I think it was pretty obvious in this context that I was saying "has potential vs ground", not "is carrying current". Thanks for the wiki link but I actually grok AC wiring just fine.
Neutral is neutral and ground is ground. The fact that they are connected to each other at the service entrance does NOT mean that neutral can be used as a ground reference.
From the device's perspective, neutral must be treated as AC line input, never ever ever as a ground.
Any number of wiring faults could cause the neutral to become hot, and even under normal circumstances it is common to see some potential on neutral relative to ground, because loads on the branch circuit are pulling it towards one phase or the other.
the two-pronged connection between the mains lead and the power adapter, which isn't earthed properly because of its lack of a third pin.
That explanation is over simplified. Tons of metal-encased devices have only two-prong leads and are perfectly safe. My Apple laptop for one, and a lot of stereo equipment as well.
UL allows this if the device is sufficiently isolated. What is sufficient depends on the type of device, the type of power supply, whether the supply is internal or external, and so on. Usually it means that the DC output of the power supply has a very high impedance with respect its input, and also that the metal chassis of the device is floating (with specific distances and or dielectics between it and any possible potential) and/or has a non-conductive finish. I'm not sure but I think even just clear anodizing would meet that requirement. I just tested my MacBook and all the aluminum surfaces are not conductive, suggesting such a finish.
In order for the Dells to be zapping people they must have doubly screwed the pooch: wall wart is putting out a high potential, AND the case is not properly insulated.
Being able to read the monkey's brain sounds like the only innovation here, not making the robot walk. Reading between the lines, it doesn't sound like the monkey is really controlling the robot in any real sense at all.
Several things make me question that. One, why is the robot in north Carolina and the monkey in Japan? It's just for show. Nothing of scientific significance is being demonstrated by that. We all know that internet can connect two gizmos across large distances. The experiment could have been conducted much more simply at one location and made no less effective a point (except to clueless investors maybe).
Secondly, because of the distance, there is a significant delay (TFA says 250ms, about what I might have guessed.) This would seem to preclude the monkey being able to control the robots actuators in any direct sense. I.e. lift thigh, swing lower leg forward, position foot, lower thigh, positioning body over front leg. Walking is a "controlled fall". No way you could issue all those commands 250ms ahead of seeing or feeling their effect. You'd trip and fall.
So, what is the monkey really doing? I doubt if he is even thinking "left, right, left, right" because even that would be hard to coordinate with so much lag.
Finally, why is there a damn robot in the first place? Wouldn't it be much easier to have the commands control a computer animation? You could do that in such a way that the model would look much more interesting to the monkey... it could look like another monkey, a giant walking banana, whatever.
My guess is that they are simply getting a binary command value from the monkey: "walk" or "don't walk". And the whole robot thing is just for effect. I hate to be such a cynic but this looks like showmanship, not science. If that is the case then this is equivalent to the simple video games that have been demonstrated using brain control.
However, I could certainly imagine that the journalist totally failed to understand the experiment and maybe something important was lost in his explanation of it.
As a subscriber you are probably not aware that/. has started inserting banner ads after some posts.
Gasoline and groceries are commodities that you can buy wherever you like, with or without the BS. The point is that people _choose_ to buy them from places like I mentioned because they PREFER to be bombarded with advertising and promos.
I went to a Shell gas station a few months ago and they had 19" flat screen TVs above every pump, playing the news and running commercials at an ear piercing level. It was unbelievable. I left, and figured that was an idea that couldn't possibly last long. But lo and behold, just a few days ago I drove by and the damn place was PACKED with customers listening to that shit, half of them staring blankly at the telescreens because they can't stand for three damn minutes to be alone with their thoughts while their tank fills.
I thought the same thing about savings cards. YOU SAVED $18.43 MISTER LIVESTOCK! Surely people can not be this dumb, and this idea will fail... but no.
The vast majority of the population just eats this shit up. They actually read their junk mail. If it weren't for them you wouldn't get junk mail, because it wouldn't be worth mailing in the first place.
It is so sad. I do my part by avoiding these establishments, but I'm afraid it's not doing a damn bit of good.
And thus yet another American industry is suing itself into extinction.
Reminds me of the unbelievably asshatted C&D that Fedex sent this guy - for posting pictures of his house decorated with Fedex boxes: http://www.fedexfurniture.com/couch.html
You can not buy better publicity that that at any price. I could imagine someone doing this deliberately for the Streisand effect, but that would require a lawyer with a sense of humor, a sense of irony, or even the slightest shred of humanity.
Your money truly is just bits in a computer, and the law governs what the banks are allowed to make those bits say. The printing of currency is not actually involved in the process of _creating_ money. Printed currency is just a token, one of many means of moving the values of those bits from one institution to another.
I'm sure the reason for the smaller connector is so a) it takes up less space on the back panels of devices and b) so that it can pass through tight spaces as are common in in-wall installations and cabinets. Regular DVI connectors would be a pain.
Still, would have been nice if it had been done over CAT6 (10Gb/s). 1080p is only about 3Gbps right? More compact, more secure connector, cheaper wire, and field-crimpable.
Sveasoft has firmware for most of the ARM/Linux based routers, which covers all the common Linksys/Netgear models. All you'd need to do is make a hacked version of each one and put them on a server (or botnet).
Then all a worm would need to is gain access to the router, and then notify the server that it has been cracked. The server takes it from there... it would connect to the router, identify its model number from the status page, and upload the appropriate firmware.
With a little ingenuity it would not be hard to do this in a way that is transparent to the user - i.e. most users have a plain vanilla setup and it would be easy enough to snarf the configuration and apply that to the new upgrade too.
Because it is going to come down to the difference of just being able to read different FILE formats, like jpg vs. gif.
Wouldn't that be nice...
The problem is DRM. **AA isn't going to let you have it as a bunch of bits that you can store how you want and play on whatever you want. Even if you pay for it. So like it or not Blu-ray, HDDVD, and locked-down special purpose set top boxes are going to be the only sanctioned players for the forseeable future.
Yes, eventually it'll all shake out, all the relevant formats will be cracked, the dinosaurs will die. You fight the internet, you lose. But it'll take a while.
Who cares if an MP3 encoder drops a tiny amount of imperceptible data when the CD itself has been compressed and clipped to the point that you don't want to listen to it?
The confusion comes from the word compression. It can mean
a) loudness wars: an editing technique where a track's quiet parts are amplified to bring the whole thing closer to maximum level. It's called "compression" because the envelope of the signal is being squished against the limits of the medium to give it a louder sound.
or
b) lossy codec, mp3 etc: using a psychoacoustic model to reduce the data rate of a signal by representing only the most audible material. In contrast to (a), the whole point of a lossy codec is to NOT change the way a track sounds, while expressing it as accurately as possible using fewer bits. It's called compression because you are squeezing it down to a lower bit rate.
The problem is that people are always confusing the two and it is never clear which is being referred to without a lot of context. We should stop using the word to describe the loudness wars, and just call it loudness wars.
Or the former head of a soda company taking over the CEO role at a computer manufacturer...oh wait...
Not sure what you meant by the "oh wait". That was John Sculley, not Steve Jobs, and by the time he left in 1993 he had brought the company to its knees.
Haven't cartographers been known to put little errors like this in on purpose so they can tell if someone has copied their map? Still seems pretty silly to do it with such scientific data, but we know that China has no qualms manipulating any other kind of information.
-- begin bunch of shit --- bunch of shit, Mark. Mark, bunch of shit. bunch of shit. Mark, bunch of shit. bunch of shit. bunch of shit. -- end bunch of shit ---
But you've got admit, it's pretty cool how they address you by name throughout this carefully composed, personal email response made Just For You.
There is surely enough electronics in these machines that it would be trivial to conceal a circuit that changes its behavior depending on how various circuit boards are physically mounted in a chassis, even when all the connections appear visually equivalent.
Without visibility of the source code, we have no idea what it's doing under normal circumstances, much less when bits inside of it as physically rearranged. Hell, even with full schematics and source code, things could be easily hidden in production units. No matter what we do, we're taking their word for it.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that you're going to have more errors with an interface with no tactile response.
Really? That's not obvious to me at all. Since I'm not a rocket scientist, I'll argue the opposite:
On a conventional keyboard, the only information that gets to the CPU for each button press is 1) which button was pressed and 2) when it was pressed and 3) for how long it was pressed.
The iPhone, on the other hand, despite lacking tactile feedback, receives massively more data. At the software level it receives a detailed image at probably a hundred dpi or so showing where the pressure is being applied, and if you sample that data often enough you can probably figure out things like the angle and rate of movement of the finger in pressing the button.
So if you mistype an 'o' ionstead of a 'p', a conventional keyboard only knows that you pressed 'o'. But an iphone knows that you typed an 'o' with your finger way over on the right-hand side of the 'o' key. It could also compare more subtle temporal/motion information about the keypress with how you normally type an 'o' compared to a 'p'.
Sure, a conventional keyboard _could_ try to do smart prediction something like what the iPhone does, but without all that data it is much more limited.
I am guessing from your comment that you have not actually used an iphone keypad for any meaningful amount of time. Within just a couple days I was already typing faster and with fewer errors than on my old Treo 650. It really works well.
However, when you do make typos on the iphone they are somewhat more frustrating, because it usually happens when a whole word is replaced by something you didn't intend. Whereas you might let a single letter typo slide, if the whole word is wrong you have to go back and fix it.
Slashdot Mirror
Neutral is always hot!
I think it was pretty obvious in this context that I was saying "has potential vs ground", not "is carrying current". Thanks for the wiki link but I actually grok AC wiring just fine.
Neutral is neutral and ground is ground. The fact that they are connected to each other at the service entrance does NOT mean that neutral can be used as a ground reference.
From the device's perspective, neutral must be treated as AC line input, never ever ever as a ground.
Any number of wiring faults could cause the neutral to become hot, and even under normal circumstances it is common to see some potential on neutral relative to ground, because loads on the branch circuit are pulling it towards one phase or the other.
the two-pronged connection between the mains lead and the power adapter, which isn't earthed properly because of its lack of a third pin.
That explanation is over simplified. Tons of metal-encased devices have only two-prong leads and are perfectly safe. My Apple laptop for one, and a lot of stereo equipment as well.
UL allows this if the device is sufficiently isolated. What is sufficient depends on the type of device, the type of power supply, whether the supply is internal or external, and so on. Usually it means that the DC output of the power supply has a very high impedance with respect its input, and also that the metal chassis of the device is floating (with specific distances and or dielectics between it and any possible potential) and/or has a non-conductive finish. I'm not sure but I think even just clear anodizing would meet that requirement. I just tested my MacBook and all the aluminum surfaces are not conductive, suggesting such a finish.
In order for the Dells to be zapping people they must have doubly screwed the pooch: wall wart is putting out a high potential, AND the case is not properly insulated.
"It uses an ejection system that doesn't get approval from the DVD Forum."
And these new discs do?
Being able to read the monkey's brain sounds like the only innovation here, not making the robot walk. Reading between the lines, it doesn't sound like the monkey is really controlling the robot in any real sense at all.
Several things make me question that. One, why is the robot in north Carolina and the monkey in Japan? It's just for show. Nothing of scientific significance is being demonstrated by that. We all know that internet can connect two gizmos across large distances. The experiment could have been conducted much more simply at one location and made no less effective a point (except to clueless investors maybe).
Secondly, because of the distance, there is a significant delay (TFA says 250ms, about what I might have guessed.) This would seem to preclude the monkey being able to control the robots actuators in any direct sense. I.e. lift thigh, swing lower leg forward, position foot, lower thigh, positioning body over front leg. Walking is a "controlled fall". No way you could issue all those commands 250ms ahead of seeing or feeling their effect. You'd trip and fall.
So, what is the monkey really doing? I doubt if he is even thinking "left, right, left, right" because even that would be hard to coordinate with so much lag.
Finally, why is there a damn robot in the first place? Wouldn't it be much easier to have the commands control a computer animation? You could do that in such a way that the model would look much more interesting to the monkey... it could look like another monkey, a giant walking banana, whatever.
My guess is that they are simply getting a binary command value from the monkey: "walk" or "don't walk". And the whole robot thing is just for effect. I hate to be such a cynic but this looks like showmanship, not science. If that is the case then this is equivalent to the simple video games that have been demonstrated using brain control.
However, I could certainly imagine that the journalist totally failed to understand the experiment and maybe something important was lost in his explanation of it.
As a subscriber you are probably not aware that /. has started inserting banner ads after some posts.
Gasoline and groceries are commodities that you can buy wherever you like, with or without the BS. The point is that people _choose_ to buy them from places like I mentioned because they PREFER to be bombarded with advertising and promos.
I went to a Shell gas station a few months ago and they had 19" flat screen TVs above every pump, playing the news and running commercials at an ear piercing level. It was unbelievable. I left, and figured that was an idea that couldn't possibly last long. But lo and behold, just a few days ago I drove by and the damn place was PACKED with customers listening to that shit, half of them staring blankly at the telescreens because they can't stand for three damn minutes to be alone with their thoughts while their tank fills.
I thought the same thing about savings cards. YOU SAVED $18.43 MISTER LIVESTOCK! Surely people can not be this dumb, and this idea will fail... but no.
The vast majority of the population just eats this shit up. They actually read their junk mail. If it weren't for them you wouldn't get junk mail, because it wouldn't be worth mailing in the first place.
It is so sad. I do my part by avoiding these establishments, but I'm afraid it's not doing a damn bit of good.
And thus yet another American industry is suing itself into extinction.
Reminds me of the unbelievably asshatted C&D that Fedex sent this guy - for posting pictures of his house decorated with Fedex boxes: http://www.fedexfurniture.com/couch.html
You can not buy better publicity that that at any price. I could imagine someone doing this deliberately for the Streisand effect, but that would require a lawyer with a sense of humor, a sense of irony, or even the slightest shred of humanity.
They can and do, every single day. Every dollar you deposit can be loaned out the equivalent of ten times over. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_requirement
Your money truly is just bits in a computer, and the law governs what the banks are allowed to make those bits say. The printing of currency is not actually involved in the process of _creating_ money. Printed currency is just a token, one of many means of moving the values of those bits from one institution to another.
I am confused. Surely the global population of pirates factors into the equation somehow?
In related news: Amazing device turns grass into meat
I'm sure the reason for the smaller connector is so a) it takes up less space on the back panels of devices and b) so that it can pass through tight spaces as are common in in-wall installations and cabinets. Regular DVI connectors would be a pain.
Still, would have been nice if it had been done over CAT6 (10Gb/s). 1080p is only about 3Gbps right? More compact, more secure connector, cheaper wire, and field-crimpable.
Sveasoft has firmware for most of the ARM/Linux based routers, which covers all the common Linksys/Netgear models. All you'd need to do is make a hacked version of each one and put them on a server (or botnet).
Then all a worm would need to is gain access to the router, and then notify the server that it has been cracked. The server takes it from there... it would connect to the router, identify its model number from the status page, and upload the appropriate firmware.
With a little ingenuity it would not be hard to do this in a way that is transparent to the user - i.e. most users have a plain vanilla setup and it would be easy enough to snarf the configuration and apply that to the new upgrade too.
Because it is going to come down to the difference of just being able to read different FILE formats, like jpg vs. gif.
Wouldn't that be nice...
The problem is DRM. **AA isn't going to let you have it as a bunch of bits that you can store how you want and play on whatever you want. Even if you pay for it. So like it or not Blu-ray, HDDVD, and locked-down special purpose set top boxes are going to be the only sanctioned players for the forseeable future.
Yes, eventually it'll all shake out, all the relevant formats will be cracked, the dinosaurs will die. You fight the internet, you lose. But it'll take a while.
Who cares if an MP3 encoder drops a tiny amount of imperceptible data when the CD itself has been compressed and clipped to the point that you don't want to listen to it?
The confusion comes from the word compression. It can mean
a) loudness wars: an editing technique where a track's quiet parts are amplified to bring the whole thing closer to maximum level. It's called "compression" because the envelope of the signal is being squished against the limits of the medium to give it a louder sound.
or
b) lossy codec, mp3 etc: using a psychoacoustic model to reduce the data rate of a signal by representing only the most audible material. In contrast to (a), the whole point of a lossy codec is to NOT change the way a track sounds, while expressing it as accurately as possible using fewer bits. It's called compression because you are squeezing it down to a lower bit rate.
The problem is that people are always confusing the two and it is never clear which is being referred to without a lot of context. We should stop using the word to describe the loudness wars, and just call it loudness wars.
Or the former head of a soda company taking over the CEO role at a computer manufacturer...oh wait...
Not sure what you meant by the "oh wait". That was John Sculley, not Steve Jobs, and by the time he left in 1993 he had brought the company to its knees.
For chrissake man, do yourself a favor. Drop out and go start a software company.
Haven't cartographers been known to put little errors like this in on purpose so they can tell if someone has copied their map? Still seems pretty silly to do it with such scientific data, but we know that China has no qualms manipulating any other kind of information.
-- begin bunch of shit ---
bunch of shit, Mark.
Mark, bunch of shit.
bunch of shit.
Mark, bunch of shit.
bunch of shit. bunch of shit.
-- end bunch of shit ---
But you've got admit, it's pretty cool how they address you by name throughout this carefully composed, personal email response made Just For You.
Never ascribe to skulduggery that which can be adequately explained by asshattery.
cheaper than the one I have now? sweet!
I'm dissapointed Burst accepted the settlement: they had an open-and-shut case.
bs, Anonymous Coward. You're either just trolling or you work for Burst. Hmm, either way I guess you're a troll!
Really? Where shall we draw the line then?
There is surely enough electronics in these machines that it would be trivial to conceal a circuit that changes its behavior depending on how various circuit boards are physically mounted in a chassis, even when all the connections appear visually equivalent.
Without visibility of the source code, we have no idea what it's doing under normal circumstances, much less when bits inside of it as physically rearranged. Hell, even with full schematics and source code, things could be easily hidden in production units. No matter what we do, we're taking their word for it.
Get rid of the machines.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that you're going to have more errors with an interface with no tactile response.
Really? That's not obvious to me at all. Since I'm not a rocket scientist, I'll argue the opposite:
On a conventional keyboard, the only information that gets to the CPU for each button press is 1) which button was pressed and 2) when it was pressed and 3) for how long it was pressed.
The iPhone, on the other hand, despite lacking tactile feedback, receives massively more data. At the software level it receives a detailed image at probably a hundred dpi or so showing where the pressure is being applied, and if you sample that data often enough you can probably figure out things like the angle and rate of movement of the finger in pressing the button.
So if you mistype an 'o' ionstead of a 'p', a conventional keyboard only knows that you pressed 'o'. But an iphone knows that you typed an 'o' with your finger way over on the right-hand side of the 'o' key. It could also compare more subtle temporal/motion information about the keypress with how you normally type an 'o' compared to a 'p'.
Sure, a conventional keyboard _could_ try to do smart prediction something like what the iPhone does, but without all that data it is much more limited.
I am guessing from your comment that you have not actually used an iphone keypad for any meaningful amount of time. Within just a couple days I was already typing faster and with fewer errors than on my old Treo 650. It really works well.
However, when you do make typos on the iphone they are somewhat more frustrating, because it usually happens when a whole word is replaced by something you didn't intend. Whereas you might let a single letter typo slide, if the whole word is wrong you have to go back and fix it.
So, less than 100%?