Actually, IIRC, this is an old typist trick (someone correct me if I am wrong):
1997 has to be typed with both hands, while l997 can be typed with one, which may be faster in certain cases (not that it is a good thing on the net)...
Well, I was thinking about sending +/- 12 Volts, then dropping the voltage down to the other levels closer to the device being used (actually, 12 and 24 volt systems are used in solar and RV applications, so it can be done). I wasn't meaning to imply that I would have a 5V wiring system. While even 12V wiring would still be pretty thick, it wouldn't be that bad. However, the conversion from 12V to anything else might not be that efficient...
I would pay for a Rhino Records napster in a heartbeat. Of course, the thing I really want is a Rhino Records Wrapster so I could download those funky old music videos from my youth!
I am not an electrical engineer, so what what I am proposing may be so much bull - can anyone give insight on the pros/cons of such a system?:
Nearly every device in the home (and office) is plugged into an AC outlet. What is the other cord generally plugged into? That's right - some form of transformer - it may be a large steel monster, or a tiny and efficient switching transformer, but in the end, nearly all of our systems use DC, rather than AC, to run.
A bit (and I would venture in certain cases) a lot of energy is wasted in the conversion of AC to DC, generally as heat. Since each device has one of these transformers, each device is wasting a bit of energy in the conversion process.
What if instead of having multiple transformers, you instead could use one (or a few) larger capacity, more efficient, transformers? Could this be done? Or would the actually be diminishing returns using this kind of system?
What if it could be done for the whole house, or floor, of a building? AC to the curb, from there, DC. Would the power losses be too big to do such a thing (ie, would the wires carrying the DC heat up too much)? I know that AC won out over DC because DC lost so much energy in long transmission routes (among other reasons) - but in the confines of a small building, would it really lose that much?
I wouldn't use such a system for large load devices (which use a lot of energy not matter what - like washers/dryers/heaters/AC/stoves/etc). But for other devices like computers, printers, network hubs, etc - it sounds like an interesting solution...
Sounds like you are describing the V1 - with a little more size information, I would be able to tell you for sure, but it does sound like the V1, which was an actual pulse jet engine from a WWII German V1 "buzzbomb", but mounted on a radio controlled "cart". The thing is huge (15-20 feet long), with the business end around 3 feet in diameter - did it have a large engine on one end driving what appeared to be a blower? Did the flame shoot out many feet?
Just from your description - that sounds about right? It also sounds like you didn't have any ear protection. I went to the Phoenix show (96?) and even with ear-plugs, the sonic noise was deafening. It is surprising you managed to keep your hearing.
BTW - as far as pulsejets are concerned, they are not pleasant to be around. Last year a small demo was given by Pauline and Co. in a warehouse in South Phoenix (ChemLab), which I helped to set up - a demo of a small (but damn powerful) pulsejet that was going to be used on a hovercraft for a future show (which was supposed to be in Phoenix, but got nixed hardtime by the PFD - thanks, bastards!). Amazingly loud! Mark told us about doing some testing runs on another pulsejet, and being around it running for about 30 minutes. He said he stopped the engine, and felt tingly all over. Soon he felt real bad - basically his nerves (from the vibration waves) had become hyper-sensitive, where the slightest noise or touch caused great pain - he said it was like this for about a week. Not fun...
He is worried about his idea being valuable, yet doesn't want to spend any money to protect it? That doesn't even sound sane. While I realize that patenting is expensive (very expensive), if the idea is valuable enough, it is what he needs to do.
You say VC's almost never sign NDAs - that doesn't mean at least one won't, otherwise you wouldn't have prefaced that with the word "almost". I can see how a VC would balk at such a thing.
As for a lawyer and NDAs - well, if the idea is valuable enough, then a lawyer (and a VC) is going to use whatever they can to get the idea away from you, and not give you shit. People (esp lawyers and VCs) suck like that, there is a reason they call them sharks. All the lot "ethical restrictions" would do, right. Money runs it all, and they will bend you over in a second to get more.
Perhaps this individual should just open up the IP, and let EVERYONE run with it. If he can't afford to do it himself, and it is truely revolutionary, then the proper thing to do would be to make it completely public.
Finally, I don't know what your last line is supposed to mean, since I didn't get modded up at all. I am probably just being trolled by an AC, but I am far from clueless. While I will admit I have no real-world experience with patents or VC's, I do have common sense, which is why I recommended that the guy get himself to a lawyer. I just know that if the lawyer happens to be a crappy shark, he is going to be taken, hence, the use of an NDA with the lawyer.
I once got bored while surfing, and decided to try the phrase "Beating myself over the head with a two by four" and actually came up with a page. This was a few years back, doubt it still exists.
The one thing that I haven't been able to find is a copy of "Gates of Delerium" for the TRS-80 Color Computer 2 - a clone of Ultima that was made by Diecom Software in the mid-80's. Diecom was founded by Dave Dies, and someone else - and then went out of business with the death of the CoCo in the early 90's. I know that he now works for a company doing PDA games. It almost seems like I have the only copy, and my copy is DEAD. I spent a fair amount of money on that game, and I want to play it again... argggh!
Patent it if you want (I have no problem with this in regard to truely novel hardware, it is software that I have problems with - such patents need to be shorter, if they need to exist at all - which I think they have some place, such as in the case of the RSA patent) - but if you require a prototype, and it is going to cost that much, have you thought about virtually prototyping it?
Virtual prototypes have been discussed for physical objects, like a "brand new cake pan" or something similar - where you model it in Autocad or whatnot, and show how it all works - sometimes it is possible to get VC money or even a patent with such an approach (use NDAs for everything though - I hope you did that with the VCs you met). If it is an electronic device, then maybe a SPICE model or similar approach will work (not sure what you would use for modeling a silicon process for say, a new chip - but I am sure it can be done - VDSL?).
I would say draw up a good NDA, go to a lawyer, have him look over the NDA, make recommendations/changes to it to make it legally strong, then have him sign it, and the discuss with him your options and what you can do...
Ok, while I can understand your frustration at not being able to find a switch to fit, it shouldn't really stop you, if you know what you are doing.
You are either using a AT or an ATX powersupply - more than likely the latter, since you say it is going to be a new PC. But let us examine each version, and what can be done:
1) AT Case/Power supply - uses a DPST switch. Simply buy one somewhere (www.allelectronics.com) and put it in! Don't fit? That's what Dremels were made for! Put it somewhere else on the case, if you have to - it is just a power switch - it doesn't need to be pretty (heck, I wish they were still on the back of the box, to keep users from turning them off easily). Replace the switch, or wire it permanantly on, and hook up an inline powercord switch, or into a switchable powerstrip. Better yet, use a UPS, and don't turn the machine off...
2) ATX Case/Power supply - in this case, the powersupply is "smart" - and is controlled by the motherboard. A header is supplied on the MB for the switch, a simple momentary contact SPST switch. A doorbell button would work fine here (hey, cool case mod - light up doorbell button for turning the power on). I have used a screwdriver to simply bridge the contacts to start ATX based PCs (not the smartest thing, but nifty in a pinch on a bare motherboard). A paperclip would suffice as well. Dremel the case to fit, or rig the switch up on the front as needed. You can't do the inline powerswitch thing like on the AT system, though it might be remotely possible if your BIOS has a setting to restart the power supply after a power failure (forced reboot), then it might be OK. Another possible case mod here (fits in with the whole rice boy theming of boxen), get one of those remote control finding remote controls - you know, the ones made by All-In-One, that have a beeper to stick on the back of the remote control (if ever there was a stupid product, this is it), and you hit the large single button on the remote to cause the beeper on the lost remote to sound, and wire the beeper to a relay, and the relay contacts to the switch contacts (thus, a remotely powered on PC - "Dude, stand back, I am about to power it on!").
Heck, if it is ATX, there are a lot of modding options available, due to its simplistic power sequence nature. Don't bust your balls looking for a switch, especially if the case doesn't cost more than $50.00 - it isn't worth it! Break out he Dremel, duct tape, epoxy and thinking cap, and go!
Which may have been used for buzz bombs guidance systems.
The V1 "buzz bomb" (so called because of the distinct "buzzing" sound they made while in flight, due to using pulse jet engines - really, one of these has to be heard to be believed - I helped set up for a demo of one of the pulse jet engines SRL built for one of their latest machine, a hovercraft powered by four of them - bone shaking loud and hot was this engine - truely a sight to behold) was a "set-it-and-forget-it" type system.
Launch down a track, aimed on a straight vector (via a combination of the track and a gyroscopic navigational system, similar to early rockets) towards its destination (London), a timer was set on the engine throttle. Knowing the speed of the V1, the timer was set to cut off the engine when it was over the target, causing the bomb to "glide dive" in (it had wings - it was basically a pulse-jet propelled airplane with a bomb inside). In fact, RAF pilots got quite good at deflecting these bombs by flying next to them, getting a wing underneath one of the bomb's wings, then rolling their plane to "flip" the bomb into a death spiral of sorts.
All of this changed with the appearance of the V2 rockets (though navigation was still horrible, these machines being basic forerunners of modern ballistic missles - they still were effective in promoting a sense of fear among the masses of London, because they could hit anywhere, without advanced warning - they simply fell from the sky)...
Actually, they _did_ have precise enough manufacturing capability to build Babbage's machines - this has already been proven by the building of Difference Engine No. 2 at the Science Museum in London. Scientific American had an article on it, discussing how they built the parts to the tolerances specified, and the resulting machine worked excellently. Portions of the machine were built after Babbage's death, proving that it could be done (more info on this and other interesting Babbage info can be found here).
It is my opinion (shared by a lot of researchers) that Babbage failed primarily for two reasons; a) He could never "settle down" and build any one of his calculating machines, he was constantly dreaming of improvements and never committing to one design, draining his resources to the point of where they abandoned him (.com failure?), and b) his machines simply weren't practical for the time period, for their huge cost. People at the time didn't have a pressing need for enormous amounts of calculating power, that couldn't be provided for by cheaper human labor (so called later "computers"). It wasn't until the late 1800's that the need for real mechanical/electrical computing power began to be felt (look into Hollerith and the 1890 census for one take - there are others, of course, notably Lord Kelvin's Tide Predicting machine of 1876, while being analog, does demonstrate the need for mechanical models of complex computing problems - in fact, this particular use was not overtaken in any large part by digital computers until the 1950's), in fact, this was the time during which many "inventors" came forth with their own takeoffs of Babbage's machine - it should be noted that these were all portions of "Difference" engines, some original, some of Babbage's design. None were of the scale and complexity of his Analytical engine, though I believe a portion of the mill was completed by one of his sons after his death. It actually worked rather well, computing the successive sums of PI (though with errors, some tracable to machine problems, most likely spring related, but the major problem being that the input for the initial value of PI was off in one digit - thus, perhaps one of the first examples of GIGO as it relates to computers).
Thus, we have two points of failure: One, a character "flaw" (something that affects many hackers even to this day), and the second a lack of practical need.
It's too bad - his machines could have radically shaped our world...
I have 6 tomato plants growing out on my back porch (super beefsteaks or somesuch), each had a little blurb about propagating said plant as being against the law, yadayada.
I might just propagate them myself just to piss people off...
Building the optics to project the lcd image so that it appears to fill your field of view, and come from a distance of 5m is probably not too easy
Nor is it cheap - it can be done, look into the LEEP optics set. I am not even sure if you can still buy these optics, but the company that made them (LEEP?) sold them in the early 90's or so (I probably have a bit of info on all this at my web site - hit the link), for a VERY large sum of money ($15K? Maybe it was less, I am sure it was over $10K, though). Mind you - this was just the glass optics - you still had to provide the imaging system, and distortion system (ie, the optics distorted the image in a certain manner, you had to set your imaging system to distort it in the opposite manner, either using software or hardware, so that the image looked correct when viewed through the optics). IIRC, one company that used the optics was FAKESpace, with their BOOM system.
Also, I remember an article in an old copy (volume 14 no 3?) of Telepresence, and expensive academic publication/magazine put out by MIT press (managed to grab a couple at a local bookstore - nice mags) that had an artical detailing building your own optic system for an HMD...
Some people have asked why we don't generate energy with one of those things. Well, we don't use a single parabolic mirror, because it is hard to build a very large one. Instead, we use multiple mirrors all angled toward a focal point, like this:
While the website says that it is in use, the last few times I have driven by on (on my way to my parents house in Bako), it hasn't been exceptionally bright. I remember it in the late 80's, early 90's, the top of the tower looked like it was white hot (at the focus), and when they would move the mirrors away, above the tower, you could "see" a spot of "boiling" air - it looked like the wavyness you see rippling off a hot car, from the heat refraction, but hovering at a point in mid-air. Very impressive shit.
That's not all, though - want to build such a device yourself, for cooking perhaps? Check this...
Still not enough? Want to build a "real" solar furnace?
This is on anecdotal evidence, so take it for what it is worth.
At the time I ordered and had installed Cox@Home (I know, I know - it sucks, but I can't get DSL where I am at, last I checked), I firewalled it, as recommended by just about every sane individual on the planet.
When I had it installed, due to a couple of reasons I had to set up the firewall on a Windows 95 box. This box was also my GF's box, so I was a little nervous running both user apps and a firewall, but at the time I didn't have a choice.
The firewall I chose was ZoneAlarm - simple to install, admin, and best of all, free. Today I would probably choose Tiny, but that wasn't available then (and I only recently learned about it). I searched for some kind of NAT solution (the box runs 95, not 98), but came up empty handed, so I opted for a proxy server: AnalogX's Proxy. This solution worked well for quite some time, and I never had many problems (occasionally the Win95 box would freak, and I would have to reboot), except for one thing - it seemed "slow", compared to my GF's box. All the apps on my GF's box ran through the firewall, while my box ran through the proxy, then the firewall. It was all still faster than a modem, to be sure, so I lived with it, figuring that I would be using a regular firewall later, and besides, what more should I expect from a free solution...?
I always intended to set up a "real" firewall at a later point. I had thought about a Linksys router/NAT box, or possibly building it myself. Things dragged on, then recently I gained the oppourtunity to do what I wanted. I chose to build a box - to get the experience, number one, and because it was overall cheaper, plus I could expand it (unlike the Linksys router).
I chose Freesco (which is based off of LRP), because it is easy to admin, has remote admin capability (telnet and web), good documentation, and support for a ton of NICs. After getting it setup, and running it, I found out a very good thing:
Your speed is only as good as your routing software (or hardware, as the case may be)!
I guess I should've known this - it is a good lesson to learn. The majority of people don't have to worry about this on a cable modem or DSL: they only run one machine, or a wide open network (the latter can be a risky situation, IMO). I run (or attempt to) a secure home network, so having the routing capability is a must.
The speed improvement is incredible - I don't have hard numbers - but I know web page loads, mail downloads, everything is faster - much faster. So, if you are having speed issues (or you think you are), look into changing your routing/firewall software or hardware system - you may be surprised.
Now, if I could only get rid of this upload cap (can anybody point me in a good direction - heck, I would even be willing to try to spoof being the BOOTP server for the cable modem, if it would work)...
Look up information on the "Invisible Web" - islands typically untouched by search engines, where you need another site to "hop" to these nets of information - cool stuff can abound in these disconnected areas. Here are some links to get started with:
The Department's objectives in offering this course is to provide an introductory to the history of computation - including early computing devices and their uses, and the people who developed them.
Ideally, students who successfully complete this course will improve their understanding of how the field of computing developed and matured. They will be expected to be aware of the principal people, places, and events that shaped their profession. Such students will appreciate the broad sweep of this branch of history and be able to relate it to the social and scientific changes that were taking place during the same time frames. They will also be able to describe the concepts and show some understanding of the developments and be able to differentiate and make comparisons between them.
Additional information about a fall 1998 section of this course - namely, a collection of additional readings used to supplement the course text - is also available.
(Please note - I have "highlighted" those parts of the text which I thought gave insight toward the scope of this particular class)
I am not saying this class isn't a good class, however, judging from the syllabus alone, it seems to do just what I said could only be realisticly done; namely "skim".
It is an introductory course, not designed to give an in-depth view of the history. It seeks to only point out "principal people, places, and events", which, while these individuals are important, probably leave out a lot of minor players who made contributions to the history of computing that weren't recognized until much later, if ever (people like Jaquard, with a card controlled loom, directly influenced Babbage, and further, Herman Hollerith, who later help found IBM, which went on to make the standard 80 column punch card, which led to 80 column video displays. I am certain I am leaving out steps here, but the point is this is one known example - there are many lesser known ones, and students of the course will never know about them).
I feel that this course seeks to point students in a particular direction. Perhaps some will go further with the knowledge gained from it, but most will simply take what was said in the course as "that is all there is", and not find out more about this particular area of study.
The syllabus admits to the history of computers having a "broad sweep", something that stands out in the course of all history. I dare to think, without having taken the course, that it probably starts with Pascal's investigations and inventions (or perhaps Napier's bones for calculations), and stops at the ENIAC era, with anything after that machine being relagated to "modern" times. But the fact is a lot of investigation into logic and calculation was made long before Napier or Pascal (indeed, look at the Antikythera Mechanism for such an example), and a lot of history has been made since the ENIAC.
Alas, I fear a lot of students will never really know about it, or care.
First off, make sure you are using a fairly standard distro your first time out - when I was starting, I first tried a funky copy of TurboLinux , it didn't come in a box, and I was sadly disappointed with it. I then tried RedHat 5.2, and liked it alright, installed good, but never got around to really using it. I then set up a SuSE 6.3 box, and have been using that since.
I will probably try a version of Debian next time round, or maybe go with the latest SuSE. Or perhaps Mandrake - not sure at this time. SuSE 6.3 has been pretty solid for my needs. I have only patched the kernel to 2.2.14 (13 as packaged) to get my ZIP drive working proper. I have been pretty pleased.
Drop the USB thingie and get a real NIC - they can be had cheap enough (under $20).
I actually like David Brin's idea of sub-vocalizations, in his book "Earth". But hey, for the moment thought input and such are still science fiction, for the most part (yes, I know about the brainwave experiments being conducted).
What would actually be pretty fast would be some sort of dataglove (or maybe a video digitization system) and use a form of signing. ASL would be a pretty neat way to do input on a computer, if the computer could be taught and it could recognize the patterns fast enough. This would be easiest with the dataglove system, rather than the video capture system.
I am not sure if it would be faster than typing, though. Perhaps a new kind of keyboard needs to be developed - think of a chorded keyboard system, but using all of the keys on the keyboard, and both hands - perhaps that would be quicker (though I wonder if increased RSI would result as well). We already know the chord for "reboot" - who says other chords couldn't be devised as well (in other words, more complex than other familiar multi key inputs that are already allowed)?
Essentially you set up the NAT'ed firewall system to listen for requests on a certain port. When it receives those requests, they are forwarded on down to a server on your internal network. The server processes the request, sends the response back to the NAT firewall, which translates it back, and sends it on to the user.
It shouldn't matter what web server you are running on that machine - but if your are running a NAT firewall system that you can't redirect ports, then that is a problem (I am sure some of the better NAT firewalls allow it - perhaps even TINY (for Windows) allows it - however, I am not certain that some of the "hardware" firewall/routers allow it (like the Linksys) or not).
You answered your own problem, I'm afraid - don't use "crappy" software (or hardware, whatever the case is). When I decided I needed a server for my bookmarks, I knew I wanted it behind the firewall. I knew that my firewall had to be able to forward the requests, so I looked and saw what my options were. I was running ZoneAlarm with a proxy server on a machine to act as my pseudo NAT system (I know it isn't, but what the hell else do you call it, other than a proxy server, I guess), but this wasn't the best solution, and it wouldn't work with what I wanted to do (plus there were a slew of other problems). I couldn't find info on whether the Linksys stuff would do what I wanted (hey, it may), so I decide to just go ahead and build my own router/firewall, run FreeSCO (based off of LRP, which will do what I want), and leave it at that.
Finally, if I didn't want a service visible to the outside world, I wouldn't hook it up to the net to begin with. Your last line is telling, though. NAT works well if you know what you want to do and how to do it. I am sure in many instances it simply doesn't play well, more than likely because the software doesn't want to communicate in a more standard manner (instead opting for something else for speed reasons, like FPSs). Maybe it isn't for you, but for my purposes I think it will work fine (and is cheaper in the long run).
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, IIRC, this is an old typist trick (someone correct me if I am wrong):
1997 has to be typed with both hands, while l997 can be typed with one, which may be faster in certain cases (not that it is a good thing on the net)...
Worldcom - Generation Duh!
Well, I was thinking about sending +/- 12 Volts, then dropping the voltage down to the other levels closer to the device being used (actually, 12 and 24 volt systems are used in solar and RV applications, so it can be done). I wasn't meaning to imply that I would have a 5V wiring system. While even 12V wiring would still be pretty thick, it wouldn't be that bad. However, the conversion from 12V to anything else might not be that efficient...
Worldcom - Generation Duh!
Thanks for letting me know, though, AC...
Worldcom - Generation Duh!
I have the mini-poster and mouse pad (the shit you can pick up at DefCon)!
Worldcom - Generation Duh!
I would pay for a Rhino Records napster in a heartbeat. Of course, the thing I really want is a Rhino Records Wrapster so I could download those funky old music videos from my youth!
Worldcom - Generation Duh!
I am not an electrical engineer, so what what I am proposing may be so much bull - can anyone give insight on the pros/cons of such a system?:
Nearly every device in the home (and office) is plugged into an AC outlet. What is the other cord generally plugged into? That's right - some form of transformer - it may be a large steel monster, or a tiny and efficient switching transformer, but in the end, nearly all of our systems use DC, rather than AC, to run.
A bit (and I would venture in certain cases) a lot of energy is wasted in the conversion of AC to DC, generally as heat. Since each device has one of these transformers, each device is wasting a bit of energy in the conversion process.
What if instead of having multiple transformers, you instead could use one (or a few) larger capacity, more efficient, transformers? Could this be done? Or would the actually be diminishing returns using this kind of system?
What if it could be done for the whole house, or floor, of a building? AC to the curb, from there, DC. Would the power losses be too big to do such a thing (ie, would the wires carrying the DC heat up too much)? I know that AC won out over DC because DC lost so much energy in long transmission routes (among other reasons) - but in the confines of a small building, would it really lose that much?
I wouldn't use such a system for large load devices (which use a lot of energy not matter what - like washers/dryers/heaters/AC/stoves/etc). But for other devices like computers, printers, network hubs, etc - it sounds like an interesting solution...
Worldcom - Generation Duh!
Sounds like you are describing the V1 - with a little more size information, I would be able to tell you for sure, but it does sound like the V1, which was an actual pulse jet engine from a WWII German V1 "buzzbomb", but mounted on a radio controlled "cart". The thing is huge (15-20 feet long), with the business end around 3 feet in diameter - did it have a large engine on one end driving what appeared to be a blower? Did the flame shoot out many feet?
Just from your description - that sounds about right? It also sounds like you didn't have any ear protection. I went to the Phoenix show (96?) and even with ear-plugs, the sonic noise was deafening. It is surprising you managed to keep your hearing.
BTW - as far as pulsejets are concerned, they are not pleasant to be around. Last year a small demo was given by Pauline and Co. in a warehouse in South Phoenix (ChemLab), which I helped to set up - a demo of a small (but damn powerful) pulsejet that was going to be used on a hovercraft for a future show (which was supposed to be in Phoenix, but got nixed hardtime by the PFD - thanks, bastards!). Amazingly loud! Mark told us about doing some testing runs on another pulsejet, and being around it running for about 30 minutes. He said he stopped the engine, and felt tingly all over. Soon he felt real bad - basically his nerves (from the vibration waves) had become hyper-sensitive, where the slightest noise or touch caused great pain - he said it was like this for about a week. Not fun...
Worldcom - Generation Duh!
He is worried about his idea being valuable, yet doesn't want to spend any money to protect it? That doesn't even sound sane. While I realize that patenting is expensive (very expensive), if the idea is valuable enough, it is what he needs to do.
You say VC's almost never sign NDAs - that doesn't mean at least one won't, otherwise you wouldn't have prefaced that with the word "almost". I can see how a VC would balk at such a thing.
As for a lawyer and NDAs - well, if the idea is valuable enough, then a lawyer (and a VC) is going to use whatever they can to get the idea away from you, and not give you shit. People (esp lawyers and VCs) suck like that, there is a reason they call them sharks. All the lot "ethical restrictions" would do, right. Money runs it all, and they will bend you over in a second to get more.
Perhaps this individual should just open up the IP, and let EVERYONE run with it. If he can't afford to do it himself, and it is truely revolutionary, then the proper thing to do would be to make it completely public.
Finally, I don't know what your last line is supposed to mean, since I didn't get modded up at all. I am probably just being trolled by an AC, but I am far from clueless. While I will admit I have no real-world experience with patents or VC's, I do have common sense, which is why I recommended that the guy get himself to a lawyer. I just know that if the lawyer happens to be a crappy shark, he is going to be taken, hence, the use of an NDA with the lawyer.
Worldcom - Generation Duh!
I once got bored while surfing, and decided to try the phrase "Beating myself over the head with a two by four" and actually came up with a page. This was a few years back, doubt it still exists.
The one thing that I haven't been able to find is a copy of "Gates of Delerium" for the TRS-80 Color Computer 2 - a clone of Ultima that was made by Diecom Software in the mid-80's. Diecom was founded by Dave Dies, and someone else - and then went out of business with the death of the CoCo in the early 90's. I know that he now works for a company doing PDA games. It almost seems like I have the only copy, and my copy is DEAD. I spent a fair amount of money on that game, and I want to play it again... argggh!
Worldcom - Generation Duh!
Patent it if you want (I have no problem with this in regard to truely novel hardware, it is software that I have problems with - such patents need to be shorter, if they need to exist at all - which I think they have some place, such as in the case of the RSA patent) - but if you require a prototype, and it is going to cost that much, have you thought about virtually prototyping it?
Virtual prototypes have been discussed for physical objects, like a "brand new cake pan" or something similar - where you model it in Autocad or whatnot, and show how it all works - sometimes it is possible to get VC money or even a patent with such an approach (use NDAs for everything though - I hope you did that with the VCs you met). If it is an electronic device, then maybe a SPICE model or similar approach will work (not sure what you would use for modeling a silicon process for say, a new chip - but I am sure it can be done - VDSL?).
I would say draw up a good NDA, go to a lawyer, have him look over the NDA, make recommendations/changes to it to make it legally strong, then have him sign it, and the discuss with him your options and what you can do...
Worldcom - Generation Duh!
This is an "Ask Slashdot"?
Ok, while I can understand your frustration at not being able to find a switch to fit, it shouldn't really stop you, if you know what you are doing.
You are either using a AT or an ATX powersupply - more than likely the latter, since you say it is going to be a new PC. But let us examine each version, and what can be done:
1) AT Case/Power supply - uses a DPST switch. Simply buy one somewhere (www.allelectronics.com) and put it in! Don't fit? That's what Dremels were made for! Put it somewhere else on the case, if you have to - it is just a power switch - it doesn't need to be pretty (heck, I wish they were still on the back of the box, to keep users from turning them off easily). Replace the switch, or wire it permanantly on, and hook up an inline powercord switch, or into a switchable powerstrip. Better yet, use a UPS, and don't turn the machine off...
2) ATX Case/Power supply - in this case, the powersupply is "smart" - and is controlled by the motherboard. A header is supplied on the MB for the switch, a simple momentary contact SPST switch. A doorbell button would work fine here (hey, cool case mod - light up doorbell button for turning the power on). I have used a screwdriver to simply bridge the contacts to start ATX based PCs (not the smartest thing, but nifty in a pinch on a bare motherboard). A paperclip would suffice as well. Dremel the case to fit, or rig the switch up on the front as needed. You can't do the inline powerswitch thing like on the AT system, though it might be remotely possible if your BIOS has a setting to restart the power supply after a power failure (forced reboot), then it might be OK. Another possible case mod here (fits in with the whole rice boy theming of boxen), get one of those remote control finding remote controls - you know, the ones made by All-In-One, that have a beeper to stick on the back of the remote control (if ever there was a stupid product, this is it), and you hit the large single button on the remote to cause the beeper on the lost remote to sound, and wire the beeper to a relay, and the relay contacts to the switch contacts (thus, a remotely powered on PC - "Dude, stand back, I am about to power it on!").
Heck, if it is ATX, there are a lot of modding options available, due to its simplistic power sequence nature. Don't bust your balls looking for a switch, especially if the case doesn't cost more than $50.00 - it isn't worth it! Break out he Dremel, duct tape, epoxy and thinking cap, and go!
Worldcom - Generation Duh!
Which may have been used for buzz bombs guidance systems.
The V1 "buzz bomb" (so called because of the distinct "buzzing" sound they made while in flight, due to using pulse jet engines - really, one of these has to be heard to be believed - I helped set up for a demo of one of the pulse jet engines SRL built for one of their latest machine, a hovercraft powered by four of them - bone shaking loud and hot was this engine - truely a sight to behold) was a "set-it-and-forget-it" type system.
Launch down a track, aimed on a straight vector (via a combination of the track and a gyroscopic navigational system, similar to early rockets) towards its destination (London), a timer was set on the engine throttle. Knowing the speed of the V1, the timer was set to cut off the engine when it was over the target, causing the bomb to "glide dive" in (it had wings - it was basically a pulse-jet propelled airplane with a bomb inside). In fact, RAF pilots got quite good at deflecting these bombs by flying next to them, getting a wing underneath one of the bomb's wings, then rolling their plane to "flip" the bomb into a death spiral of sorts.
All of this changed with the appearance of the V2 rockets (though navigation was still horrible, these machines being basic forerunners of modern ballistic missles - they still were effective in promoting a sense of fear among the masses of London, because they could hit anywhere, without advanced warning - they simply fell from the sky)...
Worldcom - Generation Duh!
Actually, they _did_ have precise enough manufacturing capability to build Babbage's machines - this has already been proven by the building of Difference Engine No. 2 at the Science Museum in London. Scientific American had an article on it, discussing how they built the parts to the tolerances specified, and the resulting machine worked excellently. Portions of the machine were built after Babbage's death, proving that it could be done (more info on this and other interesting Babbage info can be found here).
It is my opinion (shared by a lot of researchers) that Babbage failed primarily for two reasons; a) He could never "settle down" and build any one of his calculating machines, he was constantly dreaming of improvements and never committing to one design, draining his resources to the point of where they abandoned him (.com failure?), and b) his machines simply weren't practical for the time period, for their huge cost. People at the time didn't have a pressing need for enormous amounts of calculating power, that couldn't be provided for by cheaper human labor (so called later "computers"). It wasn't until the late 1800's that the need for real mechanical/electrical computing power began to be felt (look into Hollerith and the 1890 census for one take - there are others, of course, notably Lord Kelvin's Tide Predicting machine of 1876, while being analog, does demonstrate the need for mechanical models of complex computing problems - in fact, this particular use was not overtaken in any large part by digital computers until the 1950's), in fact, this was the time during which many "inventors" came forth with their own takeoffs of Babbage's machine - it should be noted that these were all portions of "Difference" engines, some original, some of Babbage's design. None were of the scale and complexity of his Analytical engine, though I believe a portion of the mill was completed by one of his sons after his death. It actually worked rather well, computing the successive sums of PI (though with errors, some tracable to machine problems, most likely spring related, but the major problem being that the input for the initial value of PI was off in one digit - thus, perhaps one of the first examples of GIGO as it relates to computers).
Thus, we have two points of failure: One, a character "flaw" (something that affects many hackers even to this day), and the second a lack of practical need.
It's too bad - his machines could have radically shaped our world...
Worldcom - Generation Duh!
I have 6 tomato plants growing out on my back porch (super beefsteaks or somesuch), each had a little blurb about propagating said plant as being against the law, yadayada.
I might just propagate them myself just to piss people off...
Worldcom - Generation Duh!
Building the optics to project the lcd image so that it appears to fill your field of view, and come from a distance of 5m is probably not too easy
Nor is it cheap - it can be done, look into the LEEP optics set. I am not even sure if you can still buy these optics, but the company that made them (LEEP?) sold them in the early 90's or so (I probably have a bit of info on all this at my web site - hit the link), for a VERY large sum of money ($15K? Maybe it was less, I am sure it was over $10K, though). Mind you - this was just the glass optics - you still had to provide the imaging system, and distortion system (ie, the optics distorted the image in a certain manner, you had to set your imaging system to distort it in the opposite manner, either using software or hardware, so that the image looked correct when viewed through the optics). IIRC, one company that used the optics was FAKESpace, with their BOOM system.
Also, I remember an article in an old copy (volume 14 no 3?) of Telepresence, and expensive academic publication/magazine put out by MIT press (managed to grab a couple at a local bookstore - nice mags) that had an artical detailing building your own optic system for an HMD...
Worldcom - Generation Duh!
Hate to reply to myself:
DOEs Concentrating Solar Power Program
More info on Solar 2
Hmm, maybe it is still operating, and I haven't passed by on the right days?
Worldcom - Generation Duh!
Some people have asked why we don't generate energy with one of those things. Well, we don't use a single parabolic mirror, because it is hard to build a very large one. Instead, we use multiple mirrors all angled toward a focal point, like this:
Solar Power Tower
While the website says that it is in use, the last few times I have driven by on (on my way to my parents house in Bako), it hasn't been exceptionally bright. I remember it in the late 80's, early 90's, the top of the tower looked like it was white hot (at the focus), and when they would move the mirrors away, above the tower, you could "see" a spot of "boiling" air - it looked like the wavyness you see rippling off a hot car, from the heat refraction, but hovering at a point in mid-air. Very impressive shit.
That's not all, though - want to build such a device yourself, for cooking perhaps? Check this...
Still not enough? Want to build a "real" solar furnace?
Go here!
Have fun, and don't burn yourself!
Worldcom - Generation Duh!
...you run a backup...
Worldcom - Generation Duh!
This is on anecdotal evidence, so take it for what it is worth.
At the time I ordered and had installed Cox@Home (I know, I know - it sucks, but I can't get DSL where I am at, last I checked), I firewalled it, as recommended by just about every sane individual on the planet.
When I had it installed, due to a couple of reasons I had to set up the firewall on a Windows 95 box. This box was also my GF's box, so I was a little nervous running both user apps and a firewall, but at the time I didn't have a choice.
The firewall I chose was ZoneAlarm - simple to install, admin, and best of all, free. Today I would probably choose Tiny, but that wasn't available then (and I only recently learned about it). I searched for some kind of NAT solution (the box runs 95, not 98), but came up empty handed, so I opted for a proxy server: AnalogX's Proxy. This solution worked well for quite some time, and I never had many problems (occasionally the Win95 box would freak, and I would have to reboot), except for one thing - it seemed "slow", compared to my GF's box. All the apps on my GF's box ran through the firewall, while my box ran through the proxy, then the firewall. It was all still faster than a modem, to be sure, so I lived with it, figuring that I would be using a regular firewall later, and besides, what more should I expect from a free solution...?
I always intended to set up a "real" firewall at a later point. I had thought about a Linksys router/NAT box, or possibly building it myself. Things dragged on, then recently I gained the oppourtunity to do what I wanted. I chose to build a box - to get the experience, number one, and because it was overall cheaper, plus I could expand it (unlike the Linksys router).
I chose Freesco (which is based off of LRP), because it is easy to admin, has remote admin capability (telnet and web), good documentation, and support for a ton of NICs. After getting it setup, and running it, I found out a very good thing:
Your speed is only as good as your routing software (or hardware, as the case may be)!
I guess I should've known this - it is a good lesson to learn. The majority of people don't have to worry about this on a cable modem or DSL: they only run one machine, or a wide open network (the latter can be a risky situation, IMO). I run (or attempt to) a secure home network, so having the routing capability is a must.
The speed improvement is incredible - I don't have hard numbers - but I know web page loads, mail downloads, everything is faster - much faster. So, if you are having speed issues (or you think you are), look into changing your routing/firewall software or hardware system - you may be surprised.
Now, if I could only get rid of this upload cap (can anybody point me in a good direction - heck, I would even be willing to try to spoof being the BOOTP server for the cable modem, if it would work)...
Worldcom - Generation Duh!
Look up information on the "Invisible Web" - islands typically untouched by search engines, where you need another site to "hop" to these nets of information - cool stuff can abound in these disconnected areas. Here are some links to get started with:
DirectSearch - Invisible Web Search
The InvisibleWeb
WebData.com - Invisible Web Search
InfoMine - Scholarly Internet Resource Collections
AlphaSearch - Invisible Web Search
IIRC, Slashdot even ran an article about this not too long ago - I think this is it, not sure...
Worldcom - Generation Duh!
Come on, people! Let's do it!
Worldcom - Generation Duh!
From the course syllabus...
Objectives
The Department's objectives in offering this course is to provide an introductory to the history of computation - including early computing devices and their uses, and the people who developed them.
Ideally, students who successfully complete this course will improve their understanding of how the field of computing developed and matured. They will be expected to be aware of the principal people, places, and events that shaped their profession. Such students will appreciate the broad sweep of this branch of history and be able to relate it to the social and scientific changes that were taking place during the same time frames. They will also be able to describe the concepts and show some understanding of the developments and be able to differentiate and make comparisons between them.
Additional information about a fall 1998 section of this course - namely, a collection of additional readings used to supplement the course text - is also available.
(Please note - I have "highlighted" those parts of the text which I thought gave insight toward the scope of this particular class)
I am not saying this class isn't a good class, however, judging from the syllabus alone, it seems to do just what I said could only be realisticly done; namely "skim".
It is an introductory course, not designed to give an in-depth view of the history. It seeks to only point out "principal people, places, and events", which, while these individuals are important, probably leave out a lot of minor players who made contributions to the history of computing that weren't recognized until much later, if ever (people like Jaquard, with a card controlled loom, directly influenced Babbage, and further, Herman Hollerith, who later help found IBM, which went on to make the standard 80 column punch card, which led to 80 column video displays. I am certain I am leaving out steps here, but the point is this is one known example - there are many lesser known ones, and students of the course will never know about them).
I feel that this course seeks to point students in a particular direction. Perhaps some will go further with the knowledge gained from it, but most will simply take what was said in the course as "that is all there is", and not find out more about this particular area of study.
The syllabus admits to the history of computers having a "broad sweep", something that stands out in the course of all history. I dare to think, without having taken the course, that it probably starts with Pascal's investigations and inventions (or perhaps Napier's bones for calculations), and stops at the ENIAC era, with anything after that machine being relagated to "modern" times. But the fact is a lot of investigation into logic and calculation was made long before Napier or Pascal (indeed, look at the Antikythera Mechanism for such an example), and a lot of history has been made since the ENIAC.
Alas, I fear a lot of students will never really know about it, or care.
Worldcom - Generation Duh!
First off, make sure you are using a fairly standard distro your first time out - when I was starting, I first tried a funky copy of TurboLinux , it didn't come in a box, and I was sadly disappointed with it. I then tried RedHat 5.2, and liked it alright, installed good, but never got around to really using it. I then set up a SuSE 6.3 box, and have been using that since.
I will probably try a version of Debian next time round, or maybe go with the latest SuSE. Or perhaps Mandrake - not sure at this time. SuSE 6.3 has been pretty solid for my needs. I have only patched the kernel to 2.2.14 (13 as packaged) to get my ZIP drive working proper. I have been pretty pleased.
Drop the USB thingie and get a real NIC - they can be had cheap enough (under $20).
Worldcom - Generation Duh!
I actually like David Brin's idea of sub-vocalizations, in his book "Earth". But hey, for the moment thought input and such are still science fiction, for the most part (yes, I know about the brainwave experiments being conducted).
What would actually be pretty fast would be some sort of dataglove (or maybe a video digitization system) and use a form of signing. ASL would be a pretty neat way to do input on a computer, if the computer could be taught and it could recognize the patterns fast enough. This would be easiest with the dataglove system, rather than the video capture system.
I am not sure if it would be faster than typing, though. Perhaps a new kind of keyboard needs to be developed - think of a chorded keyboard system, but using all of the keys on the keyboard, and both hands - perhaps that would be quicker (though I wonder if increased RSI would result as well). We already know the chord for "reboot" - who says other chords couldn't be devised as well (in other words, more complex than other familiar multi key inputs that are already allowed)?
Worldcom - Generation Duh!
Essentially you set up the NAT'ed firewall system to listen for requests on a certain port. When it receives those requests, they are forwarded on down to a server on your internal network. The server processes the request, sends the response back to the NAT firewall, which translates it back, and sends it on to the user.
It shouldn't matter what web server you are running on that machine - but if your are running a NAT firewall system that you can't redirect ports, then that is a problem (I am sure some of the better NAT firewalls allow it - perhaps even TINY (for Windows) allows it - however, I am not certain that some of the "hardware" firewall/routers allow it (like the Linksys) or not).
You answered your own problem, I'm afraid - don't use "crappy" software (or hardware, whatever the case is). When I decided I needed a server for my bookmarks, I knew I wanted it behind the firewall. I knew that my firewall had to be able to forward the requests, so I looked and saw what my options were. I was running ZoneAlarm with a proxy server on a machine to act as my pseudo NAT system (I know it isn't, but what the hell else do you call it, other than a proxy server, I guess), but this wasn't the best solution, and it wouldn't work with what I wanted to do (plus there were a slew of other problems). I couldn't find info on whether the Linksys stuff would do what I wanted (hey, it may), so I decide to just go ahead and build my own router/firewall, run FreeSCO (based off of LRP, which will do what I want), and leave it at that.
Finally, if I didn't want a service visible to the outside world, I wouldn't hook it up to the net to begin with. Your last line is telling, though. NAT works well if you know what you want to do and how to do it. I am sure in many instances it simply doesn't play well, more than likely because the software doesn't want to communicate in a more standard manner (instead opting for something else for speed reasons, like FPSs). Maybe it isn't for you, but for my purposes I think it will work fine (and is cheaper in the long run).
Worldcom - Generation Duh!