You'll actually violate the warranty on many HD projection sets if you watch NSTC broadcasts in their native aspect ratio because the bars down the side will burn in.
How does this happen?
I will make an assumption here, simply because I have never taken apart an HDTV bigscreen, but I do know what a regular bigscreen uses, so I assume it is the same thing:
Most bigscreens (HDTV or otherwise) use tube based CRT projection systems (basically, three CRTs with liquid cooling systems, cranked brightness for the lumens, projecting the RGB color triad which are combined with mirrors and lenses). HDTV would use much higher resolution CRTs, with faster scan rates and drivers.
Now, a CRT works by scanning an electron beam, produced at the back of the tube in the neck, using electromagnetic steering coils, across the face of the tube - actually, there is a "shadow mask" in the way - but that isn't relevant to my question. When the beam hits the front of the tube, on the inside face of the tube is coated with phosphor dots (red tube coated with red only, blue with blue only, etc) - which when struck by the electron beam, glow (for a brief period - refreshed on each scan). The electron beam is modulated for brightness, to produce different levels of color for each tube. So, beam on high equals max brightness - beam not turned on at all equals true black, right?
So, when watching a 4:3 aspect ratio picture on a wide screen, there have to be "bars" to either side of the image, right? So - for burn-in to occur (like on old arcade game screens, or old terminal screens), the image has to be unchanging, and relatively bright - ie, not black (which is an absence of the electron beam, right?)...
The only other kind of "burn-in" I can imagine is where if you only use the bigscreen for 4:3 ratio images, and there is an "uneveness" resulting from _not_ using the area where the black bars are - so that when you did go to use "widescreen" mode, the areas of the blackbars would look "brighter" than the central area where your 4:3 ratio image normally was.
If this is the case, I wouldn't consider the areas where the bars "burned-in" - but rather the central area would be, correct? Is this the case they are speaking of (BTW - I am not saying bigscreens don't suffer from burn-in - I know they do, at far higher rates due to their inherent brightness and power levels of the CRTs used)?
I didn't have Lego kits, I had a pile of Legos parts. I had a pile of resistors, caps, wires switches, motors, batteries, lights, some electrical tape, and a soldering iron. I built model rockets. I never bought a pre-made one.
First off, what you can do lies in your statement:
Quit shopping at Toys-R-Us. Give your kid a small hammer, some nails, and some scrap wood - let him build a tree house, a downhill racer, anything! Find things that he can take apart, and put back together (ok, at first he will be a "one-way-mechanic" - but teach him how to go both ways as time goes on). Get those resistors, etc - teach him how to build a motor, a telegraph, a generator, etc. Get your kid a copy of this book TODAY! If you have ever seen this book, you know that kids of yesterday were, by far, much more serious "self-starters" and experimenters than they are today.
You know what to do - so do it! As your kid grows older, teach him how to pull apart cars, computers, etc. If he wants to focus on software, let him - but try to teach him the hardware side as well - because knowing BOTH is very useful.
Encourage him to study his science, and to take shop classes, as well as drafting (CAD?) classes as he grows. Foster in him not just how to fix things, or how to build things - but how to design new things. Further, teach him how to work off-the-shelf stuff into new things (what I mean by this is learning the ability to look at an off-the-shelf item as a design object, rather than just the object itself, so that it can be incorporated into larger creations - like how to take a certain water valve, and use it and change it in ways for a totally new application).
Trips to the junk yard and yard sales become part finding expeditions! Don't neglect metalwork (my downfalling, until recently!) - heck, give him a welding rig or torch when he is 10 - but teach him proper respect - that it isn't a toy - but a tool that can cause harm, but can also cause much GREATER creation and invention! Build a gocart together! Or how about a wind generator (would go quite nice with the treehouse)? Convert a lawnmower to radio control! Build model rockets from gift wrapping tubes! Build a spud-launcher!
Want to foster creativity in him RIGHT NOW if he is less than 10 years old (hell, even if he is 10 years old or more)? Teach him how to make paper airplanes. Teach him how they fly, why they fly, how to "control" them (flaps, rudders, etc). Then, bring in origami folding techniques to make unique style planes (realistic tails, cockpits, and wing shapes are easily possible - especially once you know the swan folding techniques). Maybe build a hot air balloon with tissue paper?
The possibilities are endless - but I will end here. The gist of creative learning is to stop being extremely protective of your child (remember that book I refered you to? It shows how to make lead acid batteries! For KIDS!), and start being a parent and a teacher. The fact that you are bemoaning the loss of building toys reflects that you already know this. Take it to the next level...
If you want an interesting read, of which this idea (ie, sterilized males being inserted into a population ala fruit flies, etc) is a part of the book, read Dust by Charles R. Pellegrino.
The ideas and information brought up in this book are fascinating, to say the least - at the end of the book he explains the reasoning behind the science in the book (he is a scientist - some of the stuff he made up, some is projections from the "now", and some is fact).
One subject he brings up in the book is that of a real study that was done (I wish I could remember what uni did the study, and when) that examined what would happen to a forest if it was irradiated vs removing the insect population entirely - what was found was that in the end, a forest that was irradiated seemed to do fine, but one without its insects (above and below ground) died off rapidly. I am not sure how controlled this experiment was, considering how difficult it is to erradicate all insects from an area (if it is even possible - probably not - considering dust mites and such, which by the way play a large part in the book).
The book revolves around what we are doing to our environment, and how we don't know if one small last thing we do throws the balance off completely, and we plunge headlong into chaos - with the possible end result of our species becoming extinct itself.
What I find most amazing about humans is the fact that we can contemplate all of this, actually coming up with a logical progression, test the hypothesis in lab conditions and come to conclusions, but ignore the eveidence and do nothing long term, chucking the future for short term gains only...
I once saw an error on a NT4 box when my supervisor was upgrading a piece of software on the server. The error?
Imagine a small dialog, with a title of "Error", no close button, a small text questionmark in the middle (nothing else!) and an "OK" button.
To this day we still don't know what it means (and if I was in charge, I would never buy another thing from that company again - but alas, not my decision).
So, yeah - I agree - good error handling should be paramount. I would also add that the error handling should distinguish between errors that are minor annoyances, but processing can continue, and those which bring the software to a halt, and it must be terminated. Plus, you should ALWAYS trap for errors in every instance, even in those situations where you are positive an error can't happen - because that is where it WILL happen. So, use you error trapping everywhere you can. Finally, if the error is a missing field or something not entered right - in addition to explain what the error was, and where it is - highlight the field, and put the focus on that field so that the user can IMMEDIATELY change it to something more appropriate (maybe even change the tool tip if it exists to reflect what should be in the field)...
Because it is SF - I haven't been to SF many times - but I remember it being rather "hilly". But I don't think the whole thing is, and may not be where you are going to use your transportation...
With that said, I have to agree that a bike is a good thing - however, I would imagine it would be tough to bring onto a tram or whatnot (maybe even annoying to other passengers). Others have suggested skateboards, or scooter devices, which are smaller and lighter weight - but may not be legal in SF. So, what about a compromise here?
Try a unicycle!
Now, I have never ridden one, so I don't know how easy they are to ride - but I have seen people ride them, so they can't be too difficult. They can be rather small, fit into the "footprint" of a person on the sidewalk, have the ease of a bicycle and the portability of a skateboard. I don't know if it would be possible (or if it has been done) - but you might look into rigging a Sturmey-Archer multi-speed hub to the pedals to get some "gears" for inclines and such! Would probably take some serious machine work - but I am certain it could be done.
I have posted here before my situation - I live in Phoenix, AZ (relatively flat), and I am in the process of building a recumbent electric vehicle from bicycle parts (a 26 inch and a 20 inch), and a pretty powerful electric motor (heh, that I have to later refit new bearings into - ugh). I have already got the pieces of the frame cut and ground to fit - this weekend will be "welding weekend" to bring the frame together - then test fit the wheels, etc. I then have to plan the steering system (under seat recumbent-style) and the motor drive and positioning.
Actually, if you have a small welder, a grinder, a hacksaw (or angle grinder), and some time - building a recumbent really isn't that involved of a process, once you have the bike frames (I picked mine up at garage sales for $15.00 total). While it won't fit on a tram or BART easily, it might be something that can get you all the way in, instead...
Interesting way of starting to get them out to the public, but somehow I think this is going to flop. The idea is interesting, the technology is cool - but the price is way too high for the people who would really want one and use it - kids.
I realize this isn't the market they are aiming for, but it is the market that would ride it. How many times a week do you see kids riding those motorized scooters? Here in Phoenix, I see it almost daily. I think I have only managed to see an adult riding one a couple of times. Plus, for kids, it is too quiet - they don't want an electric scooter, otherwise you would see more Zap! scooters around - they want loud motor sounds (always been that way, I guess) - rice boy wannabee attitude, maybe? Who knows...
Then there are the laws - I know that here in Phoenix anything with an under 25-30cc engine is classified as a "moped" - and can't go faster than 25 mph. You need a license, but any license will do - you also need a special insurance rider on your auto insurance, and you have to register the moped with the state (no titling, though) - costs about $5.00. I am sure similar laws exist in other states. However, here is where the problem lies:
Electric or gas, these scooters will be under the moped rule - so they are motorized vehicles. Legally, that means no sidewalk use, plus no bike trail use - road use only. But they have no lights, so they aren't legal for driving on the road - so where do you drive them? It is a legal hole that needs "filling" - but lawmakers don't seem too eager to fill it (but I am sure they buy their kids all sorts of scooters!).
The Segway will be affected by this same issue. The laws were created with small motorized bikes in mind (not motorized bicycles, typically considered a separate category!), like were popular in 70's and early 80's and made by European and Japanese companies (Honda and Peugeot mainly). Strangely enough, scooters weren't made in large quantities or at all, even though the idea was there (I remember seeing many an episode of "That's Incredible" and "Real People" wearing or riding motorized skateboards and electric roller skates)...
I will be facing a similar situation - though I am going to do everything to be as legal as possible. I am currently in the process of building an electric recumbent vehicle. The frame is being built out of a 26" and 20" bikes (bought for $15.00 total at garage sales), and a DC motor I picked up at a local electronics junkyard (Apache Reclamation). Various other parts will be bought to complete the thing, welded together, etc - I plan on adding a full light system (headlight, front and rear turn/brake lights), and registering it as a moped.
I think such a vehicle would be something more likely to gain broader acceptance among adults, rather than a scooter vehicle - the crazy thing is, recumbent bicycles have never been cheap. In fact, a lot of people have found recumbents so expensive that a lot build their own (do some googling on "recumbent", "homebrew" to see what I mean) - the parts aren't expensive, one would think that a cheap recumbent should cost no more than double the price of a cheap Huffy bike - but many times recumbents cost thousands (though even a good multi speed bike can set you back a lot).
So, I am building my recumbent, but it is meant as a vehicle, not a bike - it is only built of bike parts (I plan on building it, getting it working, then stripping it down to the frame, cleaning and repainting it - so it won't be ghetto). So far, I have only spent $45.00 total on it, plus some time. I hope to have it come under $200.00 total, with most of the cost in the batteries...
I thought about this myself - where I currently lived I am hemmed in by two mountains, one to the south of me and one to the west of me - both are about a half-mile away. I was thinking what it would take to establish a wireless link to a friend who lives to the southwest of me.
Fortunately, there is a nearby freeway, which passes between the mountains - and a cell phone tower is nearly in my back yard. I gave thought to a repeater on the mountain, but forest service is rampant in the area due to motorcross bikers using the desert for fun, so getting to the top might be hard and dangerous (rocks, snakes, scorpions, you name it). I thought maybe bouncing the signal off the cell phone tower - but thought that might not be nice - it would be too easy to pinpoint me and my friend. So, I gave thought to a tethered balloon platform - unfortunately, even that has problems - keeping it filled, in position, tethered, high winds off the mountain - and, one other thing - we live right under a flight path for a nearby (like, three miles away) airport.
So, wireless to my friend's house from here isn't likely to happen soon (not that it matters much - it was more a "what-if" experiment)...
Actually, the original poster was probably talking about the CoCo 3, which came standard with 128K of RAM, but could be expanded to 512K (3rd party expansion options allowed up to 2 meg - and someone on the net was making expansion cards to go to 8 meg or so via 30 pin SIMMs!). OS-9 Level 2 was the OS for a multi-user system, and there was even a multi-tasking windowed type thing for it, IIRC. There were expansion packs through third parties that allowed you to hook up SCSI hard drives - though at the time it seemed waaay too expensive to get a 10 meg drive ($500? something like that).
All in all, even with just Extended Basic as the OS, the CoCo 3 was an insane machine for its time and cost.
And as far as expansion on the CoCo 2? I seem to recall third party expansion options to take them to 128K or so (Tandy only supported up to 64K)...
Imagine that digital projection is everywhere, and it is great quality. Movies "zip" across the internet from the distributor to the movie theater near instantly on dedicated high-speed data lines. Here is where the problem lies...
Currently, a film is made, then multiple copies of it are created. There aren't enough copies made for every theater in the world, because the cost of making the copies is pretty large. So, a limited number are made, and the movies are sent out in a "staggered" fashion around the world - first in America (for American films, usually), then to Europe and Japan, etc. What happens is a movie will open in one country, but not in every country - a few months later Europe gets it, then Japan (or however the order is) - until eventually some backwater country may get it, after it has passed through a ton of mailings and numerous playings (pity the small man on the totem pole) - scratchy and ugly - but that is the way it is.
With digital, it doesn't have to be that way - "instant" transport via dedicated lines, no film to copy, etc - there isn't any need now to suspend sending it everywhere - right?
Well, look at DVDs - same thing, nearly - but it has this funky thing called "region coding" - it is an artificial scarcity placed upon the medium, to continue with the staggering of releases, so that the DVD isn't seen in Europe while it is waiting for the actual movie. If movies went digital, wouldn't this DVD region-coding staggering issue be seen as the real scam it is?
Or maybe they (MPAA? SOMEONE!) are making extra money by staggering the movies in some fashion (ie, the staggering has to be done - so let's make money off of the situation!) - but with digital distribution, away goes that revenue stream...?
As always - follow the money, and there will be your answer (it surely can't be the cost of the projectors - I am certain that the money saved by using digital projectors over normal projectors would easily cover any extra infrastructure cost - ie, network, servers, etc - at the theater - those non-digital projectors are EXPENSIVE)...
Not only one of the first (the first?) synthesizers for electronic music - but his very idea was to send electronic music over telephone lines to "listeners"...
When? Idea in 1893, granted patent number 580,035 in 1898, and completed the first machine in 1901 - prior art, methinks!!!
Then along comes Windows 2.0 and later 3.0. No more sales. Windows paint is free and does it all just as good. Did MS abuse their monopoly?
Well, in a way - yeah. For the simple Paint market they used thier presence in the OS market to give away a competing product, eliminating the smaller competitors in the Paint market. Indeed, I could show you an ad (from an old Creative Computing Magazine from the 80's) which I could almost swear is the same Paintbrush program as is included in Windows 3.0 and 3.1 - but it was made by a different company - however, that company is no longer around - I tend to wonder if Microsoft bought them out, then incorporated the program into their software...
You notice they have not gave any serious effort yet of "squashing" Adobe, on any real front? I imagine that will be coming in the future.
As far as a browser being a core function of the OS - I would have to agree that, yes, today it just might be. But at the time of Microsoft giving away IE (by putting it prominently on the desktop, which was pre-installed via OEMs in binding licenses that disallowed them from installing any other browser, much less selling another operating system) in the face of Netscape selling their browser, they used their monopoly to take over another market sector - which is a violation of anti-trust laws. You can yell all you want about it not being a market today, but back then, it clearly was a different software market. It doesn't matter how it is "today" - what matters is their actions YESTERDAY, and how that caused the "destruction" of a competitor, Netscape.
But when this all started (1995-1996?) they WERE separate markets - and that is what this issue is about - not what they are TODAY, but what they were YESTERDAY.
Currently, what keeps most e-books from taking off, other than the price, tends to be the format and design of e-book readers themselves. While the Rocketbook is a good format, it isn't perfect, and it tends to be impersonal - that is to say hard and cold, unlike a real book. What is needed is a new "reader".
This new "reader" is almost here - and when it comes, it WILL change the way we use and view books, provided it is cheap enough, can hold enough of the books, and that the books will be cheaper themselves. The format of the reader is ideal:
1) About the size of a paperback novel, but with hard plastic front and back "covers", and a plastic "spine". 2) Covers and spine hold battery, memory, and cpu for the reader, as well as a "docking" port of some sort. 3) Sandwitched in-between the "covers" are 100-200 "pages" of xerox (or similar) "e-paper". The paper is "bound" into the book in such a way to allow the book to lay flat (perfect for recipes and studying). Also, said e-paper contains stress/bend sensors along the spine edge to determine when a page has been turned, and which page it is. The e-paper also has touch sensitive spots on the upper and lower right hand edge of the page, both side (left edge on other "side"). This would facilitate bookmarking, zooming, scrolling and possible other features needed in the "book".
Such a book could have the text/images downloaded to it, and you could flip through it and read it like you would any other book. The e-paper would feel similar to a glossy style paper, and when you got to the end of the pages, if there were more in the book, close it, and open it again to see the rest (or hit one of the "tabs" to continue, perhaps). Flip the book around and you can read Hebrew. Flip it "vertical" and you can read one page with a picture above or below, landscape style - hang it on the wall, and it become a small calendar!
However, even though this is the "perfect" format (ok, even I know it isn't perfect, but it goes a long way, you have to agree), something that would make a lot of people want it and the books to go with it - there is a dark side to this technology:
Inevitably (actually, today) - if publishers could have their way, they would be charging and doing a "pay-per-read" system. They really hate the lending and reselling of books, in any venue - they hate the "first-sale" doctrine. What the new reader would give them could be a "pay-per-read" and "re-read" system: You turn the page, to read the next, flip back one page, and it is blank - need to pay for the whole book, or that page, to read it again. Or maybe they allow you to read each page only a few time, before it disappears. Suddenly, the book is no longer a "useful" thing anymore.
I don't know if such a development would cause people to drop it, or if it would be glibly accepted. I hope the former, I fear the latter.
Still, such a device could have an enormous impact, if it was kept open to use (to put your own books on, and no "pay-per-read" system), and cheap enough.
I suppose I should be glad that portable CD players didn't come out later - imagine having to pay each time you wanted to hear a track (yeah, I know - they are working on that, too)...
I think buying a $10 book in cash isn't doesn't so much warrant notice, as does, say buying a $1000 ticket in cash. Most people do not care that sort of money on their person, so it is worth investigating.
WTF?!
Why should you think that? What right is it of you or the government to suspect me of wrongdoing simply because I want to PAY FOR SOMETHING IN WHATEVER MANNER I CHOOSE?
Has cash become illegal to use? Am I not allowed to barter for my goods or services, should I so wish? Why do these actions mark me as a criminal?
The simple fact of the matter is I may want to use cash for MY PRIVACY! If I want to go to the bank, withdraw $1000 dollars cash, then use that cash to pay for a plane ticket - I damn well better be able to! It should not matter who I am, who I know, who I speak to or congregate with, or where I am from, what language I speak, what religion I practice, what political leanings I hold, or what color my skin is, or which way I sexually swing - that IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S, NOR ANYONE ELSES BUSINESS IN MY PERSONAL DEALINGS.
In America, I AM INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY BY A JURY OF MY PEERS. Not before. Our society has seem to forgotten this basic tenet. Should I use that ticket to get on a mode of transportation and do something nefarious and heinous, then once it is apparent my actions and motives, I should be arrested and tried, then sentenced - AS IS PROVIDED BY OUR CONSTITUTION AND LAW.
But if I only want to take a train to enjoy the scenery passing by, and maybe start a new life somewhere else - WHY SHOULD ANYONE GIVE A FLYING F---? Because of what I may do?
Someday, if not today - behind every camera will be software and a database that can pick out faces, and store those faces in a database. Should one of those faces belong to a criminal, that individual could be flagged, and tracked, from camera to camera - wherever he or she goes.
You may say to yourself "Well, hey, that sounds like a good thing" - and you would be DEAD WRONG. Why?
Imagine that individual had did a crime - something heinous, something petty - but they did their time, paid their debt to society, and are truely sorry for it. Maybe they even make amends, in whatever way is possible, to the victims of their crime. However, in federal databases, they are marked as a former criminal - no mention in the databases of their current activities or amends - no flags to show how they feel. Only that they once did a crime, and thus should be tracked, and watched - and made paranoid. Why not simply have a cop follow them around instead? They paid their debt, but they should never be trusted again? What is the purpose of prison and sentencing then? If it isn't reform, why let someone out who shoplifted? Hell, why keep them alive at all?
Or, imagine this scenario:
There is a database containing all of these faces of criminals - the matching software is looking through the cameras, looking at past faces, and current faces, trying to find a match - and one is spotted - your face! But you haven't done anything! But now your face is in the system, and the system is tracking you. Why did the match occur? Well, maybe the software was simplified using an eigenface system or something, and your face closely matches the reference key for a particular eigenface, and that key also matches that for a known criminal face - maybe something happened in your past long ago when you were a kid, and they took your picture, then let you go to your parents - but a record exists, and it was added to the database as a possible hit - there are tons of scenarios to draw upon - but when the cops come up, drag you out of the crowd for matching a face that the computer says is you, wastes a hell of a lot of time (hey, you might even be put in a holding cell for a day or two while things are straightened out) - there is the possibility.
Then, of course, there is the fact that the cameras do nothing to stop crime, they merely record the crime as is progresses, and do nothing to deter the crime after the fact (ie, I bet you'll feel real secure in a camera recording you being stabbed to death by a psycho serial killer wearing a ski mask)...
Think this is babble? Read Database Nation, and open your eyes...
We return back to this same issue - the tying of the browser to the OS. However, it seems like the real question is never asked, and an answer is never forthcoming...
Even if it is proven that the browser could be separate, that does nothing to bring Netscape, the company (rather than the AOL subsidiary or whatever they are now), back. It does not help any stock valuing, it doesn't help investors - Netscape - the company - is dead.
Yet we don't hear from the states - the last hope (maybe) to get this settled honestly and justly - that Microsoft has been found to be guilty of using its monopoly powers illegally, to force another company out of business. They VIOLATED ANTI-TRUST MEASURES! It wouldn't have mattered if the browser was part of the OS, if it was separate and installed with it, or if it was given away free on a CD in every box of Cherrios on the store shelves. The fact that they dropped the price to zero and gave it away, plus using thier advantage in the OS market to sway people into using it (by either installing it with the OS or tying it in someway), in order to undermine a competitor in an "unrelated" software product (Netscape and the browser business) at the time - this is illegal under the Anti-Trust laws.
This lawsuit is not about today - it is about what happened so many years ago. Today, it seems pretty obvious that a browsable UI and OS seem like a good solution (or at least "a" solution). Back then, though, they were nearly two separate pieces of software. But today, the states seem to be treating this lawsuit as if it were about the present situation in software - when that isn't the case, nor should it be.
I want Microsoft to be punished for its actions against Netscape and against the consumer - for these actions removed a choice from the consumer - a choice to spend or not spend their money (ie, buy Netscape for $$$), as well as causing what may have been the premature "death" of a company (of course, this is only one aspect of the entire lawsuit - the whole thing with licensing restrictions on OEMs to prevent them from selling or installing onto systems other OSs, etc - locking in a OS monopoly on hardware OEMs - more anti-trust issues)...
I want an full answer on that - why aren't we (as citizens and consumers) getting that answer?
True, I would have to concede that running the pump is the most expensive thing, and you don't get away from that with a salt-water pool. I tend to wonder, though, whether you have to run a salt-water pool pump more or less? Would be something interesting and worthwhile to know, to say the least.
Still, the advantages of simple salt over pool chemicals still make sense, if only for the simple reason that one is safer (overall - storage, transport, use) than the other (chlorine/acid vs salt)...
For a book so old (for personal computing, it is pretty damn old - its first printing, edition 0, was in 1972) to still be printed, and cheap, as well - almost as cheap as before - only a few dollars more.
Thanks for the update - I have got to email this guy...
Today I went out "garage saleing" - and managed to find a couple of "interesting" books:
The Secret Guide to Computers - Vol 1
and
The Secret Guide to Computers - Vol 2: Deep Secrets
Both are of the 11th edition, written and published by Russ Walter - no ISBN, because in Russ' own words: "Ha ha ha! You think this book is standard?"
These books are weird, and wonderful at the same time - they have strange "rainbow" colored covers, and the introduction in the first volume starts out with the line "Computers are like drugs: you begin by spending just a little money on them, but then you get so excited by the experience-and so hooked-that you wind up spending more and more money, to feed your habit."
It takes the reader through introduction to programming, microcomputers, a bit of computer history, language history (listing some languages and origins I didn't even know about - and I collect this kind of info!) - you name the topic, and if it is from the early-80's and prior, it is in there. There is a wonderful section on computer "art", with crude black-and-white "photos" of early computer line drawings - including a series of Ivan Sutherland's "Aircraft Carrier Landing Simulator" - 3D graphics from the late 60's - early 70's!!!
What is even more strange about the books is the amount of background info they give on the histories of various companies involved in microcomputers - plus info on the micros themselves (once again, if it existed, it is in the book - CP/M even features pretty prominantly). It gets even more strange - vague and not-so-vague references to sex, etc - about throughout the book: In the section on Russ' version of assembly language (his own creation), the opening section title is "SEXY ASS" - I kid you NOT (watch the lameness filter catch that). That section details what he terms "Simple EXcellent-for-You ASSembler" - then goes on to "teach" how to use this variant of assembler...
He has another language called "EASY"...
How rare (or common?) was this set of books - I have never seen another copy (as opposed to David Ahl's BASIC Games series, of which I have seen numerous copies)? Has anyone else come across it?
I couldn't resist buying it - and at a quarter per book (oooh, a whole 50 cents!) - it was MINE...
Was a salt-water pool. The filtration/cleaning system was electrical based, and super simple looking and small to boot. The water was VERY gentle, you could easily open your eyes underwater without any burning, and when you got out, you weren't "sticky".
Now, true - maybe a chlorine pool can be the same way with proper care and attention to everything - I don't know, I have never owned a pool. But I tell you, the cost in savings of chemicals alone for a salt water pool make it seem worth it (basically, you use big bags of salt, and a bit of electricity - cheap).
Hell, here in Phoenix, it is even possible to do it for less - ok, maybe the house and pool aren't new, but tommorow I will be looking at a 3 bdr house w/covered RV parking, covered patio, and diving pool (ie, pool with 10 foot deep end) - and it is selling for "only" $120,000!!!
But completely enclosed - using such plans would be a great starting point for a "clean box" - basically you want to have a completely enclosed box, with gloves reaching inside (ie, the wall is sealed around the gloves) - an air inlet (through a HEPA filter) and an air outlet (through a HEPA filter as well). Finally, the entire inside of the box needs to be super clean, then the air filtered in and left running to remove any stray particles...
I realize that all the centers won't be in third-world, poor countries - that all of the children won't be poor.
But at any rate, giving away advanced technology won't help - no matter what it is. If the infrastructure isn't in place to keep the tech going (power, supplies, repair, etc) - it will only last so long, then become another piece of "junk".
I would say the thing to give people, of any age, is education. If it has to be based on technology, then give the people enough education to know basic tech (ie, teach fundamental machines - you know, the wheel, inclined plane, lever, etc - then teach how they go together to form more advanced machinery, machinery that can help them advance).
I remember seeing a site detailing how this group help some people in a third-world country develop solar cooking techniques - by teaching them how to build a parabolic reflector from basic materials easily found in the village. The group taught the people how to form a parabola using simple techniques (that don't require complex math, just some string and nails, and straight lines), then make a template, to make a mold in the ground, to form a parabolic "mirror" using weaved mats, mud, concrete, and tinfoil or other metal.
Teaching such things is what will help. All kids should learn the basics of such applied science at an early age - whether they are from the first or third world. Show them how to construct things from available materials, cast off "junk", etc - to be self-sufficient and rely less on the "man's" expensive "new" stuff, and instead scrounge among the cast-off detritus left behind.
Move on further by teaching how to build simple steam engines and turbines (maybe simple water pumps and such first, to teach flap valves, pistons, etc). Remember, the first practicle steam engines were built in the 16th and 17th century, and other "toy" technology was developed by the Greeks much, much earlier than that! Show how to build wind generators from cast-off 55 gallon drums and car alternators (or squirrel cage motors) - think large scale anemometers, or build a Savonious Rotor - give power before tech.
There are tons of other things that could be done - but it all boils down to education. Most importantly an education in self-sufficiency, and how to recognise those that want to enslave (either litterally or via economics, social programs, or otherwise) - and how to avoid it.
The problem is huge - I really don't know if there will ever be a real solution...
This is insane - and most likely wouldn't work in the long term.
Look at the BP6 mod - toward the end there is tons of specs of dirt on the disk surface everywhere - hell, I think I even saw a fingerprint or two. At least the other article seemed "cleaner" - but still, the idea of doing this in a bathroom - wha? - are you on crack?
I don't understand why no one (or at least it seems that way) has built a "clean-tank". In theory, it would be pretty simple - maybe not clean enough for major work, but enough for some mod like this, or anything else that requires a relatively clean environment (not that I would still trust anything afterward).
You would need a plexiglass tank, completely sealed on the edges. The tank would have rubber gloves or something (new and clean, non-talc coated - maybe washed down, too) to work inside the tank, and a mounted HEPA filter on one tank wall, a hose leading to a blower unit, and a HEPA filter just after the blower, and a HEPA filter on the intake of the blower (after all those filters, the unit won't blow much, but you want clean air). Then, you would have to clean your tools as good as possible, put them in the tank (always handling them with rubber gloves), along with the device you are working on (cleaned and handled with gloves again), then start up the blower and let it run for a few hours to clean any residual particles out (maybe there should be another HEPA filter on another wall, open to the room, to let the excess pressure out, along with particles).
Even in such a homebrew tank, I doubt after working on the drive, etc that it would be very stable. While doing such a mod or surgery on a drive seems like something worthwhile and cool, it really isn't worth it unless it is a "last ditch" effort to get data back from the dead.
That said - either the BP6 mod was faked (because of all the dust), or he actually did it for real, and did another in a dirty fashion - but I would think that if he wanted to show the technique, he would have tried to keep the whole thing clean as possible - and he didn't, which makes me suspect the whole thing (as in, "hey, lets see what other fools will try this!")...
Slashdot Mirror
You'll actually violate the warranty on many HD projection sets if you watch NSTC broadcasts in their native aspect ratio because the bars down the side will burn in.
How does this happen?
I will make an assumption here, simply because I have never taken apart an HDTV bigscreen, but I do know what a regular bigscreen uses, so I assume it is the same thing:
Most bigscreens (HDTV or otherwise) use tube based CRT projection systems (basically, three CRTs with liquid cooling systems, cranked brightness for the lumens, projecting the RGB color triad which are combined with mirrors and lenses). HDTV would use much higher resolution CRTs, with faster scan rates and drivers.
Now, a CRT works by scanning an electron beam, produced at the back of the tube in the neck, using electromagnetic steering coils, across the face of the tube - actually, there is a "shadow mask" in the way - but that isn't relevant to my question. When the beam hits the front of the tube, on the inside face of the tube is coated with phosphor dots (red tube coated with red only, blue with blue only, etc) - which when struck by the electron beam, glow (for a brief period - refreshed on each scan). The electron beam is modulated for brightness, to produce different levels of color for each tube. So, beam on high equals max brightness - beam not turned on at all equals true black, right?
So, when watching a 4:3 aspect ratio picture on a wide screen, there have to be "bars" to either side of the image, right? So - for burn-in to occur (like on old arcade game screens, or old terminal screens), the image has to be unchanging, and relatively bright - ie, not black (which is an absence of the electron beam, right?)...
The only other kind of "burn-in" I can imagine is where if you only use the bigscreen for 4:3 ratio images, and there is an "uneveness" resulting from _not_ using the area where the black bars are - so that when you did go to use "widescreen" mode, the areas of the blackbars would look "brighter" than the central area where your 4:3 ratio image normally was.
If this is the case, I wouldn't consider the areas where the bars "burned-in" - but rather the central area would be, correct? Is this the case they are speaking of (BTW - I am not saying bigscreens don't suffer from burn-in - I know they do, at far higher rates due to their inherent brightness and power levels of the CRTs used)?
I didn't have Lego kits, I had a pile of Legos parts. I had a pile of resistors, caps, wires switches, motors, batteries, lights, some electrical tape, and a soldering iron. I built model rockets. I never bought a pre-made one.
First off, what you can do lies in your statement:
Quit shopping at Toys-R-Us. Give your kid a small hammer, some nails, and some scrap wood - let him build a tree house, a downhill racer, anything! Find things that he can take apart, and put back together (ok, at first he will be a "one-way-mechanic" - but teach him how to go both ways as time goes on). Get those resistors, etc - teach him how to build a motor, a telegraph, a generator, etc. Get your kid a copy of this book TODAY! If you have ever seen this book, you know that kids of yesterday were, by far, much more serious "self-starters" and experimenters than they are today.
You know what to do - so do it! As your kid grows older, teach him how to pull apart cars, computers, etc. If he wants to focus on software, let him - but try to teach him the hardware side as well - because knowing BOTH is very useful.
Encourage him to study his science, and to take shop classes, as well as drafting (CAD?) classes as he grows. Foster in him not just how to fix things, or how to build things - but how to design new things. Further, teach him how to work off-the-shelf stuff into new things (what I mean by this is learning the ability to look at an off-the-shelf item as a design object, rather than just the object itself, so that it can be incorporated into larger creations - like how to take a certain water valve, and use it and change it in ways for a totally new application).
Trips to the junk yard and yard sales become part finding expeditions! Don't neglect metalwork (my downfalling, until recently!) - heck, give him a welding rig or torch when he is 10 - but teach him proper respect - that it isn't a toy - but a tool that can cause harm, but can also cause much GREATER creation and invention! Build a gocart together! Or how about a wind generator (would go quite nice with the treehouse)? Convert a lawnmower to radio control! Build model rockets from gift wrapping tubes! Build a spud-launcher!
Want to foster creativity in him RIGHT NOW if he is less than 10 years old (hell, even if he is 10 years old or more)? Teach him how to make paper airplanes. Teach him how they fly, why they fly, how to "control" them (flaps, rudders, etc). Then, bring in origami folding techniques to make unique style planes (realistic tails, cockpits, and wing shapes are easily possible - especially once you know the swan folding techniques). Maybe build a hot air balloon with tissue paper?
The possibilities are endless - but I will end here. The gist of creative learning is to stop being extremely protective of your child (remember that book I refered you to? It shows how to make lead acid batteries! For KIDS!), and start being a parent and a teacher. The fact that you are bemoaning the loss of building toys reflects that you already know this. Take it to the next level...
If you want an interesting read, of which this idea (ie, sterilized males being inserted into a population ala fruit flies, etc) is a part of the book, read Dust by Charles R. Pellegrino.
The ideas and information brought up in this book are fascinating, to say the least - at the end of the book he explains the reasoning behind the science in the book (he is a scientist - some of the stuff he made up, some is projections from the "now", and some is fact).
One subject he brings up in the book is that of a real study that was done (I wish I could remember what uni did the study, and when) that examined what would happen to a forest if it was irradiated vs removing the insect population entirely - what was found was that in the end, a forest that was irradiated seemed to do fine, but one without its insects (above and below ground) died off rapidly. I am not sure how controlled this experiment was, considering how difficult it is to erradicate all insects from an area (if it is even possible - probably not - considering dust mites and such, which by the way play a large part in the book).
The book revolves around what we are doing to our environment, and how we don't know if one small last thing we do throws the balance off completely, and we plunge headlong into chaos - with the possible end result of our species becoming extinct itself.
What I find most amazing about humans is the fact that we can contemplate all of this, actually coming up with a logical progression, test the hypothesis in lab conditions and come to conclusions, but ignore the eveidence and do nothing long term, chucking the future for short term gains only...
Pathetic...
I once saw an error on a NT4 box when my supervisor was upgrading a piece of software on the server. The error?
Imagine a small dialog, with a title of "Error", no close button, a small text questionmark in the middle (nothing else!) and an "OK" button.
To this day we still don't know what it means (and if I was in charge, I would never buy another thing from that company again - but alas, not my decision).
So, yeah - I agree - good error handling should be paramount. I would also add that the error handling should distinguish between errors that are minor annoyances, but processing can continue, and those which bring the software to a halt, and it must be terminated. Plus, you should ALWAYS trap for errors in every instance, even in those situations where you are positive an error can't happen - because that is where it WILL happen. So, use you error trapping everywhere you can. Finally, if the error is a missing field or something not entered right - in addition to explain what the error was, and where it is - highlight the field, and put the focus on that field so that the user can IMMEDIATELY change it to something more appropriate (maybe even change the tool tip if it exists to reflect what should be in the field)...
Because it is SF - I haven't been to SF many times - but I remember it being rather "hilly". But I don't think the whole thing is, and may not be where you are going to use your transportation...
With that said, I have to agree that a bike is a good thing - however, I would imagine it would be tough to bring onto a tram or whatnot (maybe even annoying to other passengers). Others have suggested skateboards, or scooter devices, which are smaller and lighter weight - but may not be legal in SF. So, what about a compromise here?
Try a unicycle!
Now, I have never ridden one, so I don't know how easy they are to ride - but I have seen people ride them, so they can't be too difficult. They can be rather small, fit into the "footprint" of a person on the sidewalk, have the ease of a bicycle and the portability of a skateboard. I don't know if it would be possible (or if it has been done) - but you might look into rigging a Sturmey-Archer multi-speed hub to the pedals to get some "gears" for inclines and such! Would probably take some serious machine work - but I am certain it could be done.
I have posted here before my situation - I live in Phoenix, AZ (relatively flat), and I am in the process of building a recumbent electric vehicle from bicycle parts (a 26 inch and a 20 inch), and a pretty powerful electric motor (heh, that I have to later refit new bearings into - ugh). I have already got the pieces of the frame cut and ground to fit - this weekend will be "welding weekend" to bring the frame together - then test fit the wheels, etc. I then have to plan the steering system (under seat recumbent-style) and the motor drive and positioning.
Actually, if you have a small welder, a grinder, a hacksaw (or angle grinder), and some time - building a recumbent really isn't that involved of a process, once you have the bike frames (I picked mine up at garage sales for $15.00 total). While it won't fit on a tram or BART easily, it might be something that can get you all the way in, instead...
Interesting way of starting to get them out to the public, but somehow I think this is going to flop. The idea is interesting, the technology is cool - but the price is way too high for the people who would really want one and use it - kids.
I realize this isn't the market they are aiming for, but it is the market that would ride it. How many times a week do you see kids riding those motorized scooters? Here in Phoenix, I see it almost daily. I think I have only managed to see an adult riding one a couple of times. Plus, for kids, it is too quiet - they don't want an electric scooter, otherwise you would see more Zap! scooters around - they want loud motor sounds (always been that way, I guess) - rice boy wannabee attitude, maybe? Who knows...
Then there are the laws - I know that here in Phoenix anything with an under 25-30cc engine is classified as a "moped" - and can't go faster than 25 mph. You need a license, but any license will do - you also need a special insurance rider on your auto insurance, and you have to register the moped with the state (no titling, though) - costs about $5.00. I am sure similar laws exist in other states. However, here is where the problem lies:
Electric or gas, these scooters will be under the moped rule - so they are motorized vehicles. Legally, that means no sidewalk use, plus no bike trail use - road use only. But they have no lights, so they aren't legal for driving on the road - so where do you drive them? It is a legal hole that needs "filling" - but lawmakers don't seem too eager to fill it (but I am sure they buy their kids all sorts of scooters!).
The Segway will be affected by this same issue. The laws were created with small motorized bikes in mind (not motorized bicycles, typically considered a separate category!), like were popular in 70's and early 80's and made by European and Japanese companies (Honda and Peugeot mainly). Strangely enough, scooters weren't made in large quantities or at all, even though the idea was there (I remember seeing many an episode of "That's Incredible" and "Real People" wearing or riding motorized skateboards and electric roller skates)...
I will be facing a similar situation - though I am going to do everything to be as legal as possible. I am currently in the process of building an electric recumbent vehicle. The frame is being built out of a 26" and 20" bikes (bought for $15.00 total at garage sales), and a DC motor I picked up at a local electronics junkyard (Apache Reclamation). Various other parts will be bought to complete the thing, welded together, etc - I plan on adding a full light system (headlight, front and rear turn/brake lights), and registering it as a moped.
I think such a vehicle would be something more likely to gain broader acceptance among adults, rather than a scooter vehicle - the crazy thing is, recumbent bicycles have never been cheap. In fact, a lot of people have found recumbents so expensive that a lot build their own (do some googling on "recumbent", "homebrew" to see what I mean) - the parts aren't expensive, one would think that a cheap recumbent should cost no more than double the price of a cheap Huffy bike - but many times recumbents cost thousands (though even a good multi speed bike can set you back a lot).
So, I am building my recumbent, but it is meant as a vehicle, not a bike - it is only built of bike parts (I plan on building it, getting it working, then stripping it down to the frame, cleaning and repainting it - so it won't be ghetto). So far, I have only spent $45.00 total on it, plus some time. I hope to have it come under $200.00 total, with most of the cost in the batteries...
I thought about this myself - where I currently lived I am hemmed in by two mountains, one to the south of me and one to the west of me - both are about a half-mile away. I was thinking what it would take to establish a wireless link to a friend who lives to the southwest of me.
Fortunately, there is a nearby freeway, which passes between the mountains - and a cell phone tower is nearly in my back yard. I gave thought to a repeater on the mountain, but forest service is rampant in the area due to motorcross bikers using the desert for fun, so getting to the top might be hard and dangerous (rocks, snakes, scorpions, you name it). I thought maybe bouncing the signal off the cell phone tower - but thought that might not be nice - it would be too easy to pinpoint me and my friend. So, I gave thought to a tethered balloon platform - unfortunately, even that has problems - keeping it filled, in position, tethered, high winds off the mountain - and, one other thing - we live right under a flight path for a nearby (like, three miles away) airport.
So, wireless to my friend's house from here isn't likely to happen soon (not that it matters much - it was more a "what-if" experiment)...
Actually, the original poster was probably talking about the CoCo 3, which came standard with 128K of RAM, but could be expanded to 512K (3rd party expansion options allowed up to 2 meg - and someone on the net was making expansion cards to go to 8 meg or so via 30 pin SIMMs!). OS-9 Level 2 was the OS for a multi-user system, and there was even a multi-tasking windowed type thing for it, IIRC. There were expansion packs through third parties that allowed you to hook up SCSI hard drives - though at the time it seemed waaay too expensive to get a 10 meg drive ($500? something like that).
All in all, even with just Extended Basic as the OS, the CoCo 3 was an insane machine for its time and cost.
And as far as expansion on the CoCo 2? I seem to recall third party expansion options to take them to 128K or so (Tandy only supported up to 64K)...
I agree with you there - but it sure smacks of applying the word "internet" to a business method and patenting it as "new"...
Imagine that digital projection is everywhere, and it is great quality. Movies "zip" across the internet from the distributor to the movie theater near instantly on dedicated high-speed data lines. Here is where the problem lies...
Currently, a film is made, then multiple copies of it are created. There aren't enough copies made for every theater in the world, because the cost of making the copies is pretty large. So, a limited number are made, and the movies are sent out in a "staggered" fashion around the world - first in America (for American films, usually), then to Europe and Japan, etc. What happens is a movie will open in one country, but not in every country - a few months later Europe gets it, then Japan (or however the order is) - until eventually some backwater country may get it, after it has passed through a ton of mailings and numerous playings (pity the small man on the totem pole) - scratchy and ugly - but that is the way it is.
With digital, it doesn't have to be that way - "instant" transport via dedicated lines, no film to copy, etc - there isn't any need now to suspend sending it everywhere - right?
Well, look at DVDs - same thing, nearly - but it has this funky thing called "region coding" - it is an artificial scarcity placed upon the medium, to continue with the staggering of releases, so that the DVD isn't seen in Europe while it is waiting for the actual movie. If movies went digital, wouldn't this DVD region-coding staggering issue be seen as the real scam it is?
Or maybe they (MPAA? SOMEONE!) are making extra money by staggering the movies in some fashion (ie, the staggering has to be done - so let's make money off of the situation!) - but with digital distribution, away goes that revenue stream...?
As always - follow the money, and there will be your answer (it surely can't be the cost of the projectors - I am certain that the money saved by using digital projectors over normal projectors would easily cover any extra infrastructure cost - ie, network, servers, etc - at the theater - those non-digital projectors are EXPENSIVE)...
I present to you...
...Thaddeus Cahill's Teleharmonium!!!
Not only one of the first (the first?) synthesizers for electronic music - but his very idea was to send electronic music over telephone lines to "listeners"...
When? Idea in 1893, granted patent number 580,035 in 1898, and completed the first machine in 1901 - prior art, methinks!!!
Hmm...
Then along comes Windows 2.0 and later 3.0. No more sales. Windows paint is free and does it all just as good. Did MS abuse their monopoly?
Well, in a way - yeah. For the simple Paint market they used thier presence in the OS market to give away a competing product, eliminating the smaller competitors in the Paint market. Indeed, I could show you an ad (from an old Creative Computing Magazine from the 80's) which I could almost swear is the same Paintbrush program as is included in Windows 3.0 and 3.1 - but it was made by a different company - however, that company is no longer around - I tend to wonder if Microsoft bought them out, then incorporated the program into their software...
You notice they have not gave any serious effort yet of "squashing" Adobe, on any real front? I imagine that will be coming in the future.
As far as a browser being a core function of the OS - I would have to agree that, yes, today it just might be. But at the time of Microsoft giving away IE (by putting it prominently on the desktop, which was pre-installed via OEMs in binding licenses that disallowed them from installing any other browser, much less selling another operating system) in the face of Netscape selling their browser, they used their monopoly to take over another market sector - which is a violation of anti-trust laws. You can yell all you want about it not being a market today, but back then, it clearly was a different software market. It doesn't matter how it is "today" - what matters is their actions YESTERDAY, and how that caused the "destruction" of a competitor, Netscape.
But when this all started (1995-1996?) they WERE separate markets - and that is what this issue is about - not what they are TODAY, but what they were YESTERDAY.
Currently, what keeps most e-books from taking off, other than the price, tends to be the format and design of e-book readers themselves. While the Rocketbook is a good format, it isn't perfect, and it tends to be impersonal - that is to say hard and cold, unlike a real book. What is needed is a new "reader".
This new "reader" is almost here - and when it comes, it WILL change the way we use and view books, provided it is cheap enough, can hold enough of the books, and that the books will be cheaper themselves. The format of the reader is ideal:
1) About the size of a paperback novel, but with hard plastic front and back "covers", and a plastic "spine".
2) Covers and spine hold battery, memory, and cpu for the reader, as well as a "docking" port of some sort.
3) Sandwitched in-between the "covers" are 100-200 "pages" of xerox (or similar) "e-paper". The paper is "bound" into the book in such a way to allow the book to lay flat (perfect for recipes and studying). Also, said e-paper contains stress/bend sensors along the spine edge to determine when a page has been turned, and which page it is. The e-paper also has touch sensitive spots on the upper and lower right hand edge of the page, both side (left edge on other "side"). This would facilitate bookmarking, zooming, scrolling and possible other features needed in the "book".
Such a book could have the text/images downloaded to it, and you could flip through it and read it like you would any other book. The e-paper would feel similar to a glossy style paper, and when you got to the end of the pages, if there were more in the book, close it, and open it again to see the rest (or hit one of the "tabs" to continue, perhaps). Flip the book around and you can read Hebrew. Flip it "vertical" and you can read one page with a picture above or below, landscape style - hang it on the wall, and it become a small calendar!
However, even though this is the "perfect" format (ok, even I know it isn't perfect, but it goes a long way, you have to agree), something that would make a lot of people want it and the books to go with it - there is a dark side to this technology:
Inevitably (actually, today) - if publishers could have their way, they would be charging and doing a "pay-per-read" system. They really hate the lending and reselling of books, in any venue - they hate the "first-sale" doctrine. What the new reader would give them could be a "pay-per-read" and "re-read" system: You turn the page, to read the next, flip back one page, and it is blank - need to pay for the whole book, or that page, to read it again. Or maybe they allow you to read each page only a few time, before it disappears. Suddenly, the book is no longer a "useful" thing anymore.
I don't know if such a development would cause people to drop it, or if it would be glibly accepted. I hope the former, I fear the latter.
Still, such a device could have an enormous impact, if it was kept open to use (to put your own books on, and no "pay-per-read" system), and cheap enough.
I suppose I should be glad that portable CD players didn't come out later - imagine having to pay each time you wanted to hear a track (yeah, I know - they are working on that, too)...
:(
I think buying a $10 book in cash isn't doesn't so much warrant notice, as does, say buying a $1000 ticket in cash. Most people do not care that sort of money on their person, so it is worth investigating.
WTF?!
Why should you think that? What right is it of you or the government to suspect me of wrongdoing simply because I want to PAY FOR SOMETHING IN WHATEVER MANNER I CHOOSE?
Has cash become illegal to use? Am I not allowed to barter for my goods or services, should I so wish? Why do these actions mark me as a criminal?
The simple fact of the matter is I may want to use cash for MY PRIVACY! If I want to go to the bank, withdraw $1000 dollars cash, then use that cash to pay for a plane ticket - I damn well better be able to! It should not matter who I am, who I know, who I speak to or congregate with, or where I am from, what language I speak, what religion I practice, what political leanings I hold, or what color my skin is, or which way I sexually swing - that IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S, NOR ANYONE ELSES BUSINESS IN MY PERSONAL DEALINGS.
In America, I AM INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY BY A JURY OF MY PEERS. Not before. Our society has seem to forgotten this basic tenet. Should I use that ticket to get on a mode of transportation and do something nefarious and heinous, then once it is apparent my actions and motives, I should be arrested and tried, then sentenced - AS IS PROVIDED BY OUR CONSTITUTION AND LAW.
But if I only want to take a train to enjoy the scenery passing by, and maybe start a new life somewhere else - WHY SHOULD ANYONE GIVE A FLYING F---? Because of what I may do?
Bug off.
It is the databases behind those cameras...
Someday, if not today - behind every camera will be software and a database that can pick out faces, and store those faces in a database. Should one of those faces belong to a criminal, that individual could be flagged, and tracked, from camera to camera - wherever he or she goes.
You may say to yourself "Well, hey, that sounds like a good thing" - and you would be DEAD WRONG. Why?
Imagine that individual had did a crime - something heinous, something petty - but they did their time, paid their debt to society, and are truely sorry for it. Maybe they even make amends, in whatever way is possible, to the victims of their crime. However, in federal databases, they are marked as a former criminal - no mention in the databases of their current activities or amends - no flags to show how they feel. Only that they once did a crime, and thus should be tracked, and watched - and made paranoid. Why not simply have a cop follow them around instead? They paid their debt, but they should never be trusted again? What is the purpose of prison and sentencing then? If it isn't reform, why let someone out who shoplifted? Hell, why keep them alive at all?
Or, imagine this scenario:
There is a database containing all of these faces of criminals - the matching software is looking through the cameras, looking at past faces, and current faces, trying to find a match - and one is spotted - your face! But you haven't done anything! But now your face is in the system, and the system is tracking you. Why did the match occur? Well, maybe the software was simplified using an eigenface system or something, and your face closely matches the reference key for a particular eigenface, and that key also matches that for a known criminal face - maybe something happened in your past long ago when you were a kid, and they took your picture, then let you go to your parents - but a record exists, and it was added to the database as a possible hit - there are tons of scenarios to draw upon - but when the cops come up, drag you out of the crowd for matching a face that the computer says is you, wastes a hell of a lot of time (hey, you might even be put in a holding cell for a day or two while things are straightened out) - there is the possibility.
Then, of course, there is the fact that the cameras do nothing to stop crime, they merely record the crime as is progresses, and do nothing to deter the crime after the fact (ie, I bet you'll feel real secure in a camera recording you being stabbed to death by a psycho serial killer wearing a ski mask)...
Think this is babble? Read Database Nation, and open your eyes...
We return back to this same issue - the tying of the browser to the OS. However, it seems like the real question is never asked, and an answer is never forthcoming...
Even if it is proven that the browser could be separate, that does nothing to bring Netscape, the company (rather than the AOL subsidiary or whatever they are now), back. It does not help any stock valuing, it doesn't help investors - Netscape - the company - is dead.
Yet we don't hear from the states - the last hope (maybe) to get this settled honestly and justly - that Microsoft has been found to be guilty of using its monopoly powers illegally, to force another company out of business. They VIOLATED ANTI-TRUST MEASURES! It wouldn't have mattered if the browser was part of the OS, if it was separate and installed with it, or if it was given away free on a CD in every box of Cherrios on the store shelves. The fact that they dropped the price to zero and gave it away, plus using thier advantage in the OS market to sway people into using it (by either installing it with the OS or tying it in someway), in order to undermine a competitor in an "unrelated" software product (Netscape and the browser business) at the time - this is illegal under the Anti-Trust laws.
This lawsuit is not about today - it is about what happened so many years ago. Today, it seems pretty obvious that a browsable UI and OS seem like a good solution (or at least "a" solution). Back then, though, they were nearly two separate pieces of software. But today, the states seem to be treating this lawsuit as if it were about the present situation in software - when that isn't the case, nor should it be.
I want Microsoft to be punished for its actions against Netscape and against the consumer - for these actions removed a choice from the consumer - a choice to spend or not spend their money (ie, buy Netscape for $$$), as well as causing what may have been the premature "death" of a company (of course, this is only one aspect of the entire lawsuit - the whole thing with licensing restrictions on OEMs to prevent them from selling or installing onto systems other OSs, etc - locking in a OS monopoly on hardware OEMs - more anti-trust issues)...
I want an full answer on that - why aren't we (as citizens and consumers) getting that answer?
True, I would have to concede that running the pump is the most expensive thing, and you don't get away from that with a salt-water pool. I tend to wonder, though, whether you have to run a salt-water pool pump more or less? Would be something interesting and worthwhile to know, to say the least.
Still, the advantages of simple salt over pool chemicals still make sense, if only for the simple reason that one is safer (overall - storage, transport, use) than the other (chlorine/acid vs salt)...
For a book so old (for personal computing, it is pretty damn old - its first printing, edition 0, was in 1972) to still be printed, and cheap, as well - almost as cheap as before - only a few dollars more.
Thanks for the update - I have got to email this guy...
Today I went out "garage saleing" - and managed to find a couple of "interesting" books:
The Secret Guide to Computers - Vol 1
and
The Secret Guide to Computers - Vol 2: Deep Secrets
Both are of the 11th edition, written and published by Russ Walter - no ISBN, because in Russ' own words: "Ha ha ha! You think this book is standard?"
These books are weird, and wonderful at the same time - they have strange "rainbow" colored covers, and the introduction in the first volume starts out with the line "Computers are like drugs: you begin by spending just a little money on them, but then you get so excited by the experience-and so hooked-that you wind up spending more and more money, to feed your habit."
It takes the reader through introduction to programming, microcomputers, a bit of computer history, language history (listing some languages and origins I didn't even know about - and I collect this kind of info!) - you name the topic, and if it is from the early-80's and prior, it is in there. There is a wonderful section on computer "art", with crude black-and-white "photos" of early computer line drawings - including a series of Ivan Sutherland's "Aircraft Carrier Landing Simulator" - 3D graphics from the late 60's - early 70's!!!
What is even more strange about the books is the amount of background info they give on the histories of various companies involved in microcomputers - plus info on the micros themselves (once again, if it existed, it is in the book - CP/M even features pretty prominantly). It gets even more strange - vague and not-so-vague references to sex, etc - about throughout the book: In the section on Russ' version of assembly language (his own creation), the opening section title is "SEXY ASS" - I kid you NOT (watch the lameness filter catch that). That section details what he terms "Simple EXcellent-for-You ASSembler" - then goes on to "teach" how to use this variant of assembler...
He has another language called "EASY"...
How rare (or common?) was this set of books - I have never seen another copy (as opposed to David Ahl's BASIC Games series, of which I have seen numerous copies)? Has anyone else come across it?
I couldn't resist buying it - and at a quarter per book (oooh, a whole 50 cents!) - it was MINE...
Was a salt-water pool. The filtration/cleaning system was electrical based, and super simple looking and small to boot. The water was VERY gentle, you could easily open your eyes underwater without any burning, and when you got out, you weren't "sticky".
Now, true - maybe a chlorine pool can be the same way with proper care and attention to everything - I don't know, I have never owned a pool. But I tell you, the cost in savings of chemicals alone for a salt water pool make it seem worth it (basically, you use big bags of salt, and a bit of electricity - cheap).
Hell, here in Phoenix, it is even possible to do it for less - ok, maybe the house and pool aren't new, but tommorow I will be looking at a 3 bdr house w/covered RV parking, covered patio, and diving pool (ie, pool with 10 foot deep end) - and it is selling for "only" $120,000!!!
But completely enclosed - using such plans would be a great starting point for a "clean box" - basically you want to have a completely enclosed box, with gloves reaching inside (ie, the wall is sealed around the gloves) - an air inlet (through a HEPA filter) and an air outlet (through a HEPA filter as well). Finally, the entire inside of the box needs to be super clean, then the air filtered in and left running to remove any stray particles...
I realize that all the centers won't be in third-world, poor countries - that all of the children won't be poor.
But at any rate, giving away advanced technology won't help - no matter what it is. If the infrastructure isn't in place to keep the tech going (power, supplies, repair, etc) - it will only last so long, then become another piece of "junk".
I would say the thing to give people, of any age, is education. If it has to be based on technology, then give the people enough education to know basic tech (ie, teach fundamental machines - you know, the wheel, inclined plane, lever, etc - then teach how they go together to form more advanced machinery, machinery that can help them advance).
I remember seeing a site detailing how this group help some people in a third-world country develop solar cooking techniques - by teaching them how to build a parabolic reflector from basic materials easily found in the village. The group taught the people how to form a parabola using simple techniques (that don't require complex math, just some string and nails, and straight lines), then make a template, to make a mold in the ground, to form a parabolic "mirror" using weaved mats, mud, concrete, and tinfoil or other metal.
Teaching such things is what will help. All kids should learn the basics of such applied science at an early age - whether they are from the first or third world. Show them how to construct things from available materials, cast off "junk", etc - to be self-sufficient and rely less on the "man's" expensive "new" stuff, and instead scrounge among the cast-off detritus left behind.
Move on further by teaching how to build simple steam engines and turbines (maybe simple water pumps and such first, to teach flap valves, pistons, etc). Remember, the first practicle steam engines were built in the 16th and 17th century, and other "toy" technology was developed by the Greeks much, much earlier than that! Show how to build wind generators from cast-off 55 gallon drums and car alternators (or squirrel cage motors) - think large scale anemometers, or build a Savonious Rotor - give power before tech.
There are tons of other things that could be done - but it all boils down to education. Most importantly an education in self-sufficiency, and how to recognise those that want to enslave (either litterally or via economics, social programs, or otherwise) - and how to avoid it.
The problem is huge - I really don't know if there will ever be a real solution...
This is insane - and most likely wouldn't work in the long term.
Look at the BP6 mod - toward the end there is tons of specs of dirt on the disk surface everywhere - hell, I think I even saw a fingerprint or two. At least the other article seemed "cleaner" - but still, the idea of doing this in a bathroom - wha? - are you on crack?
I don't understand why no one (or at least it seems that way) has built a "clean-tank". In theory, it would be pretty simple - maybe not clean enough for major work, but enough for some mod like this, or anything else that requires a relatively clean environment (not that I would still trust anything afterward).
You would need a plexiglass tank, completely sealed on the edges. The tank would have rubber gloves or something (new and clean, non-talc coated - maybe washed down, too) to work inside the tank, and a mounted HEPA filter on one tank wall, a hose leading to a blower unit, and a HEPA filter just after the blower, and a HEPA filter on the intake of the blower (after all those filters, the unit won't blow much, but you want clean air). Then, you would have to clean your tools as good as possible, put them in the tank (always handling them with rubber gloves), along with the device you are working on (cleaned and handled with gloves again), then start up the blower and let it run for a few hours to clean any residual particles out (maybe there should be another HEPA filter on another wall, open to the room, to let the excess pressure out, along with particles).
Even in such a homebrew tank, I doubt after working on the drive, etc that it would be very stable. While doing such a mod or surgery on a drive seems like something worthwhile and cool, it really isn't worth it unless it is a "last ditch" effort to get data back from the dead.
That said - either the BP6 mod was faked (because of all the dust), or he actually did it for real, and did another in a dirty fashion - but I would think that if he wanted to show the technique, he would have tried to keep the whole thing clean as possible - and he didn't, which makes me suspect the whole thing (as in, "hey, lets see what other fools will try this!")...