Visual C DLL that did raster rendering to speed the thing up - I wanted to do the actual poly rendering in the VC DLL, never got around to it - at that point, DirectX still couldn't be accessed easily in VB, so the whole thing was a complete rendering engine - learned a lot, though)...
The simplest way to control the thermostat of your HVAC is to simply get one of those X10 relay units (basically a simply relay controlled by X10), then hook a power supply and resistor in series with the relay switch contacts, then place the resistor (cover the bare leads with heat shrink tubing) near the bi-metalic strip or sensor in the thermostat. Then use X10 to switch the current on and off to the resistor, which will heat up, causing the temperature to rise local to the thermostat, turning the unit on and off.
Now, that is a cheesy way to do it, but it works, and it doesn't require anything real fancy.
If you want something better looking, the wires that run down from the HVAC unit are typically 12 or 24 VDC or AC. You have two wires, when connected together cause the contactor (basically the industry term for BIG HONKIN RELAY) to turn on and off. So, all the thermostat is doing is using another relay, transistor, or mecury switch to make and break contact between those two wires. There is also a third (and possibly fourth and fifth) wire used as well, for heating, etc - and things get even funkier with gas heat, electric AC, etc. It isn't too complicated, but you would do yourself well to know what kind of system you have, and what kind of thermostat you need, then get a cheap mechanical thermostat, take it apart, and study it so you know what goes where.
Anyhow, once you know your system, and what wires do what, at that point it is easy and cheap to get a few relays to hook into the system. You could even put the box up near or in the AC unit itself. If you absolutely need serial/ethernet, then look into a BASIC Stamp, PIC, or the newly released Javelin Stamp (Java-based Stamp) - there are also a ton of similar micro-controllers as well by other companies. Anyhow, use one of them to control the relays, and communicate with the uC via serial commands.
Finally, regardless of whether you use the funky X10 control, or the more sophisticated relay system, you need sensors. What you want are called thermistors - they are basically resistors that are very sensitive to temperature changes. Be sure to get ones that have a temp range you need, and remember some are marketed in only degress celcius, so if you are needing degrees farenheit, you need to convert to know the range. Anyhow, you will need these and a few microcontrollers with ADCs - the thermistor is hooked up with another resistor and a power source (separate from the uC!!!) in a voltage divider, and that voltage is read by the uC's ADC and converted into a value. You will have to calibrate with a real thermometer to know what values equal what temp, but once you know that, you can use these thermistors as good sensors.
Place the thermistors in the following spots: Put one at each register outlet, one at the HVAC intake, one inside the attic, one outside, and one at the center of each room.
With the information from these probes, you can now know when to turn the HVAC on and off. If you wanted to take this further, you could hook fans and window blind controls to the system to help with the cooling/heating of specific rooms. You could also set up the HVAC vent system with "vent valves" (these may need to be custom built) that can open/close on control from the system to direct the heating/cooling to the areas that need it. Couple that with door/window sensors, and the system could shut off cooling/heating for unused rooms, for example.
As you can see, the system, and associated programming, can and will become VERY complex VERY quickly. But if this is something you really want to do, it can also be a VERY fun project...
Not really a manual - but I kept it because it was so damn funny: The box that the Snappy (video digitizer) was sold in.
If any of you have read the little jokes, etc all over the box (inside, outside, under flaps, etc) - you know what I mean - truely a great piece of packaging (and not a really bad product for the time).
A few people on here are bemoaning the fact that this "ghetto" UPS doesn't have monitoring. Even the author of the article notes this. However, building such a monitor wouldn't be too difficult.
Basically, you are looking at a relatively simple voltage window comparator circuit. Most of these circuits use op-amps arranged in a differential mode to provide 2 or 3 "windows", and typically light up LEDs to show "high", "medium", and "low" voltage levels. Simple digital signal probes do the same. Most of the time, these devices can be built using cheap op-amps or comparator ICs that house four comparators in a single DIP package. Hook the LED lines to a PIC/MAX232 system and monitor the data via RS-232. Or, simpler - monitor the status of the lines using the parallel port.
The "el-cheapo" solution is to just simple start the shut-down as soon as power is completely lost. Drop a relay across the 120 VAC input, then have a 5V source (from the battery and a 7805) switched "on" when the relay is disengaged when the voltage fails. Run the 5VDC to a opto-isolator circuit (to isolate the computer port from the mains at the relay), and the ouput from the opto-isolator to the parallel port or serial port (you could monitor this directly). Configure the software monitor to check every so often, and if the power is indicated to be "out" after 15 or so seconds, begin the shutdown sequence (this will allow for transients in power that might occur - you could up this to however long you wish).
Software would have to be written for both of these solutions, but it would be rather simple, for either *nix or 'doze.
In regard to the danger of this kind of "battery-box" solution - you definitely have to be careful with this, when it is on, and "off" (ie, doing the UPS thing). LA batteries can source a lot of current - you can easily make a cheapo stick welder with a couple of good 12V car batteries - that is serious current. Also, when an LA battery (actually, any battery) is under load, it will generate heat, and in the case of an LA battery, a lot of heat can be generated. This heat can cause the electrolyte to "boil", forming funky gasses. The batteries can also explode (heck, I have even personally witnessed dry cells explode). If you want to see an "interesting" site, go to an electronics junkyard and look for an old "heavy duty" UPS (look for refrigerator size boxes needing 440VAC input). If the batteries are still in the box, take a careful look at them - you might notice that they are "swelled", some may have even leaked or burst. This is because the UPS kicked on, and remained on for a VERY long time, and the batteries literally "cooked".
What the one poster said about having cleanup supplies, etc - yeah, that could be needed. If it was me, I would store the UPS outside my house, in a ventilated shed or something...
Re:This will probably come out "ignorant"...
on
Unlimited Airwaves
·
· Score: 2
So, the simple packet-addressing scheme won't work for two-way communication.
I know that - I was speaking of it's use for only a "one-way" scheme.
As for one-way communication, there's no need to "label" the recipient of a broadcast; radio is inherently broadcast, so everyone can hear everything anyway.
I wasn't labling the recipient, I was labling the "station" or "sender" - ie, the address of the "station" would be in the packet. There would be a main broadcasting system for all "stations", which would spew packets for all of them out over radio to the user's receivers. In other words, there would be one transmitter ONLY, for the area being broadcasted to. Radio "stations" would send packets (with the address of the station) to this main transmitter, where they would be sent out, to be recieved by the user's radio, who would select a station's address, and the radio would start buffering the data, then begin "playback" of the stream.
Think of a single radio transmitter sending out a packet stream like so:
ABCBCACABCABACABACBCABCBABABAC...etc
If the user's radio is "tuned" to recieve packets marked "A" only, then those would be buffered and played back. Switch to address "B", and those would be buffered and played back.
The problem is that with more "stations" (addresses), the more packets that have to be sent out, and the faster the packets need to be sent to prevent buffer underruns at the user's radio. Thus, this would require more bandwidth. It sounds like a simple method, but as I noted before, if it were, it would be being done already.
Right now, the main research is focused on AR - augmented reality, of which the "research" mentioned in this/. article is part of.
As far as "virtual reality" is concerned, number one, it isn't called VR anymore - it is called "virtual environments" (and I even think use of that term is being "discouraged"), or "VE".
Basically, most researchers are having a hard time getting funding for anything with the word "virtual" in it, as it is seen (by potential investors) as a money hole.
It doesn't look like there are going to be any "breakthroughs" soon - you probably aren't going to go out and buy an HMD at Fry's within the next 5 years. It is strange, but it is mainly because of "no market". What is strange is that there is a HUGE market - FPS players. However, FPS players won't be satisfied with just an HMD, they will want at minimum full tracking of head and "gun" position. I think if a home version of Q3A coupled with the HMD, "wand", and tracking system of a Virtuality 2000 came on the market cheap enough, people would flock in droves to it, but it won't happen, because the HMD and tracking isn't cheap.
It is crazy, because the tracking should be cheap - there have been (and still are) a few projects on the net to homebrew magnetic trackers, many with enough details to replicate them yourself. Sourceless head trackers are also fairly cheap (though you can't use them with a mag tracker). HMD's are hard to homebrew, but it has been done. Parts are cheap enough, though plans are scarce. I have a ton of the plans from the early 90's, but no rights to reproduce them. Some are available online, though.
If you are real lucky, you might manage to scrounge a "pro-level" HMD off of ebay (there is pro level VR gear on ebay - stuff that used to go for thousands, now goes cheap - I have seen polhemus mag trackers on ebay, and last year I managed to "snag" a General Realities CyberEye CE-200M HMD with head tracker CHEAP).
Most of what is on Ebay is the old stuff, but it can be had fairly cheap, too - old Victormaxx HMDs and Forte VFX-1s go fairly cheap. Powergloves can be found as well, though they are starting to get real scarce.
Your best bet, if you really want to see this personally, is to build it - that is really the only way you or I will get to use this kind of stuff, and it is likely that the homebrew people will be the ones to really create the apps...
A net connected PC in the bedroom is like a TV with ALL the cable channels in the bedroom, and a 900# capable phone.
Which I understand the concern of - but the fact was at the time I had my computer, phone, modem in my bedroom, it was conected to my TV, and I did get all of the channels my parents got through cable, and my phone wasn't blocked from 900 numbers (or LD, or anything).
Not that I expect all kids to be coders, but coding is a tough thing to do in a "common" area. I wonder if those of us of similar age, who code, and coded as kids - how many had the computer in their room, vs in a common area...?
As far as not knowing what the kid is doing in the room, I would probably do what my parents did: Visit the room every now and then, and not allow the kid to close and lock the door. Plus, there is the whole trust thing (the common area set up of a computer precludes trust boundries, to an extent, IMO)...
This will probably come out "ignorant"...
on
Unlimited Airwaves
·
· Score: 2
Ok, my knowledge of radio is very low, but I have often wondered why the following couldn't be implemented, at least for "one-way" broadcasts (ie, similar to what FM is now):
1. Allocate a section of frequency bandwidth, enough for a 32-56Kbps transmission system.
2. Each "radio" is "tuned" to this "station".
3. All broadcasts have "addresses", and are packetised (ie, digitized, then the packet of digital signal has a header attached with this "address").
4. The user "tunes" to an "address", and starts receiving packets from that address, which are buffered, then reprocessed (D2A) into sound.
Ok, maybe the "bandwidth" would have to be bigger than what I proposed above to get enough "stations" into play, and the packets would have to be either ordered in some manner or randomised to ensure that the radio's buffer never underruns or whatnot - and maybe this is why this whole scheme has not been tried (can't transmit the packets fast enough because of bandwidth limits, etc).
I am just curious if this would work, or if it would be a failure (I tend to think the latter, otherwise it would have been done by now, if it hasn't already)...
And the kids PC is not in the bedroom. Bad mistake.
...and at the same time, I don't.
When I got my first computer when I was 11 (a TRS-80 Color Computer 2), it was at first in a common area (the living room), but soon it was moved into my bedroom. Now, granted, I didn't have internet access (or even a modem), but it being there in my room allowed for the opportunity to explore in ways that amaze me to this day.
I will never forget typing in programs from magazines, modifying them, and learning what made them "work". I will never forget coding on my own on the weekends and after school, sometimes in the morning before school (if I could sneak the time in).
I remember doing my homework sometimes using SCRIPSIT, and printing it out on my CGP-220 inkjet - in the 6th grade. As I think about it now...
I wonder about kids who have to sit in a common area, and worry about their parents seeing something they are doing (maybe they want to write something "secret" or build a game or something), and they can't, because they feel they will get "caught".
Eeven when my parents let me get a phone and modem, and explore the BBS's around town, they didn't care when I was in my room, chatting with others across town (I was 13 when I got my first modem - 300 baud, whoop!). Now, of course, today there is the internet, broadband, easy access to porn of ANY flavor, online predators, viruses, and a whole slew of other bad stuff...
But I tend to wonder if maybe the kids should have a computer in thier room, but isolated from the net (either physically, or via a firewall - ie, allow them to roam the home net, but not the internet), so that they can explore in similar manners...
What boggles my mind today:
Kids have at hand the graphics, processing, data storage, RAM - you name it - things that were "dream devices" when I was a kid. Yet the number of kids who "own" computers that program, I would say, is far less than it was when I was a kid (I mean, for every kid I knew when I was a kid who owned a personal computer, every single one of them at least "dabbled" with programming). This saddens me...
Doing this today (or even 10-20 years ago, though 20 years ago would still be rather impressive) isn't something that "intrigues" me - I mean, I have books on building robots (and attendant CPUs) from the mid to late 1970's.
But this guy was describing building a computer from telephone relay equipment, etc in the 60's! More or less on his own time, in high school!
I just wonder how often this occurred - I have yet to find an old Popular Science or Popular Mechanics article from the period discussing such projects (ie, homebrew computers from the 1960's) - the closest I have found was a telephone dialer system for an alarm (with complete plans for a rotary telephone), and a later book detailing building a simple calculator based on transistor logic (from the very early 1970's). I haven't found anything on people homebrewing machines in the 1960's from scavenged telephone equipment parts.
It isn't that I don't believe it impossible - I know full well that people could do this, and knew that at least a few people had done it - but how many? Was any of these efforts documented?
The closest I have come to "early homebrew computer documentation" was an old stapled, photocopied "pamphlet" from 1975 (I think) detailing how to build a computer "from scratch" - even so, it detailed info on logic circuitry, etc (74xx series), and so wasn't in the era of relay logic.
I tend to think that some of these people who possibly built such machines might have been technicians who worked on "relay ladder logic" for process control, and came home to build similar systems, but with their own curious designs - but this is just a theory, with no proof in any manner...
You will need that, and more (lots and lots of patience, primarily) to pull it off. I am not saying it is impossible, but it will be frustrating.
First off, read all of the comments here, they contain good advice.
Second, realise this, which I have rarely seen talked about:
Computers are nothing more than extremely complex player pianos.
Honestly. Think of memory as a very long (but non infinite, though it can be considered an endless loop, because when the address register of the machine "rolls over", you start at address zero again) roll of player piano music, the holes representing instructions and data, and the rate at which the computer runs (the clock) the speed at which the roll is moving (tempo?).
Anyhow, that is all a computer really is - sure, some instructions may say "move to this point on the roll (address)" or "play this note (add this number to this register)" - but all in all, it is the same.
Most of what computing is today was thought out in mechanical arrangements by Charles Babbage in the 1800's - because computer ARE inherently mechanical (read the book "The Difference Engine" for more).
Now, this doesn't explain how modern processors work. Modern processors perform some extreme "magic" - but most of what they do isn't that arcane, and you certainly aren't suggesting that you want to build an 1.5 GHz Athlon or something (and you would be insane to try to do that at home).
One thing to keep in mind is that if you are doing this at home, don't try to go much beyond 2 MHz - otherwise you will drive yourself batty trying to figure out certain problems that only appear when you run at full speed vs single stepping the clock, etc (ie, speeds of signals in the bus not arriving at proper times, etc) - if you are thinking about building such a faster machine without a logic analyzer (I think that is right - kinda like a combo logic probe with multiple inputs and an oscope like trace screen), you will be in for some surprises (read "Soul of a New Machine" for fun in this regard).
Good luck - and remember to document your progress, and let us know about it!
I have wondered if people did that, in their spare time - was this something for a class project, or was it a hobby?
In you opinion, how many people typically did this? Do you know of any references to others?
Something f'd up I am going through...
on
Disconnecting
·
· Score: 1
This is only kinda on-topic to the thread, as it relates to ISP connection woes...
Anyhow, recently I moved from a house I was renting to a house I am buying (ie, "renting" from the bank). Anyhow, I have cox.net broadband, and called customer service to have my service transferred. "No problem" they cheerfully informed me, and told me it should be transferred, and I could simply carry my equipment over, plug in, and go.
I have both broadband and digital cable. The house I moved to, I found out, had major bad install of cable throughout the house, so I had to do a rewire. I bought the cables, splitter, etc - and hooked it all up. What came next was (and still is, to an extent) a nightmare.
First off, only one of my cable boxes worked. It turned out that when they had switched my service, they somehow reset everything so that I only had one cable box - my other box was inactivated!
I eventually got the other box going, but I didn't know if my broadband was working. So, I decided to plug my cable modem in, and see if the lights lit up...
Nope.
The online light was dead, the others cycling (MSB4100). I called Cox up, and I was soon talking to someone to "reprovision" my modem to the network. After a few minutes, he had it done, the light was on, and I thought I would be happy.
I still had to unpack and set up my computers and network, and I had a lot of stuff to do, so I put it off for a week. At the beginning of this week, I finally found the time, and hooked my machines up. I have a linux firewall/router in between my setup, so I had to get that hooked up first. I booted it, and it seemed to recognise everything fine, getting the DHCP connection to cox, etc - I thought I was set.
I hooked up my main linux box, fired it up (it had been down for about 2-3 weeks), and it booted fine (I guess my day could have been worse), so I tried pinging my router/firewall - good, then google, good - I fired up Netscape at that point, and tried to check my mail: "account is inactive" was the response - WTF?
I tried the browser - could browse everywhere, but no matter what I tried, I couldn't access my mail.
I eventually called Cox, and found that when the switch was done, somehow my primary account didn't get transferred or switched properly (something tells me they are blowing smoke), and after a ton of back-and-forth calls, here I am still without email, and waiting for them to delete the primary account and re-add it back it (oh, and I will lose all of my email sitting on the server - they did tell me to retrieve and back it up - but if I could do that, why would I be calling them?).
Also, look for something called the "Rock-N-Ride" - it was a commercial low-cost motion platform, that interfaced to a serial port and used a airbrush compressor for power. It wasn't cheap, but it was cheaper than a real 3 axis platform. I have also seen real 3 axis platforms sold on eBay, but be prepared for hydraulic behemoths (in weight, if not size) that will set you back some.
Now, granted, none of these sites will probably answer your question about what to do in regards to all of the lights, switches, etc. For that, I would suggest looking into PIC or BASIC Stamp interfacing over a "single-wire" serial interface or similar. You could probably also do it with logic circuits and shift register-based systems (to effect a parallel to serial to parallel interface), or use a MAX232 for comm. There is also a guy out there that sells an ethernet -> uPU interface (people have used it to hook old C64's to ethernet, etc).
You could also hook up to the joystick port - in theory you could hook resistors up to get input from both axis's, a different resistor per switch, two joysticks - plus all of the buttons - that is a lot of buttons!
There is also the possibility of using the joystick port as a MIDI port, and comm'ing over that. Also, look up joystick info, there is a method of toggling a bit or so on the joystick port to actually gain a certain low-speed output over the joystick port to allow you to "clock" data from the port - supposedly some "digital" joysticks have done this.
There is always USB - check out Nuts and Volts magazine - there have been articles in the past on the chipsets, etc needed to interface using USB.
This isn't an internal MP3 server at Blizzard that employees can backup/store their songs on and play. This is people in Blizzard who are publically sharing songs over the internet.
Even if it was an internal MP3 server, it wouldn't matter, it seems.
Here in Phoenix, Arizona (I actually think it is a Tempe or Mesa company) is a company who is being sued under the DMCA for copyright violations due to an internal MP3 server.
I am just waiting for them to target individuals...
Slashdot Mirror
Here is an article about it.
And you think it is bad now...
I have very little doubt that as the technology matures, they will be able to build a car that ONLY runs on "dealer gas", which has certain molecular marker "tags" in the gasoline to identify it, custom sensors (similar to that used for DNA analysis, only MUCH faster) in the fuel lines, etc hooked up to the computer. When I mean "dealer gas", though, it will probably be a "cooperative" agreement between a gas company and the manufacturer - or maybe it will be something where all gas will work, but a "certain" gas will work "best" - literally.
I bet that part costs $10 to manufacture.
Actually, it probably only cost $5.00 max - the MAP sensor tends to be one of the most complicated sensors in a vehicle today, but even so it is typically only a stress gauge mounted in a custom body that is part of the air intake so that as air passes by, it exerts a force - typically a custom chip inside interprets this force and relays it back to the computer (in some manner).
But back to your assertion - my brother-in-law's truck was having problems, and one of the codes in the ODB-I system said that he needed a new throttle position sensor - we found it was a dealer part - the dealer wanted $50.00! Since he needed it, he bought it. But guess what this "sensor" was...
Yup, a 100K potentiometer with spring return to zero, in a custom molded body.
F'in car manufacturers...
The way it looked was like it was one of those ultra-kooky conspiracy things...
Anyhow, it was something about how the new bills will be called something else (instead of a US Dollar, it will be US Currency), and that it was only to be used inside the US, not outside.
Sounded crazy...
But given all the other TONS, AND TONS OF FUNKY SHIT - the DMCA, CCDBTA (sp?), USA Patriot Act, recent events - does it not seem like something possible?
Why do I have this impending feeling of gloom and doom - like some MAJOR SHIT is happenning, that very few are paying attention to, that Americans in general, and the world maybe, are ignoring - like we are sliding into a "Brave New World"/"1984" REAL DYSTOPIA - but in a way no one seems to care? I have this VERY REAL FEAR that I am going to "wake up" and cry "WHAT HAPPENED! WHERE DID MY LIFE GO!" - all to the sound of others screaming the same...
I'm curious: what's your reason for wanting to control the digital camera with a computer?
BTW, this is a "free idea" for those wanting to go into business on it:
Imagine that you had this "kiosk" type device, perhaps set up in a small room. The device has a "fixed focus" (ie 3ft to infinity), high resolution digital camera on a controllable pan/tilt mount. Imagine that it is all in a nice "self contained" housing, with only the camera facing the wall, and maybe a small monitor or display of some sort on the kiosk.
At the wall, which is painted white, is a spot aligned with the camera, and on the floor is a "pad", also aligned, that has two "feet marks". The pad is a pressure sensitive switch.
Need to make an ID card for the user?
Tell him/her to go into the room, and stand on the "feet marks", facing the camera. The computer would "aim" the camera using the pan/tilt mount to align the head and shoulders area of the person up with a "bit mask", until the majority filled the bit mask, signifying that the image was mostly centered (maybe have lights on the front of the camera kiosk, or display on the monitor - red for alignment, yellow for get ready, green for taking picture). The picture would then be taken, and the person would exit the room - the image would go into a database (card ID, picture), whoever was issuing the card would enter in other info as needed (guest, temporary worker, permanent worker, name, age, etc), then the card would be printed with the picture and whatever other info (for mag stripe, etc) and given to the individual.
It would be an almost completely automated, turnkey ID card generation system. I bet if you made the kiosk system slick enough, you could sell it for big $$$.
Actually, considering how easy this sounds - I bet it has already been done...
Thank you for pointing it out - maybe I should pay attention to the maps better. There isn't an I-17 path.
Hopefully what you say about the Red Line will carry over to the light rail. I am also wondering if in the future the line will be extended to ASU West - would make a good way to get between the two campuses.
As far as Anthem/I-17 - hopefully this thing will be extended in that direction in the future. Should be interesting to watch...
Let's take the I-17 route for instance - where will these trains run? I can only think of two areas off the top of my head: 1) the freeway median (ie, in the center of the freeway), or 2) along the access roads (ie, on either side of the freeway).
There are problems with either of these methods.
To perform number "1", you would have to either build an elevated track, or take up both the north and southbound HOV lanes, effectively removing a lane from commuter use. Now, in theory this is OK, because those same commuters should use the train - guess what, they won't. Instead, we'll have half empty trains running, and gridlock as usual, but worse, because we have eliminated a lane (or possibly two, if they create a new HOV lane). Furthermore, how do you get past/under the overhead crossings? The only way to do it is to take over the HOV lane - no other way. There isn't room to add another lane past the emergency lanes on the right hand side of the road - because you would be cutting into the above freeway level access roads. If you elevate the train in the center, then you have to restructure (and redo signals) at the overhead crossings, mucking up traffic on surface streets (people drive like shit here, as they do everywhere - I can just see the accidents if there is a train in the middle of the crossing).
So, for number "2", you have to either take up an access lane (reducing the two we have now going in each direction down to one in each direction), place the train overhead (that would look real pretty, and I am sure for the length of the run it would be cheap), with the access road running under it, or how about this: declare eminent domain on the houses and businesses that are in the way along the highway, and just get rid of the buildings, etc in the way, then build there! Yeah, that will go over great (although they did do that with the 51). It still doesn't account for the major restructuring, etc needed to get around the off-ramp areas - especially funky ones like the East/West cloverleafs at Thunderbird, or the massive turnoffs at Bell (though I don't remember if it is extending this far north). Still, some of the other turnoffs are just as crazy - so I can't see how they will fit it in.
Suffice to say, I will be very interested to see how and where this whole thing goes, and how they plan on implementing it. I will also be interested in seeing how many people really use it, and whether traffic will improve. My money is on that very few of the people it is meant to serve will actually use it. Furthermore, it won't help the the many people who now live in Anthem - you think they will "Park-and-Ride" - ha! If it gets built at all (thanks for the site link, still, something tells me the money will quietly "disappear")...
This may be the next big thing, but right now most of what the usual geek could get into seems mostly hype. What I am talking about is the field of Bioinformatics. From what I understand, Bioinformatics is basically "data mining of biotech databases" - more or less. I know there are a few books available on the subject (including one by Oreilly). The main problems with "breaking into the scene" is most positions, when offered, require you to have some kind of science degree (biology related, generally) - even though it is just data-mining. I tend to wonder if it is because you really have to know the terminology behind the data you are looking through (maybe), or if it is just such a young field that the employers thinks they need such people right now.
It is something I would like to get into: I live in Phoenix, and the city is trying to get something going here called the "International Genomics Commission" (IGC - the "C" part I am hazy on) - basically a huge research lab for biotech, etc - so far, it is seemingly being sucessful. Anyhow, I haven't got a chance in hell of possibly getting onboard "early", so to speak, because not only do I not have a degree in any bio science area, but I don't have a degree at all (ok, I take that back, I do have an Associates, but from a tech school - read: Near Worthless). All I do have is 10+ years of professional experience in software development and database applications - but I am not sure that will count for much, at least at this point in time.
Another area to consider: Alternative Energy Research - I am not talking solar, etc - but more on funky engine and prime mover designs, etc - I am seeing more of this stuff crop up all over the place.
A waste - an utterly complete waste.
Think about it - it is a train that only goes 40 mph, only travels a small distance (as one poster here said, he could walk it in 5 minutes), and sucks electricity like a pig. Where are the advantages?
Sure, it looks and sounds cool, but until electricity if free (or near free), it is a near worthless application of the technology (that of magnetic levitation and propulsion - I realise that there ARE some practical uses of the tech, but not "people mover" - yet). What are the advantages of this train over, say, a standard small light-rail train? Or something smaller like a BART system?
If smoothness of ride is wanted, why not use "sprung" linear ball bearing tracks, and a smooth bottom train, coupled with propelling "booster" wheels (like that used to get roller coasters away from the stations) along the track every so often, activated as the train approached, deactivated after it had gone by (heck, make it cheaper - drop the ball bearing track and use good sprung bogeys, with a bottom friction plate on the train).
What further galls me is the idea that this is planned to be extended, for larger area use. The cost for this (and light rail) is very high, but there are other alternatives. Phoenix, AZ recently passed its own "light rail initiative", called Transit 2000 - the original website is gone, but "they" chose to go with a standard light rail system. There was a competing system, which was passed over (more on that in a bit). Funny thing about the Phoenix system - I haven't heard much of anything on it since the initiative passed the voters (ie, the tax got passed) - likely it is being funneled and used to line pockets. Plus, I haven't got the slightest idea how they plan to put it in the area proposed - if you live in Phoenix, and look at the map of the route, you know that there is NO WAY IT WILL FIT, at least not without serious restructuring of a major freeway.
Anyhow, as far as the other system is concerned? The other system was Doug Malewicki's SkyTran. The concept seems sound, he has presented his plan in a clear fashion on his website. I still hope one day he will get the funding to make this invention a reality (hell, if he could just sell his Robosaurus he could probably get a prototype going)...
There used to be a company (can't remember off the top of my head) a few years back that was creating a "vestibular" stimulation system - apparently they had patents on the tech, and according to those patents, an AC signal of a certain frequency and amplitude is induced in the skin from the forehead to just behind and below the ears, which in some manner stimulates the vestibular region of the brain (in some manner, I don't know how), and by varying the amplitude, frequency and difference between each side, etc - the device, while under computer control, could make the user feel like they were tilting, moving, or falling. The company claimed they could even make people fall off their seats. Supposedly it was a more advanced and developed version of a certain device used by doctors to treat motion sickness, except it was directional and computer controllable. They were supposed to "go beta" and release a development SDK and API for game developers, but I don't know what happened to them (and as a part-time homebrew VR developer, I was interested).
Aside from that, you have two other options - increase the amount of stimulus, or decrease it.
By that I mean:
Increase the amount - right now only your eyes are sensing the "movement" in the game, and your ears are also getting cues. You may want to have some form of "touch", beyond the joystick, perhaps also a sense of real movement for your inner ear. Try to move around a bit, to simulate the walking. Or, try to set up a full immersive VR system, with sound, HMD, two-axis treadmill (ok, that last one will be hard - look into the DOD's dismounted soldier project), maybe some fans for "wind". Smell won't play much a role here.
Decrease the amount - are you sitting to close to the monitor, or do you have the image on a large monitor or projection system (ie, big screen TV)? You may be getting "immersed" - but without actually standing and moving in the environment (simulator sickness wasn't much of a problem for me playing such games as "Dactyl Nighmare", because you had to stand and move around - and I get sick while trying to read in a vehicle), your inner ear is getting different signals from what your eye is telling you - you either need motion to your body (see above), or you need a non-moving frame of reference - so play on a smaller screen, or move your field of vision back so that the edge of the screen (and surroundings) come into view. On occasion you may want to glance around the room (when you are at a point in play when you can - it doesn't need to be a long stare, just a brief one).
Also - don't play in a dark or dimly lit room - even if you aren't close to the screen, in a dark or dimly lit room, after a while, the screen will seem to "fill" your view (it is some kind of psychological thing), further immersing you. This happens with HMDs that have small FOV's as well (it doesn't compensate, but it is an interesting thing to keep in mind when shopping for an HMD). This "effect" can make a small 15 inch monitor seem to "suck you in". This is just something I have experienced - I don't know if it is universal, or just me. But keep it in mind.
Also, keep play time down, take breaks every so often (in VR circles it was recommended to take a break every half hour or so of full immersion - not sure if this was just one of those "8 glasses of water per day things", or what - but it seems like good advice).
Other than those things, your only other option is to not play...
As many have posted, it is all about compromise.
Get out of the idea of "geek house" mode (ie, cables and shit everywhere). Transition to "geek haus" mode (cables and shit everywhere, hidden discretely).
Granted, doing this in an apartment may be a bit of a problem, so you might either have to go wireless or learn how to install wires (and deinstall them when you move) in a place you don't own. Don't worry - the experience will be more than helpful when you finally do get a house in the future (everything needs fixing).
That there may be part of the problem - you need more space. But, like hard drives, you will never have enough space for your crap. I recently moved into my first house, and I can already envision not having enough space for my junk (my next step: a guy I know is starting a "geek junk storage" collective, where will rent out a storage unit for communal junk swapping - which sounds like a cool thing to do, and may help others). Maybe you need to learn to live with less.
One compromise I made with my wife was that I get one room for an "office", to decorate and make however I want it - and she gets the rest of the living space to make the way she wants it. I handle all networking and cabling management (ie, setting up the stereo, her computer, etc) - but she handles all the "look" of the house. It is a good thing, because my idea of style is metal shelving. She knows how to make a house a home, and make it comfortable. Oh, and she doesn't like to look at wires, so if a wire has to be run somewhere, it is up in the attic I go to do it.
It is a good tradeoff - she already knows my plans to set up a welder in the garage (only nearby source of 220VAC). She has no problems with that. She just wants things to look nice, in the areas people can see - what happens "behind the scenes", I handle.
Oh, BTW - a network jack in the bathroom seems like overkill. However, setting things up to handle video and music in the bathroom, perhaps control lights, etc - might be worthwhile - just make it look nice - ie, professional.
I would agree with this - but I would go one step further and say that what is really hard (other than making it fast, which is pretty tough) is going beyond simple polygons with shading (which isn't the easiest at first), to full texture mapping, then shading, then all the other effects.
Also, moving from a single "cube" (your standard first object, IMO) to multiple cubes, to world representation with cameras, light sources, etc - gets tough, especially in regards to speed (ie, object culling based on view, etc). Most of the time, you have to learn funky methods of object culling (bsp trees, quad trees, etc) that are almost an art/science in themselves, that to get the required speed...
Let's just say I learned a long time ago that when it comes to 3D graphics I knew I would never become the next "Carmack" and that those that can do this stuff, and provide us engines that bring the coding and knowledge down to a more managable level for us more average 3D coders - these guys are worth their weight in gold.
Not that I don't enjoy reading and trying to learn about the latest in 3D coding - but I know that such coding isn't something I excel in, and probably never will (my best project: before I got into Linux I used to do a lot of personal coding in VB - I managed to code a custom perspective correct texture mapping 3D engine in pure VB, later added a custom Visual C DLL that did raster rendering to speed the thing up - I wanted to do the actual poly rendering in the VC DLL, never got around to it - at that point, DirectX still couldn't be accessed easily in VB, so the whole thing was a complete rendering engine - learned a lot, though)...
The simplest way to control the thermostat of your HVAC is to simply get one of those X10 relay units (basically a simply relay controlled by X10), then hook a power supply and resistor in series with the relay switch contacts, then place the resistor (cover the bare leads with heat shrink tubing) near the bi-metalic strip or sensor in the thermostat. Then use X10 to switch the current on and off to the resistor, which will heat up, causing the temperature to rise local to the thermostat, turning the unit on and off.
Now, that is a cheesy way to do it, but it works, and it doesn't require anything real fancy.
If you want something better looking, the wires that run down from the HVAC unit are typically 12 or 24 VDC or AC. You have two wires, when connected together cause the contactor (basically the industry term for BIG HONKIN RELAY) to turn on and off. So, all the thermostat is doing is using another relay, transistor, or mecury switch to make and break contact between those two wires. There is also a third (and possibly fourth and fifth) wire used as well, for heating, etc - and things get even funkier with gas heat, electric AC, etc. It isn't too complicated, but you would do yourself well to know what kind of system you have, and what kind of thermostat you need, then get a cheap mechanical thermostat, take it apart, and study it so you know what goes where.
Anyhow, once you know your system, and what wires do what, at that point it is easy and cheap to get a few relays to hook into the system. You could even put the box up near or in the AC unit itself. If you absolutely need serial/ethernet, then look into a BASIC Stamp, PIC, or the newly released Javelin Stamp (Java-based Stamp) - there are also a ton of similar micro-controllers as well by other companies. Anyhow, use one of them to control the relays, and communicate with the uC via serial commands.
Finally, regardless of whether you use the funky X10 control, or the more sophisticated relay system, you need sensors. What you want are called thermistors - they are basically resistors that are very sensitive to temperature changes. Be sure to get ones that have a temp range you need, and remember some are marketed in only degress celcius, so if you are needing degrees farenheit, you need to convert to know the range. Anyhow, you will need these and a few microcontrollers with ADCs - the thermistor is hooked up with another resistor and a power source (separate from the uC!!!) in a voltage divider, and that voltage is read by the uC's ADC and converted into a value. You will have to calibrate with a real thermometer to know what values equal what temp, but once you know that, you can use these thermistors as good sensors.
Place the thermistors in the following spots: Put one at each register outlet, one at the HVAC intake, one inside the attic, one outside, and one at the center of each room.
With the information from these probes, you can now know when to turn the HVAC on and off. If you wanted to take this further, you could hook fans and window blind controls to the system to help with the cooling/heating of specific rooms. You could also set up the HVAC vent system with "vent valves" (these may need to be custom built) that can open/close on control from the system to direct the heating/cooling to the areas that need it. Couple that with door/window sensors, and the system could shut off cooling/heating for unused rooms, for example.
As you can see, the system, and associated programming, can and will become VERY complex VERY quickly. But if this is something you really want to do, it can also be a VERY fun project...
Good luck!
Not really a manual - but I kept it because it was so damn funny: The box that the Snappy (video digitizer) was sold in.
If any of you have read the little jokes, etc all over the box (inside, outside, under flaps, etc) - you know what I mean - truely a great piece of packaging (and not a really bad product for the time).
A few people on here are bemoaning the fact that this "ghetto" UPS doesn't have monitoring. Even the author of the article notes this. However, building such a monitor wouldn't be too difficult.
Basically, you are looking at a relatively simple voltage window comparator circuit. Most of these circuits use op-amps arranged in a differential mode to provide 2 or 3 "windows", and typically light up LEDs to show "high", "medium", and "low" voltage levels. Simple digital signal probes do the same. Most of the time, these devices can be built using cheap op-amps or comparator ICs that house four comparators in a single DIP package. Hook the LED lines to a PIC/MAX232 system and monitor the data via RS-232. Or, simpler - monitor the status of the lines using the parallel port.
The "el-cheapo" solution is to just simple start the shut-down as soon as power is completely lost. Drop a relay across the 120 VAC input, then have a 5V source (from the battery and a 7805) switched "on" when the relay is disengaged when the voltage fails. Run the 5VDC to a opto-isolator circuit (to isolate the computer port from the mains at the relay), and the ouput from the opto-isolator to the parallel port or serial port (you could monitor this directly). Configure the software monitor to check every so often, and if the power is indicated to be "out" after 15 or so seconds, begin the shutdown sequence (this will allow for transients in power that might occur - you could up this to however long you wish).
Software would have to be written for both of these solutions, but it would be rather simple, for either *nix or 'doze.
In regard to the danger of this kind of "battery-box" solution - you definitely have to be careful with this, when it is on, and "off" (ie, doing the UPS thing). LA batteries can source a lot of current - you can easily make a cheapo stick welder with a couple of good 12V car batteries - that is serious current. Also, when an LA battery (actually, any battery) is under load, it will generate heat, and in the case of an LA battery, a lot of heat can be generated. This heat can cause the electrolyte to "boil", forming funky gasses. The batteries can also explode (heck, I have even personally witnessed dry cells explode). If you want to see an "interesting" site, go to an electronics junkyard and look for an old "heavy duty" UPS (look for refrigerator size boxes needing 440VAC input). If the batteries are still in the box, take a careful look at them - you might notice that they are "swelled", some may have even leaked or burst. This is because the UPS kicked on, and remained on for a VERY long time, and the batteries literally "cooked".
What the one poster said about having cleanup supplies, etc - yeah, that could be needed. If it was me, I would store the UPS outside my house, in a ventilated shed or something...
So, the simple packet-addressing scheme won't work for two-way communication.
I know that - I was speaking of it's use for only a "one-way" scheme.
As for one-way communication, there's no need to "label" the recipient of a broadcast; radio is inherently broadcast, so everyone can hear everything anyway.
I wasn't labling the recipient, I was labling the "station" or "sender" - ie, the address of the "station" would be in the packet. There would be a main broadcasting system for all "stations", which would spew packets for all of them out over radio to the user's receivers. In other words, there would be one transmitter ONLY, for the area being broadcasted to. Radio "stations" would send packets (with the address of the station) to this main transmitter, where they would be sent out, to be recieved by the user's radio, who would select a station's address, and the radio would start buffering the data, then begin "playback" of the stream.
Think of a single radio transmitter sending out a packet stream like so:
ABCBCACABCABACABACBCABCBABABAC...etc
If the user's radio is "tuned" to recieve packets marked "A" only, then those would be buffered and played back. Switch to address "B", and those would be buffered and played back.
The problem is that with more "stations" (addresses), the more packets that have to be sent out, and the faster the packets need to be sent to prevent buffer underruns at the user's radio. Thus, this would require more bandwidth. It sounds like a simple method, but as I noted before, if it were, it would be being done already.
Right now, the main research is focused on AR - augmented reality, of which the "research" mentioned in this /. article is part of.
As far as "virtual reality" is concerned, number one, it isn't called VR anymore - it is called "virtual environments" (and I even think use of that term is being "discouraged"), or "VE".
Basically, most researchers are having a hard time getting funding for anything with the word "virtual" in it, as it is seen (by potential investors) as a money hole.
It doesn't look like there are going to be any "breakthroughs" soon - you probably aren't going to go out and buy an HMD at Fry's within the next 5 years. It is strange, but it is mainly because of "no market". What is strange is that there is a HUGE market - FPS players. However, FPS players won't be satisfied with just an HMD, they will want at minimum full tracking of head and "gun" position. I think if a home version of Q3A coupled with the HMD, "wand", and tracking system of a Virtuality 2000 came on the market cheap enough, people would flock in droves to it, but it won't happen, because the HMD and tracking isn't cheap.
It is crazy, because the tracking should be cheap - there have been (and still are) a few projects on the net to homebrew magnetic trackers, many with enough details to replicate them yourself. Sourceless head trackers are also fairly cheap (though you can't use them with a mag tracker). HMD's are hard to homebrew, but it has been done. Parts are cheap enough, though plans are scarce. I have a ton of the plans from the early 90's, but no rights to reproduce them. Some are available online, though.
If you are real lucky, you might manage to scrounge a "pro-level" HMD off of ebay (there is pro level VR gear on ebay - stuff that used to go for thousands, now goes cheap - I have seen polhemus mag trackers on ebay, and last year I managed to "snag" a General Realities CyberEye CE-200M HMD with head tracker CHEAP).
Most of what is on Ebay is the old stuff, but it can be had fairly cheap, too - old Victormaxx HMDs and Forte VFX-1s go fairly cheap. Powergloves can be found as well, though they are starting to get real scarce.
Your best bet, if you really want to see this personally, is to build it - that is really the only way you or I will get to use this kind of stuff, and it is likely that the homebrew people will be the ones to really create the apps...
A net connected PC in the bedroom is like a TV with ALL the cable channels in the bedroom, and a 900# capable phone.
Which I understand the concern of - but the fact was at the time I had my computer, phone, modem in my bedroom, it was conected to my TV, and I did get all of the channels my parents got through cable, and my phone wasn't blocked from 900 numbers (or LD, or anything).
Not that I expect all kids to be coders, but coding is a tough thing to do in a "common" area. I wonder if those of us of similar age, who code, and coded as kids - how many had the computer in their room, vs in a common area...?
As far as not knowing what the kid is doing in the room, I would probably do what my parents did: Visit the room every now and then, and not allow the kid to close and lock the door. Plus, there is the whole trust thing (the common area set up of a computer precludes trust boundries, to an extent, IMO)...
Ok, my knowledge of radio is very low, but I have often wondered why the following couldn't be implemented, at least for "one-way" broadcasts (ie, similar to what FM is now):
1. Allocate a section of frequency bandwidth, enough for a 32-56Kbps transmission system.
2. Each "radio" is "tuned" to this "station".
3. All broadcasts have "addresses", and are packetised (ie, digitized, then the packet of digital signal has a header attached with this "address").
4. The user "tunes" to an "address", and starts receiving packets from that address, which are buffered, then reprocessed (D2A) into sound.
Ok, maybe the "bandwidth" would have to be bigger than what I proposed above to get enough "stations" into play, and the packets would have to be either ordered in some manner or randomised to ensure that the radio's buffer never underruns or whatnot - and maybe this is why this whole scheme has not been tried (can't transmit the packets fast enough because of bandwidth limits, etc).
I am just curious if this would work, or if it would be a failure (I tend to think the latter, otherwise it would have been done by now, if it hasn't already)...
And the kids PC is not in the bedroom. Bad mistake.
...and at the same time, I don't.
When I got my first computer when I was 11 (a TRS-80 Color Computer 2), it was at first in a common area (the living room), but soon it was moved into my bedroom. Now, granted, I didn't have internet access (or even a modem), but it being there in my room allowed for the opportunity to explore in ways that amaze me to this day.
I will never forget typing in programs from magazines, modifying them, and learning what made them "work". I will never forget coding on my own on the weekends and after school, sometimes in the morning before school (if I could sneak the time in).
I remember doing my homework sometimes using SCRIPSIT, and printing it out on my CGP-220 inkjet - in the 6th grade. As I think about it now...
I wonder about kids who have to sit in a common area, and worry about their parents seeing something they are doing (maybe they want to write something "secret" or build a game or something), and they can't, because they feel they will get "caught".
Eeven when my parents let me get a phone and modem, and explore the BBS's around town, they didn't care when I was in my room, chatting with others across town (I was 13 when I got my first modem - 300 baud, whoop!). Now, of course, today there is the internet, broadband, easy access to porn of ANY flavor, online predators, viruses, and a whole slew of other bad stuff...
But I tend to wonder if maybe the kids should have a computer in thier room, but isolated from the net (either physically, or via a firewall - ie, allow them to roam the home net, but not the internet), so that they can explore in similar manners...
What boggles my mind today:
Kids have at hand the graphics, processing, data storage, RAM - you name it - things that were "dream devices" when I was a kid. Yet the number of kids who "own" computers that program, I would say, is far less than it was when I was a kid (I mean, for every kid I knew when I was a kid who owned a personal computer, every single one of them at least "dabbled" with programming). This saddens me...
Doing this today (or even 10-20 years ago, though 20 years ago would still be rather impressive) isn't something that "intrigues" me - I mean, I have books on building robots (and attendant CPUs) from the mid to late 1970's.
But this guy was describing building a computer from telephone relay equipment, etc in the 60's! More or less on his own time, in high school!
I just wonder how often this occurred - I have yet to find an old Popular Science or Popular Mechanics article from the period discussing such projects (ie, homebrew computers from the 1960's) - the closest I have found was a telephone dialer system for an alarm (with complete plans for a rotary telephone), and a later book detailing building a simple calculator based on transistor logic (from the very early 1970's). I haven't found anything on people homebrewing machines in the 1960's from scavenged telephone equipment parts.
It isn't that I don't believe it impossible - I know full well that people could do this, and knew that at least a few people had done it - but how many? Was any of these efforts documented?
The closest I have come to "early homebrew computer documentation" was an old stapled, photocopied "pamphlet" from 1975 (I think) detailing how to build a computer "from scratch" - even so, it detailed info on logic circuitry, etc (74xx series), and so wasn't in the era of relay logic.
I tend to think that some of these people who possibly built such machines might have been technicians who worked on "relay ladder logic" for process control, and came home to build similar systems, but with their own curious designs - but this is just a theory, with no proof in any manner...
You will need that, and more (lots and lots of patience, primarily) to pull it off. I am not saying it is impossible, but it will be frustrating.
First off, read all of the comments here, they contain good advice.
Second, realise this, which I have rarely seen talked about:
Computers are nothing more than extremely complex player pianos.
Honestly. Think of memory as a very long (but non infinite, though it can be considered an endless loop, because when the address register of the machine "rolls over", you start at address zero again) roll of player piano music, the holes representing instructions and data, and the rate at which the computer runs (the clock) the speed at which the roll is moving (tempo?).
Anyhow, that is all a computer really is - sure, some instructions may say "move to this point on the roll (address)" or "play this note (add this number to this register)" - but all in all, it is the same.
Most of what computing is today was thought out in mechanical arrangements by Charles Babbage in the 1800's - because computer ARE inherently mechanical (read the book "The Difference Engine" for more).
Now, this doesn't explain how modern processors work. Modern processors perform some extreme "magic" - but most of what they do isn't that arcane, and you certainly aren't suggesting that you want to build an 1.5 GHz Athlon or something (and you would be insane to try to do that at home).
One thing to keep in mind is that if you are doing this at home, don't try to go much beyond 2 MHz - otherwise you will drive yourself batty trying to figure out certain problems that only appear when you run at full speed vs single stepping the clock, etc (ie, speeds of signals in the bus not arriving at proper times, etc) - if you are thinking about building such a faster machine without a logic analyzer (I think that is right - kinda like a combo logic probe with multiple inputs and an oscope like trace screen), you will be in for some surprises (read "Soul of a New Machine" for fun in this regard).
Good luck - and remember to document your progress, and let us know about it!
I have wondered if people did that, in their spare time - was this something for a class project, or was it a hobby?
In you opinion, how many people typically did this? Do you know of any references to others?
This is only kinda on-topic to the thread, as it relates to ISP connection woes...
Anyhow, recently I moved from a house I was renting to a house I am buying (ie, "renting" from the bank). Anyhow, I have cox.net broadband, and called customer service to have my service transferred. "No problem" they cheerfully informed me, and told me it should be transferred, and I could simply carry my equipment over, plug in, and go.
I have both broadband and digital cable. The house I moved to, I found out, had major bad install of cable throughout the house, so I had to do a rewire. I bought the cables, splitter, etc - and hooked it all up. What came next was (and still is, to an extent) a nightmare.
First off, only one of my cable boxes worked. It turned out that when they had switched my service, they somehow reset everything so that I only had one cable box - my other box was inactivated!
I eventually got the other box going, but I didn't know if my broadband was working. So, I decided to plug my cable modem in, and see if the lights lit up...
Nope.
The online light was dead, the others cycling (MSB4100). I called Cox up, and I was soon talking to someone to "reprovision" my modem to the network. After a few minutes, he had it done, the light was on, and I thought I would be happy.
I still had to unpack and set up my computers and network, and I had a lot of stuff to do, so I put it off for a week. At the beginning of this week, I finally found the time, and hooked my machines up. I have a linux firewall/router in between my setup, so I had to get that hooked up first. I booted it, and it seemed to recognise everything fine, getting the DHCP connection to cox, etc - I thought I was set.
I hooked up my main linux box, fired it up (it had been down for about 2-3 weeks), and it booted fine (I guess my day could have been worse), so I tried pinging my router/firewall - good, then google, good - I fired up Netscape at that point, and tried to check my mail: "account is inactive" was the response - WTF?
I tried the browser - could browse everywhere, but no matter what I tried, I couldn't access my mail.
I eventually called Cox, and found that when the switch was done, somehow my primary account didn't get transferred or switched properly (something tells me they are blowing smoke), and after a ton of back-and-forth calls, here I am still without email, and waiting for them to delete the primary account and re-add it back it (oh, and I will lose all of my email sitting on the server - they did tell me to retrieve and back it up - but if I could do that, why would I be calling them?).
Gah - it is crazy...
Here are some links that you may find helpful and/or interesting:
The JoyRider Virtual Flyer
Homebrew Flight Sim Cockpit
Full Motion Flight Simulation Platform
Homemade Flight Simulator
3 Axis Flight Simulator
Also, look for something called the "Rock-N-Ride" - it was a commercial low-cost motion platform, that interfaced to a serial port and used a airbrush compressor for power. It wasn't cheap, but it was cheaper than a real 3 axis platform. I have also seen real 3 axis platforms sold on eBay, but be prepared for hydraulic behemoths (in weight, if not size) that will set you back some.
Now, granted, none of these sites will probably answer your question about what to do in regards to all of the lights, switches, etc. For that, I would suggest looking into PIC or BASIC Stamp interfacing over a "single-wire" serial interface or similar. You could probably also do it with logic circuits and shift register-based systems (to effect a parallel to serial to parallel interface), or use a MAX232 for comm. There is also a guy out there that sells an ethernet -> uPU interface (people have used it to hook old C64's to ethernet, etc).
You could also hook up to the joystick port - in theory you could hook resistors up to get input from both axis's, a different resistor per switch, two joysticks - plus all of the buttons - that is a lot of buttons!
There is also the possibility of using the joystick port as a MIDI port, and comm'ing over that. Also, look up joystick info, there is a method of toggling a bit or so on the joystick port to actually gain a certain low-speed output over the joystick port to allow you to "clock" data from the port - supposedly some "digital" joysticks have done this.
There is always USB - check out Nuts and Volts magazine - there have been articles in the past on the chipsets, etc needed to interface using USB.
I hope this helps...
This isn't an internal MP3 server at Blizzard that employees can backup/store their songs on and play. This is people in Blizzard who are publically sharing songs over the internet.
Even if it was an internal MP3 server, it wouldn't matter, it seems.
Here in Phoenix, Arizona (I actually think it is a Tempe or Mesa company) is a company who is being sued under the DMCA for copyright violations due to an internal MP3 server.
I am just waiting for them to target individuals...