How long have you had it? Have you sent in the warantee registration card?
If not, you might try getting it repaired. Typically, they will want a photocopy of the receipt. So, scan it, fudge it (the date), then send it with the warantee reg. Wait a couple of weeks. Then call, verify that they took the warantee reg info, ask them about getting your unit fixed, as you purchased it from the store and it didn't work, right? Right...
Now, of course, if you have been "hacking" on it, as that site seems to suggest - like you did the HD upgrade, downgrade it now, to the original drive (you did keep it, right?). That, or pull the info off the drive you have in it (if it is the original), and wipe the drive. You want it to look as "new" as possible, to fake them out.
If you haven't been hacking on it, and it was a simple mistake - I can't understand why they won't repair it in some manner - but if they won't, then try to fake 'em out.
What do I do for a living? I am a software developer for a Phoenix company. Our stuff isn't open source, probably never will be (but who knows?). I don't work 90 hours a week - my time is my time. I will put in extra hours when it is the right thing to do, but I won't do it just for the hell of it (ok, sometimes I do put in extra hours - you get into that "mode", where time just flows, and code is flowing - great state to be in).
I don't think being paid to do a job is selfish - but if that is all you do with your life - working, getting money, being paid, never giving back - yeah, that is selfish. One could state that he did give back - to his employer - by working a ton of hours, but he didn't give back to the community. That is selfish. He didn't just learn programming on his own. He had teachers. You know it, he knows it, and I know it. I give back because of all the people I learned from typing in code from magazines and books from when I was a kid. I give back because of the numerous examples I have found online about ways of doing things. I give back so someone else may learn from me, and teach others along the way.
But I do this on my own time. Not my employer's, my own. I do this because I love computers and software and coding - not because of these things can potentially make me money - but because of the worlds they have opened up for me. The insights, the freedom, the knowledge, the friendships - all of it!!! These things are things I cherish - and I wish to give others the chance to share in the same ways and feelings I have tread and experienced.
It seems like today companies and people only want to make money, let no knowledge out, never truely give back. But should they succeed, they will simply be causing their own ultimate demise, for where will the new information creators come from? The schools? Perhaps - but what about those who don't go, or can't afford, higher education? Should they be denied these things? Should they not be able to program computers, render 3D graphics, or build their own OS, should they so desire?
The corps are saying "Yes! THEY MUST BE DENIED!" in their mad rush to censor and restrict the flow of all information - not just copyrighted information (which I don't have a problem with, were it not that copyright extends forever anymore - ie, Sonny Bono/Disney Copyright Act, DMCA, SSMCA, etc). They want to even stop libraries, the internet itself. They are killing themselves and don't even know it, nor care.
Don't cut out Open Source yet - it isn't over. The bubble burst because of bad investment decisions, investment by VCs who would take a business plan written on a barroom napkin. They were stupid, and arrogant. Many great projects have benefitted from the open source and GPL philosophies. Maybe they haven't made money yet because they haven't found the right business model. Maybe they won't find the right business model. But they should at least try, especially now in these more "sane" (and I could argue less sane as well) times.
As far as my beliefs in OSS - could I write an operating system as you say? No, I could not - not because I couldn't learn how to do it - there are plenty of ways to learn how, and I am sure I could learn it if I was so inclined. I don't believe I could do it, for the same reasons that Linus didn't create the entire Linux kernel himself today. He created and released, from the first release, a very basic kernel. Improvements by others rolled in, and he incorporated them steadily, along with his own improvements. The thing kept getting bigger, until it is at where we are today. Kernel creation and design by near anarchy, is what it is. So no, I couldn't do it myself. I would be willing to bet, though, with a proper plan and good software design, and the release of a simple kernal that followed that design, you might be able to amass enough people to continue with development. The problem would be getting enough people who have access to the same kind of large scale arhitecture, which may be where and why this kind of development would fall apart. Of course, if you could get a company to "donate" a large dev machine to work on, it could be done. I believe IBM (or someone) actually has done this. Whether they did it for altruistic reasons or not is another issue...
All original PC joysticks used a timing system of a capacitor/potentiometer circuit that timed based on discharge rates (or something similar - there is more than enough docs on the net about this - look up "joystick programming" on google, heck, I might even have a link on the site), not piezo elements.
That isn't to say such elements were never used, but it certainly was far from common. Switches would be better to use, and your idea for a spring system might be workable. Some robotics projects have used similar systems for "whisker" sensors...
No, I don't know if anyone has, nor have I myself. It is one of those "back burner" projects (actually, I have been waiting forever to somehow create or buy a cheap sourceless head tracking system to create this - I suppose a boom mounted tracker could be used, maybe).
You are right on the calibration issues. I suppose if you could hook up some variable resistors or strain gauges, and mount the thing on springs, then you could measure the tilt that way, and provide a calibration loop in the software. Step on, calibrate center, then use.
Or, how about this - between two round pieces of plywood or steel, space a few piezo elements spaced around, in a circle, about a third of the way in from the edge (so you have plywood round-piezo elements-plywood round kind of sandwich). A thin bead of silicone caulking around the edge and near the center might provide a little support and prevent slippage. Then, as you tilt and "mash" the piezo elements, varing voltages would be generated, which could be sensed and used to determine direction. It would be a thinner platform, possibly even easier to construct. Or, do the same with a single plywood, steel or plastic round, but epoxy the elements on the 8 directions around the edge, then epoxy short steel, wood or plastic "legs" - thinest of all if used on a hard floor...
Yes, it is shocking that there are people who are all for themselves or for money, and none for others. That is shocking, and sad.
I understand your argument about kernels for large systems vs. small systems, and how the needs of one may cause issues with the other, if implemented (or not implemented, depending on the direction). Perhaps in this case, the kernel needs to be forked into a parallel dev effort, one side for PCs, etc - the other dedicated to larger systems.
I don't believe I have blind devotion - I use what I feel is best for my abilities - right now this is Linux. I have given thought to BSD as well, and also wondered and prodded about on various niche OS projects - but Linux seems to be the most viable, in that I don't have to worry about my hardware becoming quickly obsolete because of an OS change, and I don't have to worry about not being able to find and run a piece of favorite software because the OS no longer supports it. BSD allows this too, and I like its slower "rev" cycles - whereas Linux seems to be a frothy mess, everything being updated all the time - but it isn't something I worry about much.
I just feel it is better to give back - because I know in the end others will give back to me. It has worked for me for a while now, in many areas of my life (not just the open source community). At the end of the day, I know what I have done to help has made a difference for others. Sometimes, I am even told that it has. This to me is better than any amount of money someone could give me for my work.
2600 had an article a couple of years back about finding an easter egg in an exercise machine of some sort, and the author wondered the same thing.
Incidentally, I've been thinking about "hacking" out an easter egg on my Sanyo microwave - it has a very interesting display, with a ton of modes - I would be surprised if there _wasn't_ an easter egg hidden in it somewhere.
On my Cox Digital receiver (a Scientific Atlanta Explorer 2000 box), you can go into a special "diagnostic" mode on the box by pressing the diamond and target keys together after turning it on - basically, I believe you have to turn it on, then press and hold the target button (to the left of the arrow pad on the box), then hit the diamond button at the same time (in the middle of the arrow pad) - at least, I think that is the way - I don't have the box in front of me.
If you want "pro" quality - expect to pay "pro" prices: ie, $1000.00 and up - this will be for a glove alone, mind you. 3D tracking tech will add to the cost, starting at around $1000.00 (give or take a few hundred) for magnetic tech (AC or DC pulsed), but since you say you want to use this with a PDA, I assume you won't need this, and only want flex sensors.
Will you need abduction sensing (ie, the fingers and thumb both flex, as well as move sideways, allowing for the lovely "Spock" gesture - this sideways motion is called "abduction")? If so, add a lot more to the cost of the glove - this kind of sensing is tough to do. It sounds like you might, if you want to do regular typing, and not "chording".
5DT sell good tech, but expensive - not really a great money-saver for a homebrew project. Hacking together a power-glove interface might be possible (I have done a simple parallel port one for my computer), but the power-glove can be difficult to find, though you might check Ebay (look for "Power Glove", note the space, as well as "Powerglove"). If you find one, you might try removing the flex sensors from the glove, and sewing them onto a lycra glove, for lighter weight and ease of use. The sensors are simple resistive flex sensors, you could probably build a simple interface for them instead of using the Powerglove's system, which is bulky. If you need abduction, you could place sensors between the fingers as well.
Also, go to my website. I have a lot of links that you might find useful - though they are a bit out of date, and I need to update them badly - very badly... In my Cheap VR Issue 2 I discuss how to build an optical style flex sensor glove cheaply, which you might find helpful.
Finally, think about this - there was (is?) a company out there that sold a glove that had simple metal bits sewn in, that when touched together completed circuits (I think it was called the Pinch Glove or somthing). This kind of system would be easy to homebrew - just don't try to sell it or claim it as your own tech, etc (you know, the whole IP bit). Simple buttons or rivets could be but on the tips of the fingers, wires soldered on, some added to the palm of the hand - add some switch debouncing, and a simple custom programmed PIC or Basic Stamp, connected to a serial interface (Max-232) - and there you go - instant gesture recognition system!
Finally, a word about your statement:
So that I can hit a real-size virtual keyboard in air and type faster. Who really needs to see the buttons?
Actually, try "typing" for a length of time with you arm in the air, and you will see why doing any "virtual" movement hasn't really caught on:
It is tiring.
Indeed, the best way to type virtually, so that you wouldn't tire, would be to simply keep the arms in a "rest" position, hanging at the side of your body.
One reason this tends to be tiring is that there is nothing to work against, like on a real keyboard, or in the case of VR manipulation of objects; a real object that has weight. We, as humans, like to rest our body parts as we work, which is why not many of us work for long periods standing all the time (and which is why being a store cashier really sucks). It is why we have chairs, etc.
I suggest you look into chording keyboard systems, and apply this tech to a "pinch" style glove - such a "keyboard" would actually be very useful in a real world "wearable computing" situation...
Disclaimer: I am not a kernel programmer, nor a compiler programmer.
Maybe your friend (and his friends) need to get off their butts, quit passing the bottle, and help make the Linux kernel what it really could be. Same thing goes for people who "laugh" at the inefficiencies of GCC.
Why is it that they have to sit around, drink beer, and laugh at code on a big screen? That sounds as pathetic as a bunch of beer-gut guys watching football, instead of out there playing it.
Contribute! That is what is needed.
However, I bet I know the reason why your friend can do nothing but laugh - he probably sold his soul and signed an NDA. Sucks to be him.
Calling or emailing Toshiba? Sometimes you might be able to be routed to someone a little bit clueful, who might even be kind enough to send a spec sheet to you - sometimes for a little money, sometimes for free.
Couldn't hurt to try. You might also ask them if they know what the device is - and who made it originally - maybe you can find out more that way.
I have an LCD module that I picked off a junk pile at a local electronics recycler (Apache Reclamation here in Phoenix). I took it home, took it apart - had a bunch of buttons and LCDs - looked like it might be interesting. I started to do some looking on the controller part - and found that it was some type of segment LCD driver (and not dot-matrix - damn!), but couldn't get a pinout.
Being damn persistant, I finally managed to find an individual in Germany who sent me a PDF of the controller. At that point it was easy to trace lines back to determine what the keyboard operated, and what controlled the LCD.
Turned out it was backlit, and when powered up, looked like some kind of temp/pressure control for med equipment or something. Not terribly useful for anything "normal", but I might find a use for it someday.
Many of these systems rely on dedicated servers to get people linked up - I remember at the start of this whole P2P thing, people would post chain lists of other running gnutella systems, etc - so that if a chain is broken, it was still able to get reconnected. This might happen again as this progresses...
What I wonder though is about the elimination of these servers...
Would it be possible for each "client/server" node to "broadcast" that it is available - and other "client/server" nodes could look for that broadcast? When I mean "broadcast", I mean in the traditional sense - a way of communicating far and wide "I'm here! I'm here!" without the need for centralized servers - the chains then established could morph, reorganise, and disconnect at will - appearing in an instant, vanishing in a puff of smoke - a true P2P solution.
I am sure such a system might cause routing and caching issues to appear - but it is something these kind of systems need. I am not sure what the broadcast would consist of, or where it would take place - maybe it would have to rely on some form of stego, or something else - how han we treat the internet as a true broadcast medium, similar to radio? Maybe participants would go into some kind of promiscuous mode on there ethernet card, analyzing packets, maybe?
In a way, the so called 802.11 freenets are like this - because they are based on a broadcast system of radio - is there a way a wired network can operate like this? Has it already been done? Does the Freenet project work like this?
1. Why are they running these off of methane? Methane isn't exactly everywhere, you can't just go to the store to refill it. Thus, you are left with either buying new "fuel cell" units for the phone, or building up a new infrastructure to sell methane in small cans for refill - both which equate to more money (for the corps - yay corps!) out of pocket, and more waste for the environment (if the units aren't recycled, etc). Why not use the obvious - compressed butane? Found in every Walgreens on the planet, cheap, hundreds of refills (and probably at the size they are talking about for the fuel cell tank, thousands of refills), delivery system well established, the units would be refillible eliminating waste - the only downside would be that the corps wouldn't have a steady revenue stream in batteries (wah!!).
2. Size - 2"x4"x.5" - why does that have to hang off a belt? The thing could easily go on the back of a phone - sure the phone might be a bit thicker, but IMO, I think cell phones NEED to be bigger, as well as more rugged - I have a friend/brother-in-law who is a truck driver, and his fingers on his hand are easily big enough to cover two buttons on his cell phone, making it difficult for him to dial it or pick up calls. This has caused him a lot of problems, not to mention that the phone lasts about 2 weeks in the dirty conditions he works in (his truck is a 10 wheel dump truck - he hauls dirt, rock, whatever pays). He used to have an old Motorola 9000 classic brick phone - rugged, big buttons - had it for years - hell, I have it now, and it still works fine! Today's phones suck for that kind of environment - make them a little bigger, less screen, larger numbers (its a phukin phone, for cryin' out loud!) - and drop this battery on - perfect.
When are these manufacurer's going to learn that cute != practical?
Personally, I wouldn't even say bundling is the issue with me - for me it is their shoddy business practices (rolls back to 1994 or so):
1. The internet is slowly being brought to the masses. Windows 3.1 exists, but need the WinSock TCP/IP stack to get in the net - fortunately, a free version is available, and is included by ISPs. Mosaic is also included...
2. Netscape builds and releases a much improved "Mosaic", called Navigator. Microsoft yawns, sees it all as a "fad", that the consumer won't embrace.
3. 1995 rolls around, and the consumer is raving mad for the net - Bill looks around and screams WTF!? Netscape is raking in money from sales of Navigator, creates Communicator which adds email, news, and web site creation tools.
4. In a mad dash, Bill throws out Windows 95, which had been worked on for a while, but had no internet capability (AFAIK). Rushes to make a TCP/IP stack (probably bought WinSock, knowing him).
5. Bill then sees that the internet explosion isn't a fad, and that he must "posess" it - rapidly IE is created, and is released for free to the masses.
At this point, things go crazy - because while Netscape isn't free - it is, sorta - but people for some reason are too stupid (or honest?) to figure it out: Netscape is "free" for students - simply check the student box on the download form, and you can download it for free - no authentication or anything required. Still, most people see it as expensive, and the marketing/FUD is done for IE to point out how expensive Netscape was (which it really wasn't that expensive - $70.00 or so for the deluxe version).
6. MS then "bundles" IE with later copies of 95, then fully integrates it into 98 - thus sealing the fate of Netscape, which went on to become a footnote (yes, I know it still exists, etc - but in the whole scheme of things, Netscape is just the tool, and not the company it was any longer).
It is this major undercutting that is a bad business practice - they saw that such software was cheap and easy to make, and thus had no "real" value, unlike an office package. But that doing so would leverage them into a whole new market, a much larger possible market - to market that office software to.
Now, Sun is doing the same thing - who knows if it is for revenge over Java or what - or if _they_ have some ulterior motive (which they probably do), which would allow them to leverage into another market...
The deal about patents, though (at one time) - required that you have a working prototype, or at least a model of some sort.
I am not sure how it really works today, but it seems like now (from what I understand), the models can be more virtual - to the point of where if you can CAD it, it is as good as the real thing (at least to the USPTO - there was an article in a well known inventors magazine talking about using CAD/3D for "prototyping" an invention, and how to use such things to patent the invention and get investment money).
Of course, we all know that if it is 3D on a screen, it must be produceable in real-life, right [sarcasm off]
Anyhow, I could see how the inventor (of the original patent) in this case might have been able to come up with a very expensive prototype at the time, in 1992. Or, it could have been a cheaper implementation, perhaps even in software. It wouldn't have to record full live TV - heck, a low res postage stamp size video image @ 10FPS, pausing/unpausing it would have been enough - in fact, I would bet you could do a very crude implementation with a frame-grabber and 286 at the time.
Still, I tend to wonder though if his model/prototype was simply nothing more than a drawing of boxes and lines on paper - it could have been. But, not knowing the specifics on this, it is all speculation. I wonder if he was amply compensated by Pause for his work?
Your idea of a warp drive wouldn't be possible, unless you had prototypes of the underlying technology or such (then you would/should only get patents on that). Or at least, that is how it is supposed to work - but things have been real hinky in the USPTO for a long while - for all I know, a simple text description might be enough.
On a side note, it may actually be possible that within the USPTO database exists all the patents surrounding the needed components for both a working fusion system and a warp drive - perhaps all by different inventors. Good luck finding that combination, though...
I sent an email to one of the Profs involved, and I am hoping to get a response.
Looking into things, though, I have found the following links - seems like they have gotten a small amount of funding from a company called "Tri-Alpha Energy Corp" or "Tri-Alpha Energy Inc":
http://www.magnet.fsu.edu/publications/2000annua lr eview/pdfs/nhmfl2000ar-pubs.pdf
http://sage.fiu.edu/searchengine2/index.cfm?Task Se lection=Advanced&Univ=UF (search on Tri Alpha Energy Inc)
http://web.clas.ufl.edu/CLASnotes/0102/grants.ht ml
All of this seems to have happenned in 2000, though I found a little tantalizing bits via Google that indicated this last February (2001) was the last grant money for it.
Unfortunately, I can't seem to locate who/where this "Tri-Alpha Energy Inc" is - still looking, though...
1. Explain to them that while viruses (trojans, worms, blah) are something that isn't inherently tied to any one platform, that they are _most_ common on the Windows platform, mainly due to Windows Scripting and Outlook. Tell them there are alternatives to these things, and how to remove/uninstall/disable Windows Scripting. Let them know about Netscape/Opera/Eudora. Most of all let them know how "on-the-ball" Microsoft has been with these problems.
2. Tell them about Linux/OSX/BSD/etc - don't preach about it, but let them know there are alternatives - put a bug in their ear, so to speak. Tell them that by running Linux/etc - they won't have to worry about viruses, because they simply won't run there. Tell them if they want to know more (and you know more - I am making a large assumption here, I know), to ask you.
3. Make sure they realize that viruses are the result of a homogenous system - that is, one large area of "sameness" - and that if everyone switched over to Linux tommorow, there could still be problems, though they would likely be much smaller, simply due to the way *nix has evolved security wise. Let them know that they don't have to be like their neighbor, that there are alternatives. Hand out "free" (and Free) copies of Linux...
4. If they still look brainwashed (and they probably will, or they will be asleep, or angry at you daring to insult Bill Gates - who knows?), tell them about ZoneAlarm for firewall protection and about some of the free virus protection software available. Hold a raffle for a (legit) copy of Norton AV (or whatever the favorite Win virus detector system is).
Also, in addition to this, educate them on who generally releases the majority of the viruses - their own school age children. Teach them to recognise budding computer geeks who really want to learn more, and have them get active in their son's or daughter's interests in such things. I know that not all virus-writers and script-kiddies are literal kids, but many are. I also don't know why they create such destructive things (when if they, whoever "they" are, gave it some thought, they would realize that viruses could do good things as well). But let them know that the next virus could come from their kid, and that if Ashcroft gets his way, their kid could be put away for the rest of his life.
If that doesn't wake them up, distribute BO instead, disguised as a cute greeting card or a nudie picture - at least then you could use all those machines owned by dolts for something "good", maybe.
I somehow doubt the cable had anything to do with it - other people's postings here seem to reflect this, and also give many good tips/ideas as to what happened.
One thing to consider, though, is whether the parallel port controller chip also is the IDE controller as well - sometimes motherboard manufacturers use these "super"-chips as a means to cut costs. I am involved in a group "hacking" the Acer NT-150 set-top box, and the controller chip for the parallel port on it also has some IDE controller functions, as well as floppy drive functions. Basically, they made it so you could build a "funky" parallel cable, hook it up to a floppy drive, plug the other end into the parallel port, and that becomes the floppy port - otherwise it is for a printer.
There may be a connection in your case - who knows?
I sent the following as an email to Mr. Jacob's company (http://sunncomm.com/). Please excuse the funky formatting issues - Slashdot acting up again. Anyhow, enjoy!:
Mr. Jacobs,
It was was with great interest that I read the interview you had with Gwendolyn Mariano about your company's content management system for CD
music. Noticing that your company is based in Phoenix, where I am a resident as well, I couldn't help but check out the website (which I must admit, is a pretty impressive Flash website) and see if you had an email address. Alas, that was not to be, which is why I am having to send this through an intermediary.
I wanted to address the questions and answers contained in the interview, so I will cut-and-paste the interview here, and respond to
each in turn (from http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1014-201-7311791-0.htm l):
Q: Many people say copy-protection schemes don't work. If you can hear the music, you can copy it and steal it. What makes your technology different?
A: The technology that we sell is a padlock to music. If you have a lock cutter, a bolt cutter, you can cut that padlock off. If you're determined to steal the music, the music can be stolen. Our technology is not thief proof. What it's meant to do is provide a speed bump to people who don't steal things, and wish to use them in the parameters that are suggested by the artists...If you give people what they want with respect to their ability to copy the music in ways that they think is reasonable, they will not ever attempt to circumvent the technology. Only hackers will attempt to circumvent the technology in order to prove that it can be done. We're not designing the technology for them.
[ME]
Then what is the point? Your company is creating copy protection measures to prevent "people who don't steal things" from stealing stuff? Huh? Furthermore, you acknowledge that the music can be stolen, but these measures can't protect against that. Let's keep honest people honest, right?
Don't run the argument past me regarding physical locks on physical doors protecting physical items. To be honest, if a "thief" could come into my house, and make a perfect duplicate of anything he wants in the house, and walk away with that duplicate, that would be fine with me. He has not deprived me of the original. Unfortunately, in the real world, it doesn't work this way (of course, in the future, with possible replication systems of physical objects, using nano-assemblers or other technology, it may. What then, copy protection schemes on the next T-bone steak template to prevent starving people from eating in third-world countries?), which is why we need physical locks. Data is information. Information is numbers. Numbers can be copied: Always have,
always will.
Q: The recording industry wants to make it harder for consumers to directly copy CDs, but one of the hurdles is that any barriers to copying must be "backwards compatible"--meaning the new technologies would have to work on old CD players that don't screen pirated material and vice versa. What is SunnComm doing to overcome this problem?
A: What we do is we own hundreds and hundreds of CD players dating back to 1983 and forward. Before we release any copies of our MediaCloq product, our CDs are tested on all of those different CD players for playability, sound quality, everything. That's how we ensure that what we build today will work on CD players from 20 years ago.
[ME]
Is your company testing all CD-ROM drives as well? What about that old Tandy THOR drive? Does your company have one of those devices hooked up to a Tandy 1000 whirring away to make sure it can play as well? What about my old Amiga CD-32 console system? Will it play there? Or that old Phillips-Magnavox CD-I player I have sitting on a shelf for playing VCD movies?
It is good to see your company is at least making an attempt to respond to this issue, but that is all it is. It can't be guaranteed such technology will work everywhere. In fact, who cares about drives from 20 years ago. I want to know if my CD with this protection will play on a drive 20 years from now, or even a hundred years from now...? By breaking the Red-Book standard (which it sounds like what is being done - and if it isn't, then it will be even more trivial for those with the skills to crack it), such problems arising are sure to be the case.
Q: So if someone breaks your anti-copying technology, are you going to sue?
A: The Digital Millennium Copyright Act prohibits users from circumventing copy protection. It's now a crime in America to do that. Having said that, it's certainly up to the record companies to decide how they're going to manage hackers that circumvent the technology in the future. From our standpoint, we are designing the software for the 99 percent of the people who don't want to steal the music but instead (want to) use it for whatever means--for whatever personal use that's allowed by the artist and the record label. The software was designed for those people, not for the 1 percent who are going to take the lock cutters and cut the lock off and steal music in an unauthorized way.
[ME]
First off, it has already been proven that the DMCA is most likely an unconstitutional law: If not in whole, then at minimum in part (likely a
number of parts). The simple act of writing a book in backwards script would render the manufacture, distribution, or sales of mirrors a crime
according to the DMCA. Even discussion about holding the said book over a pool of water to read it would be a violation! I hope your company can
cope when a test case is finally decided on the DMCA.
I could go on about the DMCA, but I won't, simply because a discussion on the unconstitionality of it could go on for a long time, and while it
is pertinant here, I simply can't let that sidetrack this discussion.
Should you wish to discuss the DMCA, please feel free to contact me in the future.
You mention that your company's protection scheme is software, but it isn't mentioned what operating system this software is for. In order for it to "fool" the computer system into not reading the music of the CD, there has to be software on the CD itself, or it must be downloadable from somewhere. Furthermore, this software has to be for a particular operating system. I tend to think (without proof, of course: Correct me if I am wrong) that this software is more than likely meant for the Microsoft Windows operating system.
I don't use Windows at home. I use Linux (a SuSE 6.3/7.2 hybrid, to be precise).
Will this software work there? I doubt it. Will it matter? I doubt that as well. The truth is, what if I take a CD-ROM drive and build an interface for it to my Apple IIGS, or my TRS-80 Color Computer 2? Or my Commodore 64? What about my Mini-VAX?
Seriously, I doubt the software will work there, nor will it matter if I can write my own drivers and build my own hardware to get around any
issues. You could respond that I am in that "1 percent". But what if I am doing this for my own fair-use reasons, and I am blocked? Don't I
have a right to play my CD on a player of my choice? I daresay under copyright law I do...
Q: Do you believe that copy-protection schemes violate fair-use rights?
A: Ours is the only copy-protection scheme that doesn't violate fair-use rights...We allow (people) to make copies for their own personal use: for their computer, for their compilation disc and for their MP3 player, so they can have portable use of their music. The only fair use that's left--and it's not fair use at all--is the "fair use" of sending thousands of copies to file-sharing services to be copied hundreds of thousands or millions of times. That's the only use we've limited and so that's not fair use; it's certainly not fair to the artist. I've got a whole line of artists that would agree that's certainly not fair, but there are a whole lot of artists that agree you ought to have your own personal copy or be able to make copies or do whatever.
[ME]
No, it isn't "fair use" to send your copy to thousands of others.
Q: How many copies do you allow people to make?
A: It's up to the record company, but six is the standard right now. So they can make six copies; as long as their disc is in the tray of their
computer, they can make those copies...It's hard to get your arms around copy protection as a technology, and I get that. Everybody here gets
that. The thing is how do you make it warm enough for people to accept it.
[ME]
However, it will violate fair-use laws of copyright if, say, the user takes the CD, makes one backup of the CD (copy #1), a copy for the car
(copy #2), an MP3 for their kid (copy #3), an MP3 for work (copy #4), and a copy for their spouse's car (copy #5), then the dog comes along and chews the original disk. You make another copy of the backup (copy #6).
There are your six copies. Now what happens if that new image of the backup is destroyed? Where do you get another copy from? Or what happens
if the MP3 at your work is deleted? By the way, if you could transfer that MP3 to your work, and play it, without the original CD, what stops that copy from being copied? Or do you have to have the original CD in the drive to play the copy (at which point, why make an MP3)? Or is there a "key" placed on the drive, and a special player to play the "MP3"? Which, at this point, wouldn't be an MP3 anymore, right? It would be a proprietary system, thus not allowing me to exercise my fair-use rights to play the music in the way I see fit on the device of my choice, even if that device happens to be a homebrew MP3 player cobbled together from a DSP, some RAM, and an MP3 decoding chip unsoldered from a RIO...!
Q: What kind of initiatives are you undertaking to prevent consumer backlash?
A: By allowing the consumers all the fair-use opportunities they had prior to having the protection on the disc itself. That's how we do it. Because I think in the end, music lovers will do what's right. They expect to use music for their own purpose and be able to continue to do that. We're the only protection technology in the world that allows people to do that and at the same time protect their digital property, and that's what we're going for here.
[ME]
And I have already outlined why what has been said has to be an impossibility. The only way honest people would be able to use their music in an honest fashion would be if each device that could potentially read the data, if it has a computer of sorts (like an MP3 player), that device would have to be able to run the software, to really secure the system. Any homebrew (or off-the-shelf Linux box) should be able to bypass whatever measures are in place. This system does nothing; it can't. Worse case scenario is a simple line-out/line-in copying solution. In effect, what this system really does is limit the fair-use rights of ordinary people to six copies. It does nothing to differentiate between those copies as to what is a backup copy, what is a music copy, and what is an MP3 copy. A copy is a copy, and thus uses up one "use". You have said it will work with MP3 players, but that isn't possible unless that player (be it hardware or software) can run your company's software, to guarantee it is a "good" copy. I somehow doubt my copy of WinAmp 1.0 is going to work, or if it does, whether it will care, about this "system"...
Q: So how much money is in this?
A: We need to protect about 4 billion CDs a year. That's what we'd like to do. We'd like to be the market leader in this business and protect about 4 billion CDs a year. And we think, just like Hershey's, we can make our money a nickel at a time, and it adds up, you know, 1 or 2 billion adds up.
Q: Can you translate those 4 billion CDs into a monetary figure?
A: That would be in the neighborhood of a $200 million revenue stream.
[ME]
Well, at least we now know the motivation behind implementing a copy protection scheme, to keep "people who don't steal things" from stealing
music (huh?), a scheme which cowers behind the DMCA, a law which in all probability isn't even constitutional!
Q: Have you ever used Napster?
A: Yes, I have. I've used Napster, and both my kids have used Napster...I (also) smoked once but I didn't inhale...I've tried to explain to my kids how wrong this is. We need to explain to people that the financial result of using file-sharing services is not good even though getting the music for free is "cool." It seems cool; it's really not in the end, when artists don't get what they need. Having said that, I hope to see a file-sharing service in the near future that will allow people the same effortless ability to download music even if it's of lesser quality, like MP3 quality, for a very small amount of money a month.
[ME]
Former President Bill Clinton also said he smoked, but didn't inhale. We also know that Mr. Clinton was later found to have inadvertantly stained
a dress owned by a Miss Lewinsky. I dare say your company's product shall also stain another dress, should it prove successful in the marketplace: The dress of Lady Liberty herself.
Q: Why are you in this business? It's not a market that would make someone rich, nor is it a business that would make consumers adore you.
A: I'm trying to change that. You see...you're driving along and you see a policeman in your rearview mirror. You know he's supposed to be the
friendly guy that helps you. But that's not what you think when you see him in your rearview mirror, is it? You think, "I'm going to get a
ticket." That's just like I think. OK. Well, I'm trying to change that for us. I don't want to be the cop in the mirror for people who are driving along. What we want to be is a company that develops a way to transmit digital property within a business model that will continue to develop digital property. The problem is, if digital property just becomes public domain the minute it's released, then the whole incentive model for distributing that property goes away.
Doesn't anybody want to think about what happens in the world where no music is paid for?...This business can be a very lucrative business if
it's done properly and if it's done with a sensitivity toward record companies and record buyers. I think there's a huge opportunity for this company to expand not just from the CD music but also for CD software, digital data, streaming, et cetera...It just takes more development time
for us to get into those different areas. But don't you think that as everything moves from analog to digital, the ability to exactly copy things creates a threat for any property owner--whether it's art, or books or music? Someone better come up with a way to get better and better at protecting the rights of the artists, because without doing that, I think that the art and the ability to distribute the art goes away. If somebody can show me that I'm wrong, I'll be out of this business in two days. But I don't think that I'm wrong.
[ME]
Do you remember the 1980's? Don't you remember the hundreds of schemes attempted by software manufacturers to "copy-protect" floppy disks. Some
were highly elaborate, involving physically altering the structure of the disk, even using quirks in certain types of floppy drives to enhance the copy protection.
The key thing is that all of these efforts failed in the end, mainly by causing the honest people to shop elsewhere for their software, because
invariably these schemes caused problems for honest people (indeed, I myself have a floppy from that time which would only allow you to make a
non-playable backup on another floppy - if your original died, you were supposed to copy the backup to the original disk to restore.
Unfortunately, my original died, along with my backup, simply from age. I would give a lot of money to play that game again, but alas, the
company is long out of business. Where are my fair-use rights now?). Thus, the publishers found that it wasn't worth it, and went back to making copyable software.
History is repeating itself. I am not even done laughing at what happened before!
The truth is, how can a number be protected? Because that is what is being attempted. While that number may be very large, and it may be
expressed in binary, in the form of pits and valleys on the substrate of a CD, which a laser reflects off of, changing light intensity from high to low. That is all it is, nothing more. How can this number be protected? What is the likely hood that said number could be found within the limitless boundries of what we know as "PI", or "e"? The honest fact is that it isn't possible to lock away numbers.
Digital data is natural data. Natural information, information that permeates and saturates the universe. In a way, digital data makes up all the life on this planet, in the form of DNA, built as a ladder of four base proteins. In theory, a song could be expressed as a long strand of DNA, which would be true are to play, via some kind of high-speed digital DNA sequencing machine. Perhaps that song could then be replicated via RNA in a polymerase reaction, then those copies played on other sequencing machines...
That, sir, would be true art - something that I definitely pay to see.
Everything you say is right - personally, I hope this all turns out as well as it can - I don't have a solution for any of it.
However, your statement about nuclear weapons is wrong on one account: You are assuming conventional nuclear weapons. You know, the ones with the lovely huge fireball and mushroom clouds...
However, imagine this nuclear scenario:
You don't send in troops at all - but instead use them to secure the borders of the country being "nuked".
Then, using nuclear waste from commercial electric reactors in the states, carefully shipped over before-hand - seed the area with using conventional bombs or a "spraying" campaign. What I speak of would have horrendous effects for the "enemy" - extreme radiation poisoning of an entire environment and people. The area would have to be closed down, a radioactive dump of the worst kind.
If I can think of this, undoubtedly others have as well - and this scares me.
I tend to wonder why major robitic systems haven't been deployed, but I am certain there are good reasons.
I know of one system that was developed a while back (for the DOD, I believe) that involved a targetable mortar mounted on a remote controlled (it may have even been autonomous to a point) 4 wheel ATV. I saw some test videos of this on various shows, and even found some small articles about it in Popular Mechanics.
Odetics, Inc, in Anaheim, CA produced at one time (at least some finished prototypes) a six-legged robotics system called the Odex-1 - the picture of the Odex-1 getting into/out of a pickup isn't staged - there was video taken of it broadcast on national TV through shows like "That's Incredible" and "Ripley's Believe It or Not!" - which I have also seen. It was set to be a defence robotics platform, with weapons mounted on it. Whatever happened to this machine is a mystery - I haven't been able to find any information on it...
Anyhow, a friend of mine described a software system he developed, which I have no doubts about him doing, as I have other code he worked on for an earlier, more benign system.
Basically, it was a GA/AE system, in which he created a "tank" simulation. Each tank in the simulation had sensors and outputs. The sensors could sense such things as the location of the other units in the simulation, as well as turret position of the other units. The outputs controlled the firing of the cannon, and moving the tank.
Each tank was "driven" by a custom bit of code. Each tank was given a bit of semi-random code to execute, and the simulation was ran. After so many rounds of simultation, those tanks that had done the best were replicated and "bred" - exchanging bits of code (ala DNA/genes) - to fight in the next run of simulation.
Note that this sim wasn't run real-time with graphics - he said he ran it "in-memory" to attain the fastest speed, and had a logging playback system to slow it down for human consumption and study.
None of this is new or unique (well, other than the fact that he was playing around with this back in 1992 or so, as a senior in high school), but the results he related to me were suprising:
The tanks, after so many runs, started displaying curious behavior. First, a communications of sorts was "discovered", that involved "turret-waggling" and "bee-dancing" behavior. Soon after that, flock and group strategies for eliminating opponents (essentially, learning to operate as teams) came about. He said late in the runs, the tanks learned to exploit a bug in his VM for the scripts each tank used, a buffer overrun that allowed the tanks to "teleport" behind their enemies to close in for the "kill".
He told me he stopped the sim at that point - uncertain about continuing it.
He since lost the code, but I doubt it would take much to replicate it. Like I said, I have other code he worked on which was more benign, and involved the same sort of system, except this time with "bugs" competing against each other, and an environment (that both grows good "grass", and bad "poison grass"), as well as breeding and dying - a very fascinating simulation in and of itself. I have no reason to doubt that he went the next step.
What I wonder is whether such stuff has been developed for use on a real battlefield - matching the ATV mortars with such software, bred inside the "dismounted soldier" training system the DOD uses for training, etc - could such a system be used for real warfare? Anyone care to comment on effectiveness, problems, ways the enemy could use it against the aggressor?
Finally - I tend to wonder if such a system could be applied to a Battlebot/Robot War competition...
Even with ODB-I (and I think with ODB-II - haven't played with it yet), you can easily get the code by shorting the right test point and watching for flashing lights on the dash.
Which brings back a memory:
On my 94 Ford Ranger, for a test point for checking the ABS system, every manual I looked at was supposed to be in this one spot under the dash area, on the driver side - it was supposed to be a single yellow wire. I got under there, nearly threw out my back from the contortions (it would have been easier to remove the driver's seat!), and no single yellow wire! For a couple of days I looked around in various spots (the location was very vague, but I was certain it had to be under there) - then I finally found it - it was actually part of a plug - not a hanging wire - and the wire was ORANGE!!!
AHHHGGGGGHHHH!!!
Of course, it said the problem with my ABS was the fluid level sensor in the brake resevoir - and in order to get that part - it isn't sold seperately - it is part of the entire master cylinder piece - meaning to replace a simple switch, you have to drain the entire brake system!
So far it has been easier to just pay attention to my driving, and use the brakes normally (my problem that led to my checking was that my anti-lock brakes didn't work, and when I used them, the ABS light came on and stayed on)...
In a way, from what I understand, this is kinda what Mosix does for you, automatically, and and thus different from a true Beowulfed parallel processing app.
I guess it also depends on if you want to learn parallel processing techniques, or if you are trying to get a job done.
The drop off I would imagine is due to slow interconnects among the nodes - I am sure there would be better gains the higher speed your interconnects were.
Anybody know how the POVRay for Beowulf machines really works? Does it break the viewport into n sections, handing each section to a different node, or does it process multiple rays (ie, a node per ray), or what? Anybody got a link on this?
Slashdot Mirror
How long have you had it? Have you sent in the warantee registration card?
If not, you might try getting it repaired. Typically, they will want a photocopy of the receipt. So, scan it, fudge it (the date), then send it with the warantee reg. Wait a couple of weeks. Then call, verify that they took the warantee reg info, ask them about getting your unit fixed, as you purchased it from the store and it didn't work, right? Right...
Now, of course, if you have been "hacking" on it, as that site seems to suggest - like you did the HD upgrade, downgrade it now, to the original drive (you did keep it, right?). That, or pull the info off the drive you have in it (if it is the original), and wipe the drive. You want it to look as "new" as possible, to fake them out.
If you haven't been hacking on it, and it was a simple mistake - I can't understand why they won't repair it in some manner - but if they won't, then try to fake 'em out.
Good luck!
You are right - the debate will never be settled.
What do I do for a living? I am a software developer for a Phoenix company. Our stuff isn't open source, probably never will be (but who knows?). I don't work 90 hours a week - my time is my time. I will put in extra hours when it is the right thing to do, but I won't do it just for the hell of it (ok, sometimes I do put in extra hours - you get into that "mode", where time just flows, and code is flowing - great state to be in).
I don't think being paid to do a job is selfish - but if that is all you do with your life - working, getting money, being paid, never giving back - yeah, that is selfish. One could state that he did give back - to his employer - by working a ton of hours, but he didn't give back to the community. That is selfish. He didn't just learn programming on his own. He had teachers. You know it, he knows it, and I know it. I give back because of all the people I learned from typing in code from magazines and books from when I was a kid. I give back because of the numerous examples I have found online about ways of doing things. I give back so someone else may learn from me, and teach others along the way.
But I do this on my own time. Not my employer's, my own. I do this because I love computers and software and coding - not because of these things can potentially make me money - but because of the worlds they have opened up for me. The insights, the freedom, the knowledge, the friendships - all of it!!! These things are things I cherish - and I wish to give others the chance to share in the same ways and feelings I have tread and experienced.
It seems like today companies and people only want to make money, let no knowledge out, never truely give back. But should they succeed, they will simply be causing their own ultimate demise, for where will the new information creators come from? The schools? Perhaps - but what about those who don't go, or can't afford, higher education? Should they be denied these things? Should they not be able to program computers, render 3D graphics, or build their own OS, should they so desire?
The corps are saying "Yes! THEY MUST BE DENIED!" in their mad rush to censor and restrict the flow of all information - not just copyrighted information (which I don't have a problem with, were it not that copyright extends forever anymore - ie, Sonny Bono/Disney Copyright Act, DMCA, SSMCA, etc). They want to even stop libraries, the internet itself. They are killing themselves and don't even know it, nor care.
Don't cut out Open Source yet - it isn't over. The bubble burst because of bad investment decisions, investment by VCs who would take a business plan written on a barroom napkin. They were stupid, and arrogant. Many great projects have benefitted from the open source and GPL philosophies. Maybe they haven't made money yet because they haven't found the right business model. Maybe they won't find the right business model. But they should at least try, especially now in these more "sane" (and I could argue less sane as well) times.
As far as my beliefs in OSS - could I write an operating system as you say? No, I could not - not because I couldn't learn how to do it - there are plenty of ways to learn how, and I am sure I could learn it if I was so inclined. I don't believe I could do it, for the same reasons that Linus didn't create the entire Linux kernel himself today. He created and released, from the first release, a very basic kernel. Improvements by others rolled in, and he incorporated them steadily, along with his own improvements. The thing kept getting bigger, until it is at where we are today. Kernel creation and design by near anarchy, is what it is. So no, I couldn't do it myself. I would be willing to bet, though, with a proper plan and good software design, and the release of a simple kernal that followed that design, you might be able to amass enough people to continue with development. The problem would be getting enough people who have access to the same kind of large scale arhitecture, which may be where and why this kind of development would fall apart. Of course, if you could get a company to "donate" a large dev machine to work on, it could be done. I believe IBM (or someone) actually has done this. Whether they did it for altruistic reasons or not is another issue...
All original PC joysticks used a timing system of a capacitor/potentiometer circuit that timed based on discharge rates (or something similar - there is more than enough docs on the net about this - look up "joystick programming" on google, heck, I might even have a link on the site), not piezo elements.
That isn't to say such elements were never used, but it certainly was far from common. Switches would be better to use, and your idea for a spring system might be workable. Some robotics projects have used similar systems for "whisker" sensors...
No, I don't know if anyone has, nor have I myself. It is one of those "back burner" projects (actually, I have been waiting forever to somehow create or buy a cheap sourceless head tracking system to create this - I suppose a boom mounted tracker could be used, maybe).
You are right on the calibration issues. I suppose if you could hook up some variable resistors or strain gauges, and mount the thing on springs, then you could measure the tilt that way, and provide a calibration loop in the software. Step on, calibrate center, then use.
Or, how about this - between two round pieces of plywood or steel, space a few piezo elements spaced around, in a circle, about a third of the way in from the edge (so you have plywood round-piezo elements-plywood round kind of sandwich). A thin bead of silicone caulking around the edge and near the center might provide a little support and prevent slippage. Then, as you tilt and "mash" the piezo elements, varing voltages would be generated, which could be sensed and used to determine direction. It would be a thinner platform, possibly even easier to construct. Or, do the same with a single plywood, steel or plastic round, but epoxy the elements on the 8 directions around the edge, then epoxy short steel, wood or plastic "legs" - thinest of all if used on a hard floor...
Yes, it is shocking that there are people who are all for themselves or for money, and none for others. That is shocking, and sad.
I understand your argument about kernels for large systems vs. small systems, and how the needs of one may cause issues with the other, if implemented (or not implemented, depending on the direction). Perhaps in this case, the kernel needs to be forked into a parallel dev effort, one side for PCs, etc - the other dedicated to larger systems.
I don't believe I have blind devotion - I use what I feel is best for my abilities - right now this is Linux. I have given thought to BSD as well, and also wondered and prodded about on various niche OS projects - but Linux seems to be the most viable, in that I don't have to worry about my hardware becoming quickly obsolete because of an OS change, and I don't have to worry about not being able to find and run a piece of favorite software because the OS no longer supports it. BSD allows this too, and I like its slower "rev" cycles - whereas Linux seems to be a frothy mess, everything being updated all the time - but it isn't something I worry about much.
I just feel it is better to give back - because I know in the end others will give back to me. It has worked for me for a while now, in many areas of my life (not just the open source community). At the end of the day, I know what I have done to help has made a difference for others. Sometimes, I am even told that it has. This to me is better than any amount of money someone could give me for my work.
2600 had an article a couple of years back about finding an easter egg in an exercise machine of some sort, and the author wondered the same thing.
Incidentally, I've been thinking about "hacking" out an easter egg on my Sanyo microwave - it has a very interesting display, with a ton of modes - I would be surprised if there _wasn't_ an easter egg hidden in it somewhere.
On my Cox Digital receiver (a Scientific Atlanta Explorer 2000 box), you can go into a special "diagnostic" mode on the box by pressing the diamond and target keys together after turning it on - basically, I believe you have to turn it on, then press and hold the target button (to the left of the arrow pad on the box), then hit the diamond button at the same time (in the middle of the arrow pad) - at least, I think that is the way - I don't have the box in front of me.
Gives a lot of info about the box...
Not my idea, but I have never seen an implementation of it, so I wrote a how-to a long while back on building it:
Cheap VR Issue 3
Basically, it works like a joypad, only larger, where you "lean" in the direction you want to "go".
BTW, don't bother emailing the address contained in the issue - it don't work anymore, instead, email to phoenixgarage addy...
First off, realize this:
If you want "pro" quality - expect to pay "pro" prices: ie, $1000.00 and up - this will be for a glove alone, mind you. 3D tracking tech will add to the cost, starting at around $1000.00 (give or take a few hundred) for magnetic tech (AC or DC pulsed), but since you say you want to use this with a PDA, I assume you won't need this, and only want flex sensors.
Will you need abduction sensing (ie, the fingers and thumb both flex, as well as move sideways, allowing for the lovely "Spock" gesture - this sideways motion is called "abduction")? If so, add a lot more to the cost of the glove - this kind of sensing is tough to do. It sounds like you might, if you want to do regular typing, and not "chording".
5DT sell good tech, but expensive - not really a great money-saver for a homebrew project. Hacking together a power-glove interface might be possible (I have done a simple parallel port one for my computer), but the power-glove can be difficult to find, though you might check Ebay (look for "Power Glove", note the space, as well as "Powerglove"). If you find one, you might try removing the flex sensors from the glove, and sewing them onto a lycra glove, for lighter weight and ease of use. The sensors are simple resistive flex sensors, you could probably build a simple interface for them instead of using the Powerglove's system, which is bulky. If you need abduction, you could place sensors between the fingers as well.
Also, go to my website. I have a lot of links that you might find useful - though they are a bit out of date, and I need to update them badly - very badly... In my Cheap VR Issue 2 I discuss how to build an optical style flex sensor glove cheaply, which you might find helpful.
Finally, think about this - there was (is?) a company out there that sold a glove that had simple metal bits sewn in, that when touched together completed circuits (I think it was called the Pinch Glove or somthing). This kind of system would be easy to homebrew - just don't try to sell it or claim it as your own tech, etc (you know, the whole IP bit). Simple buttons or rivets could be but on the tips of the fingers, wires soldered on, some added to the palm of the hand - add some switch debouncing, and a simple custom programmed PIC or Basic Stamp, connected to a serial interface (Max-232) - and there you go - instant gesture recognition system!
Finally, a word about your statement:
So that I can hit a real-size virtual keyboard in air and type faster. Who really needs to see the buttons?
Actually, try "typing" for a length of time with you arm in the air, and you will see why doing any "virtual" movement hasn't really caught on:
It is tiring.
Indeed, the best way to type virtually, so that you wouldn't tire, would be to simply keep the arms in a "rest" position, hanging at the side of your body.
One reason this tends to be tiring is that there is nothing to work against, like on a real keyboard, or in the case of VR manipulation of objects; a real object that has weight. We, as humans, like to rest our body parts as we work, which is why not many of us work for long periods standing all the time (and which is why being a store cashier really sucks). It is why we have chairs, etc.
I suggest you look into chording keyboard systems, and apply this tech to a "pinch" style glove - such a "keyboard" would actually be very useful in a real world "wearable computing" situation...
Disclaimer: I am not a kernel programmer, nor a compiler programmer.
Maybe your friend (and his friends) need to get off their butts, quit passing the bottle, and help make the Linux kernel what it really could be. Same thing goes for people who "laugh" at the inefficiencies of GCC.
Why is it that they have to sit around, drink beer, and laugh at code on a big screen? That sounds as pathetic as a bunch of beer-gut guys watching football, instead of out there playing it.
Contribute! That is what is needed.
However, I bet I know the reason why your friend can do nothing but laugh - he probably sold his soul and signed an NDA. Sucks to be him.
Calling or emailing Toshiba? Sometimes you might be able to be routed to someone a little bit clueful, who might even be kind enough to send a spec sheet to you - sometimes for a little money, sometimes for free.
Couldn't hurt to try. You might also ask them if they know what the device is - and who made it originally - maybe you can find out more that way.
I have an LCD module that I picked off a junk pile at a local electronics recycler (Apache Reclamation here in Phoenix). I took it home, took it apart - had a bunch of buttons and LCDs - looked like it might be interesting. I started to do some looking on the controller part - and found that it was some type of segment LCD driver (and not dot-matrix - damn!), but couldn't get a pinout.
Being damn persistant, I finally managed to find an individual in Germany who sent me a PDF of the controller. At that point it was easy to trace lines back to determine what the keyboard operated, and what controlled the LCD.
Turned out it was backlit, and when powered up, looked like some kind of temp/pressure control for med equipment or something. Not terribly useful for anything "normal", but I might find a use for it someday.
So, be persistant - it will pay off in the end.
Many of these systems rely on dedicated servers to get people linked up - I remember at the start of this whole P2P thing, people would post chain lists of other running gnutella systems, etc - so that if a chain is broken, it was still able to get reconnected. This might happen again as this progresses...
What I wonder though is about the elimination of these servers...
Would it be possible for each "client/server" node to "broadcast" that it is available - and other "client/server" nodes could look for that broadcast? When I mean "broadcast", I mean in the traditional sense - a way of communicating far and wide "I'm here! I'm here!" without the need for centralized servers - the chains then established could morph, reorganise, and disconnect at will - appearing in an instant, vanishing in a puff of smoke - a true P2P solution.
I am sure such a system might cause routing and caching issues to appear - but it is something these kind of systems need. I am not sure what the broadcast would consist of, or where it would take place - maybe it would have to rely on some form of stego, or something else - how han we treat the internet as a true broadcast medium, similar to radio? Maybe participants would go into some kind of promiscuous mode on there ethernet card, analyzing packets, maybe?
In a way, the so called 802.11 freenets are like this - because they are based on a broadcast system of radio - is there a way a wired network can operate like this? Has it already been done? Does the Freenet project work like this?
Ideas?
Two things:
1. Why are they running these off of methane? Methane isn't exactly everywhere, you can't just go to the store to refill it. Thus, you are left with either buying new "fuel cell" units for the phone, or building up a new infrastructure to sell methane in small cans for refill - both which equate to more money (for the corps - yay corps!) out of pocket, and more waste for the environment (if the units aren't recycled, etc). Why not use the obvious - compressed butane? Found in every Walgreens on the planet, cheap, hundreds of refills (and probably at the size they are talking about for the fuel cell tank, thousands of refills), delivery system well established, the units would be refillible eliminating waste - the only downside would be that the corps wouldn't have a steady revenue stream in batteries (wah!!).
2. Size - 2"x4"x.5" - why does that have to hang off a belt? The thing could easily go on the back of a phone - sure the phone might be a bit thicker, but IMO, I think cell phones NEED to be bigger, as well as more rugged - I have a friend/brother-in-law who is a truck driver, and his fingers on his hand are easily big enough to cover two buttons on his cell phone, making it difficult for him to dial it or pick up calls. This has caused him a lot of problems, not to mention that the phone lasts about 2 weeks in the dirty conditions he works in (his truck is a 10 wheel dump truck - he hauls dirt, rock, whatever pays). He used to have an old Motorola 9000 classic brick phone - rugged, big buttons - had it for years - hell, I have it now, and it still works fine! Today's phones suck for that kind of environment - make them a little bigger, less screen, larger numbers (its a phukin phone, for cryin' out loud!) - and drop this battery on - perfect.
When are these manufacurer's going to learn that cute != practical?
Personally, I wouldn't even say bundling is the issue with me - for me it is their shoddy business practices (rolls back to 1994 or so):
1. The internet is slowly being brought to the masses. Windows 3.1 exists, but need the WinSock TCP/IP stack to get in the net - fortunately, a free version is available, and is included by ISPs. Mosaic is also included...
2. Netscape builds and releases a much improved "Mosaic", called Navigator. Microsoft yawns, sees it all as a "fad", that the consumer won't embrace.
3. 1995 rolls around, and the consumer is raving mad for the net - Bill looks around and screams WTF!? Netscape is raking in money from sales of Navigator, creates Communicator which adds email, news, and web site creation tools.
4. In a mad dash, Bill throws out Windows 95, which had been worked on for a while, but had no internet capability (AFAIK). Rushes to make a TCP/IP stack (probably bought WinSock, knowing him).
5. Bill then sees that the internet explosion isn't a fad, and that he must "posess" it - rapidly IE is created, and is released for free to the masses.
At this point, things go crazy - because while Netscape isn't free - it is, sorta - but people for some reason are too stupid (or honest?) to figure it out: Netscape is "free" for students - simply check the student box on the download form, and you can download it for free - no authentication or anything required. Still, most people see it as expensive, and the marketing/FUD is done for IE to point out how expensive Netscape was (which it really wasn't that expensive - $70.00 or so for the deluxe version).
6. MS then "bundles" IE with later copies of 95, then fully integrates it into 98 - thus sealing the fate of Netscape, which went on to become a footnote (yes, I know it still exists, etc - but in the whole scheme of things, Netscape is just the tool, and not the company it was any longer).
It is this major undercutting that is a bad business practice - they saw that such software was cheap and easy to make, and thus had no "real" value, unlike an office package. But that doing so would leverage them into a whole new market, a much larger possible market - to market that office software to.
Now, Sun is doing the same thing - who knows if it is for revenge over Java or what - or if _they_ have some ulterior motive (which they probably do), which would allow them to leverage into another market...
The deal about patents, though (at one time) - required that you have a working prototype, or at least a model of some sort.
I am not sure how it really works today, but it seems like now (from what I understand), the models can be more virtual - to the point of where if you can CAD it, it is as good as the real thing (at least to the USPTO - there was an article in a well known inventors magazine talking about using CAD/3D for "prototyping" an invention, and how to use such things to patent the invention and get investment money).
Of course, we all know that if it is 3D on a screen, it must be produceable in real-life, right [sarcasm off]
Anyhow, I could see how the inventor (of the original patent) in this case might have been able to come up with a very expensive prototype at the time, in 1992. Or, it could have been a cheaper implementation, perhaps even in software. It wouldn't have to record full live TV - heck, a low res postage stamp size video image @ 10FPS, pausing/unpausing it would have been enough - in fact, I would bet you could do a very crude implementation with a frame-grabber and 286 at the time.
Still, I tend to wonder though if his model/prototype was simply nothing more than a drawing of boxes and lines on paper - it could have been. But, not knowing the specifics on this, it is all speculation. I wonder if he was amply compensated by Pause for his work?
Your idea of a warp drive wouldn't be possible, unless you had prototypes of the underlying technology or such (then you would/should only get patents on that). Or at least, that is how it is supposed to work - but things have been real hinky in the USPTO for a long while - for all I know, a simple text description might be enough.
On a side note, it may actually be possible that within the USPTO database exists all the patents surrounding the needed components for both a working fusion system and a warp drive - perhaps all by different inventors. Good luck finding that combination, though...
I sent an email to one of the Profs involved, and I am hoping to get a response.
a lr eview/pdfs/nhmfl2000ar-pubs.pdf
k Se lection=Advanced&Univ=UF (search on Tri Alpha Energy Inc)
t ml
Looking into things, though, I have found the following links - seems like they have gotten a small amount of funding from a company called "Tri-Alpha Energy Corp" or "Tri-Alpha Energy Inc":
http://www.magnet.fsu.edu/publications/2000annu
http://sage.fiu.edu/searchengine2/index.cfm?Tas
http://web.clas.ufl.edu/CLASnotes/0102/grants.h
All of this seems to have happenned in 2000, though I found a little tantalizing bits via Google that indicated this last February (2001) was the last grant money for it.
Unfortunately, I can't seem to locate who/where this "Tri-Alpha Energy Inc" is - still looking, though...
The tomahawk fusion reactor performs fusion very, very carefully and it is very delicate.
Tokamak, not tomahawk...
At the risk of starting a flame fest...
1. Explain to them that while viruses (trojans, worms, blah) are something that isn't inherently tied to any one platform, that they are _most_ common on the Windows platform, mainly due to Windows Scripting and Outlook. Tell them there are alternatives to these things, and how to remove/uninstall/disable Windows Scripting. Let them know about Netscape/Opera/Eudora. Most of all let them know how "on-the-ball" Microsoft has been with these problems.
2. Tell them about Linux/OSX/BSD/etc - don't preach about it, but let them know there are alternatives - put a bug in their ear, so to speak. Tell them that by running Linux/etc - they won't have to worry about viruses, because they simply won't run there. Tell them if they want to know more (and you know more - I am making a large assumption here, I know), to ask you.
3. Make sure they realize that viruses are the result of a homogenous system - that is, one large area of "sameness" - and that if everyone switched over to Linux tommorow, there could still be problems, though they would likely be much smaller, simply due to the way *nix has evolved security wise. Let them know that they don't have to be like their neighbor, that there are alternatives. Hand out "free" (and Free) copies of Linux...
4. If they still look brainwashed (and they probably will, or they will be asleep, or angry at you daring to insult Bill Gates - who knows?), tell them about ZoneAlarm for firewall protection and about some of the free virus protection software available. Hold a raffle for a (legit) copy of Norton AV (or whatever the favorite Win virus detector system is).
Also, in addition to this, educate them on who generally releases the majority of the viruses - their own school age children. Teach them to recognise budding computer geeks who really want to learn more, and have them get active in their son's or daughter's interests in such things. I know that not all virus-writers and script-kiddies are literal kids, but many are. I also don't know why they create such destructive things (when if they, whoever "they" are, gave it some thought, they would realize that viruses could do good things as well). But let them know that the next virus could come from their kid, and that if Ashcroft gets his way, their kid could be put away for the rest of his life.
If that doesn't wake them up, distribute BO instead, disguised as a cute greeting card or a nudie picture - at least then you could use all those machines owned by dolts for something "good", maybe.
Mod away...
I somehow doubt the cable had anything to do with it - other people's postings here seem to reflect this, and also give many good tips/ideas as to what happened.
One thing to consider, though, is whether the parallel port controller chip also is the IDE controller as well - sometimes motherboard manufacturers use these "super"-chips as a means to cut costs. I am involved in a group "hacking" the Acer NT-150 set-top box, and the controller chip for the parallel port on it also has some IDE controller functions, as well as floppy drive functions. Basically, they made it so you could build a "funky" parallel cable, hook it up to a floppy drive, plug the other end into the parallel port, and that becomes the floppy port - otherwise it is for a printer.
There may be a connection in your case - who knows?
I sent the following as an email to Mr. Jacob's company (http://sunncomm.com/). Please excuse the funky formatting issues - Slashdot acting up again. Anyhow, enjoy! :
m l):
Mr. Jacobs,
It was was with great interest that I read the interview you had with Gwendolyn Mariano about your company's content management system for CD
music. Noticing that your company is based in Phoenix, where I am a resident as well, I couldn't help but check out the website (which I must admit, is a pretty impressive Flash website) and see if you had an email address. Alas, that was not to be, which is why I am having to send this through an intermediary.
I wanted to address the questions and answers contained in the interview, so I will cut-and-paste the interview here, and respond to
each in turn (from http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1014-201-7311791-0.ht
Q: Many people say copy-protection schemes don't work. If you can hear the music, you can copy it and steal it. What makes your technology different?
A: The technology that we sell is a padlock to music. If you have a lock cutter, a bolt cutter, you can cut that padlock off. If you're determined to steal the music, the music can be stolen. Our technology is not thief proof. What it's meant to do is provide a speed bump to people who don't steal things, and wish to use them in the parameters that are suggested by the artists...If you give people what they want with respect to their ability to copy the music in ways that they think is reasonable, they will not ever attempt to circumvent the technology. Only hackers will attempt to circumvent the technology in order to prove that it can be done. We're not designing the technology for them.
[ME]
Then what is the point? Your company is creating copy protection measures to prevent "people who don't steal things" from stealing stuff? Huh? Furthermore, you acknowledge that the music can be stolen, but these measures can't protect against that. Let's keep honest people honest, right?
Don't run the argument past me regarding physical locks on physical doors protecting physical items. To be honest, if a "thief" could come into my house, and make a perfect duplicate of anything he wants in the house, and walk away with that duplicate, that would be fine with me. He has not deprived me of the original. Unfortunately, in the real world, it doesn't work this way (of course, in the future, with possible replication systems of physical objects, using nano-assemblers or other technology, it may. What then, copy protection schemes on the next T-bone steak template to prevent starving people from eating in third-world countries?), which is why we need physical locks. Data is information. Information is numbers. Numbers can be copied: Always have,
always will.
Q: The recording industry wants to make it harder for consumers to directly copy CDs, but one of the hurdles is that any barriers to copying must be "backwards compatible"--meaning the new technologies would have to work on old CD players that don't screen pirated material and vice versa. What is SunnComm doing to overcome this problem?
A: What we do is we own hundreds and hundreds of CD players dating back to 1983 and forward. Before we release any copies of our MediaCloq product, our CDs are tested on all of those different CD players for playability, sound quality, everything. That's how we ensure that what we build today will work on CD players from 20 years ago.
[ME]
Is your company testing all CD-ROM drives as well? What about that old Tandy THOR drive? Does your company have one of those devices hooked up to a Tandy 1000 whirring away to make sure it can play as well? What about my old Amiga CD-32 console system? Will it play there? Or that old Phillips-Magnavox CD-I player I have sitting on a shelf for playing VCD movies?
It is good to see your company is at least making an attempt to respond to this issue, but that is all it is. It can't be guaranteed such technology will work everywhere. In fact, who cares about drives from 20 years ago. I want to know if my CD with this protection will play on a drive 20 years from now, or even a hundred years from now...? By breaking the Red-Book standard (which it sounds like what is being done - and if it isn't, then it will be even more trivial for those with the skills to crack it), such problems arising are sure to be the case.
Q: So if someone breaks your anti-copying technology, are you going to sue?
A: The Digital Millennium Copyright Act prohibits users from circumventing copy protection. It's now a crime in America to do that. Having said that, it's certainly up to the record companies to decide how they're going to manage hackers that circumvent the technology in the future. From our standpoint, we are designing the software for the 99 percent of the people who don't want to steal the music but instead (want to) use it for whatever means--for whatever personal use that's allowed by the artist and the record label. The software was designed for those people, not for the 1 percent who are going to take the lock cutters and cut the lock off and steal music in an unauthorized way.
[ME]
First off, it has already been proven that the DMCA is most likely an unconstitutional law: If not in whole, then at minimum in part (likely a
number of parts). The simple act of writing a book in backwards script would render the manufacture, distribution, or sales of mirrors a crime
according to the DMCA. Even discussion about holding the said book over a pool of water to read it would be a violation! I hope your company can
cope when a test case is finally decided on the DMCA.
I could go on about the DMCA, but I won't, simply because a discussion on the unconstitionality of it could go on for a long time, and while it
is pertinant here, I simply can't let that sidetrack this discussion.
Should you wish to discuss the DMCA, please feel free to contact me in the future.
You mention that your company's protection scheme is software, but it isn't mentioned what operating system this software is for. In order for it to "fool" the computer system into not reading the music of the CD, there has to be software on the CD itself, or it must be downloadable from somewhere. Furthermore, this software has to be for a particular operating system. I tend to think (without proof, of course: Correct me if I am wrong) that this software is more than likely meant for the Microsoft Windows operating system.
I don't use Windows at home. I use Linux (a SuSE 6.3/7.2 hybrid, to be precise).
Will this software work there? I doubt it. Will it matter? I doubt that as well. The truth is, what if I take a CD-ROM drive and build an interface for it to my Apple IIGS, or my TRS-80 Color Computer 2? Or my Commodore 64? What about my Mini-VAX?
Seriously, I doubt the software will work there, nor will it matter if I can write my own drivers and build my own hardware to get around any
issues. You could respond that I am in that "1 percent". But what if I am doing this for my own fair-use reasons, and I am blocked? Don't I
have a right to play my CD on a player of my choice? I daresay under copyright law I do...
Q: Do you believe that copy-protection schemes violate fair-use rights?
A: Ours is the only copy-protection scheme that doesn't violate fair-use rights...We allow (people) to make copies for their own personal use: for their computer, for their compilation disc and for their MP3 player, so they can have portable use of their music. The only fair use that's left--and it's not fair use at all--is the "fair use" of sending thousands of copies to file-sharing services to be copied hundreds of thousands or millions of times. That's the only use we've limited and so that's not fair use; it's certainly not fair to the artist. I've got a whole line of artists that would agree that's certainly not fair, but there are a whole lot of artists that agree you ought to have your own personal copy or be able to make copies or do whatever.
[ME]
No, it isn't "fair use" to send your copy to thousands of others.
Q: How many copies do you allow people to make?
A: It's up to the record company, but six is the standard right now. So they can make six copies; as long as their disc is in the tray of their
computer, they can make those copies...It's hard to get your arms around copy protection as a technology, and I get that. Everybody here gets
that. The thing is how do you make it warm enough for people to accept it.
[ME]
However, it will violate fair-use laws of copyright if, say, the user takes the CD, makes one backup of the CD (copy #1), a copy for the car
(copy #2), an MP3 for their kid (copy #3), an MP3 for work (copy #4), and a copy for their spouse's car (copy #5), then the dog comes along and chews the original disk. You make another copy of the backup (copy #6).
There are your six copies. Now what happens if that new image of the backup is destroyed? Where do you get another copy from? Or what happens
if the MP3 at your work is deleted? By the way, if you could transfer that MP3 to your work, and play it, without the original CD, what stops that copy from being copied? Or do you have to have the original CD in the drive to play the copy (at which point, why make an MP3)? Or is there a "key" placed on the drive, and a special player to play the "MP3"? Which, at this point, wouldn't be an MP3 anymore, right? It would be a proprietary system, thus not allowing me to exercise my fair-use rights to play the music in the way I see fit on the device of my choice, even if that device happens to be a homebrew MP3 player cobbled together from a DSP, some RAM, and an MP3 decoding chip unsoldered from a RIO...!
Q: What kind of initiatives are you undertaking to prevent consumer backlash?
A: By allowing the consumers all the fair-use opportunities they had prior to having the protection on the disc itself. That's how we do it. Because I think in the end, music lovers will do what's right. They expect to use music for their own purpose and be able to continue to do that. We're the only protection technology in the world that allows people to do that and at the same time protect their digital property, and that's what we're going for here.
[ME]
And I have already outlined why what has been said has to be an impossibility. The only way honest people would be able to use their music in an honest fashion would be if each device that could potentially read the data, if it has a computer of sorts (like an MP3 player), that device would have to be able to run the software, to really secure the system. Any homebrew (or off-the-shelf Linux box) should be able to bypass whatever measures are in place. This system does nothing; it can't. Worse case scenario is a simple line-out/line-in copying solution. In effect, what this system really does is limit the fair-use rights of ordinary people to six copies. It does nothing to differentiate between those copies as to what is a backup copy, what is a music copy, and what is an MP3 copy. A copy is a copy, and thus uses up one "use". You have said it will work with MP3 players, but that isn't possible unless that player (be it hardware or software) can run your company's software, to guarantee it is a "good" copy. I somehow doubt my copy of WinAmp 1.0 is going to work, or if it does, whether it will care, about this "system"...
Q: So how much money is in this?
A: We need to protect about 4 billion CDs a year. That's what we'd like to do. We'd like to be the market leader in this business and protect about 4 billion CDs a year. And we think, just like Hershey's, we can make our money a nickel at a time, and it adds up, you know, 1 or 2 billion adds up.
Q: Can you translate those 4 billion CDs into a monetary figure?
A: That would be in the neighborhood of a $200 million revenue stream.
[ME]
Well, at least we now know the motivation behind implementing a copy protection scheme, to keep "people who don't steal things" from stealing
music (huh?), a scheme which cowers behind the DMCA, a law which in all probability isn't even constitutional!
Q: Have you ever used Napster?
A: Yes, I have. I've used Napster, and both my kids have used Napster...I (also) smoked once but I didn't inhale...I've tried to explain to my kids how wrong this is. We need to explain to people that the financial result of using file-sharing services is not good even though getting the music for free is "cool." It seems cool; it's really not in the end, when artists don't get what they need. Having said that, I hope to see a file-sharing service in the near future that will allow people the same effortless ability to download music even if it's of lesser quality, like MP3 quality, for a very small amount of money a month.
[ME]
Former President Bill Clinton also said he smoked, but didn't inhale. We also know that Mr. Clinton was later found to have inadvertantly stained
a dress owned by a Miss Lewinsky. I dare say your company's product shall also stain another dress, should it prove successful in the marketplace: The dress of Lady Liberty herself.
Q: Why are you in this business? It's not a market that would make someone rich, nor is it a business that would make consumers adore you.
A: I'm trying to change that. You see...you're driving along and you see a policeman in your rearview mirror. You know he's supposed to be the
friendly guy that helps you. But that's not what you think when you see him in your rearview mirror, is it? You think, "I'm going to get a
ticket." That's just like I think. OK. Well, I'm trying to change that for us. I don't want to be the cop in the mirror for people who are driving along. What we want to be is a company that develops a way to transmit digital property within a business model that will continue to develop digital property. The problem is, if digital property just becomes public domain the minute it's released, then the whole incentive model for distributing that property goes away.
Doesn't anybody want to think about what happens in the world where no music is paid for?...This business can be a very lucrative business if
it's done properly and if it's done with a sensitivity toward record companies and record buyers. I think there's a huge opportunity for this company to expand not just from the CD music but also for CD software, digital data, streaming, et cetera...It just takes more development time
for us to get into those different areas. But don't you think that as everything moves from analog to digital, the ability to exactly copy things creates a threat for any property owner--whether it's art, or books or music? Someone better come up with a way to get better and better at protecting the rights of the artists, because without doing that, I think that the art and the ability to distribute the art goes away. If somebody can show me that I'm wrong, I'll be out of this business in two days. But I don't think that I'm wrong.
[ME]
Do you remember the 1980's? Don't you remember the hundreds of schemes attempted by software manufacturers to "copy-protect" floppy disks. Some
were highly elaborate, involving physically altering the structure of the disk, even using quirks in certain types of floppy drives to enhance the copy protection.
The key thing is that all of these efforts failed in the end, mainly by causing the honest people to shop elsewhere for their software, because
invariably these schemes caused problems for honest people (indeed, I myself have a floppy from that time which would only allow you to make a
non-playable backup on another floppy - if your original died, you were supposed to copy the backup to the original disk to restore.
Unfortunately, my original died, along with my backup, simply from age. I would give a lot of money to play that game again, but alas, the
company is long out of business. Where are my fair-use rights now?). Thus, the publishers found that it wasn't worth it, and went back to making copyable software.
History is repeating itself. I am not even done laughing at what happened before!
The truth is, how can a number be protected? Because that is what is being attempted. While that number may be very large, and it may be
expressed in binary, in the form of pits and valleys on the substrate of a CD, which a laser reflects off of, changing light intensity from high to low. That is all it is, nothing more. How can this number be protected? What is the likely hood that said number could be found within the limitless boundries of what we know as "PI", or "e"? The honest fact is that it isn't possible to lock away numbers.
Digital data is natural data. Natural information, information that permeates and saturates the universe. In a way, digital data makes up all the life on this planet, in the form of DNA, built as a ladder of four base proteins. In theory, a song could be expressed as a long strand of DNA, which would be true are to play, via some kind of high-speed digital DNA sequencing machine. Perhaps that song could then be replicated via RNA in a polymerase reaction, then those copies played on other sequencing machines...
That, sir, would be true art - something that I definitely pay to see.
Everything you say is right - personally, I hope this all turns out as well as it can - I don't have a solution for any of it.
However, your statement about nuclear weapons is wrong on one account: You are assuming conventional nuclear weapons. You know, the ones with the lovely huge fireball and mushroom clouds...
However, imagine this nuclear scenario:
You don't send in troops at all - but instead use them to secure the borders of the country being "nuked".
Then, using nuclear waste from commercial electric reactors in the states, carefully shipped over before-hand - seed the area with using conventional bombs or a "spraying" campaign. What I speak of would have horrendous effects for the "enemy" - extreme radiation poisoning of an entire environment and people. The area would have to be closed down, a radioactive dump of the worst kind.
If I can think of this, undoubtedly others have as well - and this scares me.
I tend to wonder why major robitic systems haven't been deployed, but I am certain there are good reasons.
I know of one system that was developed a while back (for the DOD, I believe) that involved a targetable mortar mounted on a remote controlled (it may have even been autonomous to a point) 4 wheel ATV. I saw some test videos of this on various shows, and even found some small articles about it in Popular Mechanics.
Odetics, Inc, in Anaheim, CA produced at one time (at least some finished prototypes) a six-legged robotics system called the Odex-1 - the picture of the Odex-1 getting into/out of a pickup isn't staged - there was video taken of it broadcast on national TV through shows like "That's Incredible" and "Ripley's Believe It or Not!" - which I have also seen. It was set to be a defence robotics platform, with weapons mounted on it. Whatever happened to this machine is a mystery - I haven't been able to find any information on it...
Anyhow, a friend of mine described a software system he developed, which I have no doubts about him doing, as I have other code he worked on for an earlier, more benign system.
Basically, it was a GA/AE system, in which he created a "tank" simulation. Each tank in the simulation had sensors and outputs. The sensors could sense such things as the location of the other units in the simulation, as well as turret position of the other units. The outputs controlled the firing of the cannon, and moving the tank.
Each tank was "driven" by a custom bit of code. Each tank was given a bit of semi-random code to execute, and the simulation was ran. After so many rounds of simultation, those tanks that had done the best were replicated and "bred" - exchanging bits of code (ala DNA/genes) - to fight in the next run of simulation.
Note that this sim wasn't run real-time with graphics - he said he ran it "in-memory" to attain the fastest speed, and had a logging playback system to slow it down for human consumption and study.
None of this is new or unique (well, other than the fact that he was playing around with this back in 1992 or so, as a senior in high school), but the results he related to me were suprising:
The tanks, after so many runs, started displaying curious behavior. First, a communications of sorts was "discovered", that involved "turret-waggling" and "bee-dancing" behavior. Soon after that, flock and group strategies for eliminating opponents (essentially, learning to operate as teams) came about. He said late in the runs, the tanks learned to exploit a bug in his VM for the scripts each tank used, a buffer overrun that allowed the tanks to "teleport" behind their enemies to close in for the "kill".
He told me he stopped the sim at that point - uncertain about continuing it.
He since lost the code, but I doubt it would take much to replicate it. Like I said, I have other code he worked on which was more benign, and involved the same sort of system, except this time with "bugs" competing against each other, and an environment (that both grows good "grass", and bad "poison grass"), as well as breeding and dying - a very fascinating simulation in and of itself. I have no reason to doubt that he went the next step.
What I wonder is whether such stuff has been developed for use on a real battlefield - matching the ATV mortars with such software, bred inside the "dismounted soldier" training system the DOD uses for training, etc - could such a system be used for real warfare? Anyone care to comment on effectiveness, problems, ways the enemy could use it against the aggressor?
Finally - I tend to wonder if such a system could be applied to a Battlebot/Robot War competition...
You make a good point, but that was why I suggested cutting the trace, and soldering "above" the cut.
However, I do like your solution - much sneakier in case something goes wrong...
Even with ODB-I (and I think with ODB-II - haven't played with it yet), you can easily get the code by shorting the right test point and watching for flashing lights on the dash.
Which brings back a memory:
On my 94 Ford Ranger, for a test point for checking the ABS system, every manual I looked at was supposed to be in this one spot under the dash area, on the driver side - it was supposed to be a single yellow wire. I got under there, nearly threw out my back from the contortions (it would have been easier to remove the driver's seat!), and no single yellow wire! For a couple of days I looked around in various spots (the location was very vague, but I was certain it had to be under there) - then I finally found it - it was actually part of a plug - not a hanging wire - and the wire was ORANGE!!!
AHHHGGGGGHHHH!!!
Of course, it said the problem with my ABS was the fluid level sensor in the brake resevoir - and in order to get that part - it isn't sold seperately - it is part of the entire master cylinder piece - meaning to replace a simple switch, you have to drain the entire brake system!
So far it has been easier to just pay attention to my driving, and use the brakes normally (my problem that led to my checking was that my anti-lock brakes didn't work, and when I used them, the ABS light came on and stayed on)...
Good points.
In a way, from what I understand, this is kinda what Mosix does for you, automatically, and and thus different from a true Beowulfed parallel processing app.
I guess it also depends on if you want to learn parallel processing techniques, or if you are trying to get a job done.
The drop off I would imagine is due to slow interconnects among the nodes - I am sure there would be better gains the higher speed your interconnects were.
Anybody know how the POVRay for Beowulf machines really works? Does it break the viewport into n sections, handing each section to a different node, or does it process multiple rays (ie, a node per ray), or what? Anybody got a link on this?
Hello?
I wasn't replying to the article, but to an individual who was asking what he can use a Beowulf cluster for, as he obviously didn't know.
I am the last person needing to whore, since I am capped, and been that way for months...