Still, this is yet another version of Obscurity. So what if they release a broken client/server. I've already got source to kazaa-like places (I used it to connect my linux box to them). Personally, I archive everything I get my grubby fingers on. As an example, I found a place I could download VirtualDub 1.3d, the avi editor that could convert ASF's. Yet another example is that I still use WinAMP 2.23 , and yes it's still shareware. I don't trust the AoL version until I comb the code. It'll have to be ASM, but I want to look for network tattletale code. Well, all of my data (in collecting rarelike downloads), I have about 4 archive cd's.
Josh Crawley
contact if you need something,ahem, rare.
jwcrawle aght iupui daught edu (just say it out loud)
I'm very sorry about that comment. It was fairly late, and I was too lazy to check the link. However, after reading some of the papers, I can easily see that it passes my basic knowledge of robotics. Note to self: Should not post when lazy and late-night.
About my claw bot: My dad had a Radio Shack claw-bot when I was about 12 years old, but it broke, due to me. I told him I'd fix it, but It seemed that I'd stripped every gear in that thing (plastic gears aren't gears imho). What it came down to was making a similar creation, but made out of metal. I focused on the cost (max about $20-$30) because I also used salvaged components. Even by 1994's standards, PICs were cheap and great if the cpu req'd doesn't need be strong.
But overall, Yes I was being inflamitory and was just tired. Sorry.
I'm assuming that all gyroscopic behavior are controlled by the human in control. Human's ears are a wee bit more embedded, and overall Humans have better balance control than a gyro'ed bot.
Another point, is that your Lab isn't very good at programming/implementing bots. Assuming you're using a PIC microcontroller, it's not very hard to write min/max control code. If you work in some very small unit, say a 1mm=10 tics, you can have a integer-based solution, which goes tremendously fast( in processing based time).
Actually, I built a basic claw-bot like the one you could get at radio shack (cannot remember the name). I had my dad help me choosing the processors and servos (my 'servos were salvaged 2x motors found in computer cdroms). Using gear-ramping, I could direct fairly accurate and precise directions, however I only made a interface of arcade like pushbuttons. Well, on a programming side, after I got done mapping all possible routes that my 'arm' could take (good old flowchart), I then implemented it. I, only twice, had it crash on me, and that was mistyped asm code.
I see an article maing notice about strength-scaling exoskeletons, yet deeper into the threads accompinging this article is frivilous chatter about mecha.
To make doubt here, I have seen exoskeletons that do about 500:1 weight scaling. Yes, those were in a military facility, but they were tethered to high density electricity to keep the hydraluic pumps moving, as this is the only efficent way to do such work. Gears were tried, but too inefficent. Essentially, the skeleton used negative feedback to move the arms and legs. (Essentially, when you moved an arm, you'd press against sensors. The metal arm would move in the direction of your arm, thus releaving pressure against the appropiate sensors.) All the processing was done by your own brain. There were sensors to judge pressure on the sensor regions (arms, torso, and legs), and simple computers could process these accordingly. Z80's could do this without a sweat. The computers simply reacted to simple stimuli. The only prerequisite was that the feedback loop had to be at real-time.
If anybody has READ Starship Troopers, Heinlein mentioned similar ideas in his suits. And unlike all those anime mecha cliche' movies (with exception of Evangelion, which didn't use onboard fission/fusion tanks) Heinlein's suits used good old batteries. The biggest point that Heinlein made though, about Military uses, is that (now I'm paraphrasing his words)
"Weapons aren't dangerous, People are dangerous. In the Military, were teaching you how to become more dangerous for our purposes. If you were caught by a 2 ton Marauder suit (the common heavy weapon suit) with 2 kiloton tacical nukes , and you had a knife, would you have a chance? Or would you try to catch him off guard and climb on his back and try to kill the guy in his suit while he's struggling with the controls?"
One point I see that noone else has made is the cost/effectivness ratio of these devicies. They'd be nice for grunt work having to lift heavy stuffs in a factory (unlike the forklift, takes time to learn, and slower to move than a human). Still, in military uses, Say we deveop a 100 Ton mech which leads a cost of 1.2 trillion dollars. I'd venture that a 10 megaton bomb would cause severe damage to this creation. And more facts are that a 10 megaton bomb can be packed in the size of a breifcase.. Flat out, very cost inefficant.
Count me in. This movie was on TV a while back (before the stupid watermarking garbage). I taped it on the best tape (at the best quality). I got a ATI all-in-wonder and converted it to Divx. Plays great with no filling:-)
If Disney supports our free rights, I'll support them. Else, they can rot.
But I have always wondered: Would Walt roll over in his grave if he knew what Disney is doing now?
It doesn't quite have to be liberated... Perhaps some sort of a super-massive black hole. Still, my belif is that that half of the 'Universe' is matter and the other half is anti-matter.
I'm more than glad to have a decent conversation about particle physics:-) Well, lets get on with the 'meat of the matter'...
"I dont think anyone *knows* why it seems there is an imbalance in the universe."
I'm not quite sure that is true either. My thoery of matter/anti-matter has to do with the big bang and placement of mass.
The old thoery went something like this: Picture a Sphere with jets out of the top and bottom. Those were the Tachyon region (particles faster than light itself). On one side of the sphere (sort of like the east side), matter was in excess there, and annihilated most all antimatter. On the 'other side', there was in excess of anti-matter and it annhilated most all the matter on that side.
Now be aware, I don't quite buy the Tachyion part of it, but the M/A-M makes sense. But I figured that if there was equal matter on each side, placement was the same (so there is an anti-Earth, anti Sun, anti-everything). Essentially, so that everything would balance out, the universe we see is 1/2 of the whole universe, a universe including antimatter.
Some of the thinks I've questioned have been on this topic, but nobody ever answers these (guess they're too tough).
First, I believe the major difference between matter/anti-matter is that they are 'different sides of the same coin'. A theory about that statement I make is that there is an equal amount of matter as there is anti-matter. My premise is that only matter can annihilate anti-matter (and the reverse). I can explain this line of thought deeper if you wish (only if you request). I'd rather not bore you.
Secondly, building upon the first theory, is that 'turning' matter to antimatter would require a total reversal of every charge in the molecule/atom. We know there is a anti-proton and an anti-electron. Did you know there is an anti-neutron (you'll probably doubt me since the neutron is neutral)? Consider this: What is the sub-structures of a neutron? Doesn't it weigh a 'tiny' bit more than a proton? It does, exactly 1 electon and a neutrino 'bit more' but the neutrino is in energy form. What I'm saying is Neutron = (+Proton) + (-electron) + energy(neutrino) . Like charges do repel and different charges attract, right? The problem is that an Electron is so far known as a 'basic' particle: it cannot be broken into smaller pieces. The proton can be broken, however, so the process of making a anti-neutron cannot be done just by switching charges with each other.
The last sentance, I must quote you on:
The other point is that you get energy from both the matter and antimatter (they annihilate each other), meaning that even if you were constructing antimatter out of thin air, so long as you could do better than 50% efficiency over the whole process, you still come out on top.
"The other point is that you get energy from both the matter and antimatter (they annihilate each other), meaning that even if you were constructing antimatter out of thin air, so long as you could do better than 50% efficiency over the whole process, you still come out on top."
Now think of that, 'If its better than 50%'. I'm assuming you're using either Air or energy as your source, pair-antipair creation would limit you to a MAXIMUM of 50% energy capture assuming you had perfect capturing 'tanks'. By the way, to correct one of your statements, This is pair annhilation, not Fission (no bonds 'only' are being broke, everything is), and not fusion (nothing's being created that has more mass, such as H+H+H+H=He)
Let's leave the Slashdot 'no news' story out for a minute. Let's focus on the TRUE emulation for a minute.
1: It is known that the CPU inside a Xbox is a 733P3.
2: The ram is standard sdram, and there is a known ram 'hack' to add more (being there is connections on the motherboard to do so.
3: The HD is a standard IDE HD, using standard 'home use' parts.
4: The graphics chipset (by Nvidia), could probably be 'instruction linked'to that of a heavily modified Geforce3. I know of no better way to describe this other than comparing the Voodoo2 Chipset to the N64 console. Using a High Level Emulation layer, N64's calls were mapped easily to the Glide DLL that of a Voodoo2
My idea would to map the instructions found on the HD and the Game dvd's to determine patters of data, and write interfaces (along with a processing power of a another 733P3 (used to preprocess the data for the gfx card) and a Geforce3. With the BIOS matter, I'd dump memory from RAM and look for telltale signs of mirroring of the BIOS in ram. If that wouldn't work, use a Linux boot disk (the netplay one) and have debug tools to pull the encrypted BIOS image off to another medium. My premise is that if the console can decrypt it (and can start the machine up), we can decrypt it too, by hand if nessisary.
Josh Crawley
ps: The emulation community didn't think the N64 could be emulated at all.
You see those Phillips commercials on the music and 'techy' shows? The commercial goes something like this:
"1- Guy with date plays cd and has crummy music on it. Date winces.
2- Guy goes home and 'mixes',from his collection, a mix cd for listening with dates.
3- Guy then plays music with date. Date is happy."
If anything, Phillips will NOT change the standard, since all cd players operate by it. Nobody would buy thier product if it was incapible of playing other media. They cut thier own throats.
If you put this all together it makes tremendous sense.
1: Congressman makes statement questioning legality of 'Blank CD' tax (authorizing fair use in copying) and the Copy-Protection by Universal and other companies.
2: Copy-Protected CD's are not compatible with the Red Book Standard (therefore will not play in some players). In other words, Stay with Red Book, people stay happy.
3: There is a large amount of capital involved in copy protection, and Phillips doesn't want to waste money on a scheam that may flop and may be illegal (possible law suits may pursue).
And past that, more games are being copy-protected by brain dead scheams. If I could buy a decently priced, self contained unit with a reader and a writer and make perfect copies, I'd buy 1, maybe 2.
Josh Crawley
ps: About pirating, stopping making cd burners wont stop pirating. It's like saying, "The internet has caused evil stuff to spread, let's shut it down". Both are infeasible, one much more than the other.
"Tight code is not an inherent property of proprietary code, and being proprietary, how can you tell if it's well written?"
Very true, but you fail to see the last 2 VERY important words that I included: "upgradable eeprom". I would expect to use standard modules in dips or the like. If you wanted, you could dump the eeprom with the os and dissassemble it, as ARM instruction set is open. I would expect nothing less than tight asm code coming from a pda os. A casual user wouldn't do this, but we probably would. Swap a chip, change the OS
If you ever do asm programming, you can feel if code was generated or actually written. Of course, you can always look at the internal make stamp:-) Reverse engineering of software apps readily shows this time and time again. VB isn't even worth the effort, as even the "compiled" code is nothing but slightly compressed OBJ and FRM code with 1 asm code to JMP to the VB dll. MASM does weird stuff if you use the instructions they provide, as it cannot seem to assemble JMP and JMP-like instructions correctly (it assumes that you always want a JMP or a JMP "boolean type". I usually use NASM and TASM.
First off, I'm not a Dude. Second, Yes I do remember the 80386, 80286, 8086, and even older computers quite well.
If my memory serves me right, the Linux Kernel was created at about '92, and the 80386 was created at about '85 with mHz speeds rating 12.5 and 15, ranging up to 33. The 486 was released in '89, the major difference is that the 486 has the FPU. Torvalds wanted to run his kernel/OS on older CPU's. Hence why we still use 386 basic kernels (so we don't bump into non-implemented instructions like sse or 3d now).
Next, gui processing takes a toll of cpu. Hopefully, they implemented a gfx chip that does hardware windowing.
Well, have you ever used a TI-86? That's what I've used as a pda/handheld cpu. It's a Z80 (very supported) with rom calls to simplify programming. I've made math apps and downloaded Full Elemental Chart programs with electron shell energy levels. I played Mario and like games with sound on it. And all the programs are free. It may have 80KB but that's plenty for me.
Thanks for the link, but Boo's to MS because the data sheet is non-existant and the download isn't there (after registering bogus passport crap). Don't know if it's me. I just get thier bloated 404 file not found.
Josh Crawley
btw: I had to get MS out of Hosts cause of the link:-P Back in it goes....
I've seen enough about this Linux PDA tripe. Big deal they are running a modified version of Linux. I'd rather see propertiary tight code on a upgradable eeprom than a larger OS designed FOR desktop/tower/laptop computers.
All I would ask is for OPEN STANDARDS to connect the computer to the pda, wether that be mac or pc. USB would probably be the way to go, since it's on the hardware architecure of both platforms.
I wouldnt mind PAYING for a devel kit for this pda if was at a decent price. They gotta make money somehow, and the devel kit isnt a bad idea, but just as long as they don't go the MS way of Wince.. I mean WinCE:-) No Microsoft, we aren't going to pay a 1000$ for your "WinCE"ing devel kit.
I see how nasty this can sound, but ask yourself, " How will I get around this tech?". Simple, somebody else will make it. Back in the old days of Atari, Colecio made a atari-like console from reverse engineering. Circumvention tech has ALWAYS been around, even if it's in the black market. Who hasn't seen a spidery black box hanging from behind a cable box? Just a few Years ago, PSX was hit with that nice thing called a Mod Chip. All it is is just a Pic processor with programmed instructions. I even "burnt" mine (eeprom burner). However if this ever does become mandatory, I'll be using the buffer overrun type chip that crashes computer-readers, or I'll just emp the sucker. I'm sure that it will be using cmos gates (the only way for devices to be fried with emp).
First of all, companies who charge an arm and a leg for thier devel apps are killing themselves. Mainly, it's MS who's doing this. The last I checked, thier WinCE devel platform was about $1000 .
Go on haead, try and find free apps for it... All app makers HAVE to charge way bloated prices for thier programs.
Josh Crawley
Ok, if there's a 1 letter substitution between Windows and Lindows, what about X Windows? For somebody that doesn't know what X WIndows is, the two can seem quite confusing.
But I thought that X Windows could run Windows stuff.
Well, I've been in a few psych and stats classes. Well, what does psych have to do with this? Well they do a lots of surveys. Many people grumble how 'this survey is bad' or other tripe but don't give any ideas on how to DO IT RIGHT.
1: Buy a spammer's mailing list. I ASSUME that equal percentages of OS users use email, so there would be windows/mac/linux/amiga/... users on this list.
2: Choose a certain number of users to email a list of questions (eg: what Operating system are you running? what is your browser and what is the version?). These should be fairly through without going into 'debug-like' detail.
3: Have some sort of reward for completing this survey. If you do go this way, having a college webpage will surely help (you probably won't get any respondants if you don't). Surveys usually have a 'dollar for your time' or some such trifilng amount of 'payment'.
4: Compile your data to a usable form and include % of error by compairing to the thoeritical max number of users on the web.
Be aware this will likely cost money, but at least gets fair results.
Josh Crawley
ps: This is nowhere complete, suggestions are GLADLY accepted. Flames to/dev/null
==1. We are indeed made up of a lot of water but
that need not be the case for things elsewhere
in the universe.
I didn't specify water,I just used water as an example. JJ made an excellent point that ammonia does satisfy the 3 main characteristics that water has.
==2. Water has many unique properties but none
of these may be needed by lifeform X.
Irrelavent, my point was to find different structures for a chemical transfer agent. Water is an excellent CTA.
==3. Supernovae create abundant iron. Are we to
presume that lifeforms near supernovae are
iron based?
We are too. At least our hemoglobin that carries oxygen is. A very easy way to 'carry' oxygen around is as rust: FeO2, Fe2O3 or Fe3O4. It's easy to get O in and out, and it's abundant enough that our bodies use it as such.
==4. Blood? Why does lifeform X need blood? Are we
now presuming anatomy?
My general use of 'Blood' was as a general Chemical Trasfer Agent. In any complex system, there is 'energy' of some sort needed and waste is generated (chemicals or heat). In order to transfer the waste to one part to another, a carrier is needed. In our bodies, if we didn't get rid of CO2, We'd die through cellular asphyxiation. In the case of CO, that is exactly what happens. CO jams up hemoglobin by NOT uncombining for oxygen transport. Still, a transport mechanism is needed for large biological systems.
==To take a slightly pessimistic view, in a few
hundred years humans may have driven themselves
to extinction leaving behind smart silicon-based
computers. Now you've got a race that needs no
blood and uses primarily copper and silicon to
replicate. Water may still be important for
some industial purposes but not in as large
quantities.
Too true. Considering the weight of the molecule, it weights either 17g/mol or 18 g/mol. This weight change is an effect of ammonia being in presence of water: NH3 or (aq)[NH4]- . Tempature range is a moot point _AS_LONG_ as the environment has the acceptable liquid tempature. What interests me the most is what the ammonia does to biological reation with water. It'd be fun to work out the chemistry with that instead.
Slashdot Mirror
Still, this is yet another version of Obscurity. So what if they release a broken client/server. I've already got source to kazaa-like places (I used it to connect my linux box to them). Personally, I archive everything I get my grubby fingers on. As an example, I found a place I could download VirtualDub 1.3d, the avi editor that could convert ASF's. Yet another example is that I still use WinAMP 2.23 , and yes it's still shareware. I don't trust the AoL version until I comb the code. It'll have to be ASM, but I want to look for network tattletale code. Well, all of my data (in collecting rarelike downloads), I have about 4 archive cd's.
,ahem, rare.
Josh Crawley
contact if you need something
jwcrawle aght iupui daught edu (just say it out loud)
Hmm, I didn't know this... Well, things these days are almost as bad as the red scare then.
I'm very sorry about that comment. It was fairly late, and I was too lazy to check the link. However, after reading some of the papers, I can easily see that it passes my basic knowledge of robotics. Note to self: Should not post when lazy and late-night.
About my claw bot: My dad had a Radio Shack claw-bot when I was about 12 years old, but it broke, due to me. I told him I'd fix it, but It seemed that I'd stripped every gear in that thing (plastic gears aren't gears imho). What it came down to was making a similar creation, but made out of metal. I focused on the cost (max about $20-$30) because I also used salvaged components. Even by 1994's standards, PICs were cheap and great if the cpu req'd doesn't need be strong.
But overall, Yes I was being inflamitory and was just tired. Sorry.
Josh Crawley
I'm assuming that all gyroscopic behavior are controlled by the human in control. Human's ears are a wee bit more embedded, and overall Humans have better balance control than a gyro'ed bot.
Another point, is that your Lab isn't very good at programming/implementing bots. Assuming you're using a PIC microcontroller, it's not very hard to write min/max control code. If you work in some very small unit, say a 1mm=10 tics, you can have a integer-based solution, which goes tremendously fast( in processing based time).
Actually, I built a basic claw-bot like the one you could get at radio shack (cannot remember the name). I had my dad help me choosing the processors and servos (my 'servos were salvaged 2x motors found in computer cdroms). Using gear-ramping, I could direct fairly accurate and precise directions, however I only made a interface of arcade like pushbuttons. Well, on a programming side, after I got done mapping all possible routes that my 'arm' could take (good old flowchart), I then implemented it. I, only twice, had it crash on me, and that was mistyped asm code.
I see an article maing notice about strength-scaling exoskeletons, yet deeper into the threads accompinging this article is frivilous chatter about mecha.
To make doubt here, I have seen exoskeletons that do about 500:1 weight scaling. Yes, those were in a military facility, but they were tethered to high density electricity to keep the hydraluic pumps moving, as this is the only efficent way to do such work. Gears were tried, but too inefficent. Essentially, the skeleton used negative feedback to move the arms and legs. (Essentially, when you moved an arm, you'd press against sensors. The metal arm would move in the direction of your arm, thus releaving pressure against the appropiate sensors.) All the processing was done by your own brain. There were sensors to judge pressure on the sensor regions (arms, torso, and legs), and simple computers could process these accordingly. Z80's could do this without a sweat. The computers simply reacted to simple stimuli. The only prerequisite was that the feedback loop had to be at real-time.
If anybody has READ Starship Troopers, Heinlein mentioned similar ideas in his suits. And unlike all those anime mecha cliche' movies (with exception of Evangelion, which didn't use onboard fission/fusion tanks) Heinlein's suits used good old batteries. The biggest point that Heinlein made though, about Military uses, is that (now I'm paraphrasing his words)
"Weapons aren't dangerous, People are dangerous. In the Military, were teaching you how to become more dangerous for our purposes. If you were caught by a 2 ton Marauder suit (the common heavy weapon suit) with 2 kiloton tacical nukes , and you had a knife, would you have a chance? Or would you try to catch him off guard and climb on his back and try to kill the guy in his suit while he's struggling with the controls?"
One point I see that noone else has made is the cost/effectivness ratio of these devicies. They'd be nice for grunt work having to lift heavy stuffs in a factory (unlike the forklift, takes time to learn, and slower to move than a human). Still, in military uses, Say we deveop a 100 Ton mech which leads a cost of 1.2 trillion dollars. I'd venture that a 10 megaton bomb would cause severe damage to this creation. And more facts are that a 10 megaton bomb can be packed in the size of a breifcase.. Flat out, very cost inefficant.
...And look at the bright side if users can't figure mirror lists out. It's a slashdot effect 'Narrowly averted'.
Josh Crawley
Count me in. This movie was on TV a while back (before the stupid watermarking garbage). I taped it on the best tape (at the best quality). I got a ATI all-in-wonder and converted it to Divx. Plays great with no filling :-)
If Disney supports our free rights, I'll support them. Else, they can rot.
But I have always wondered: Would Walt roll over in his grave if he knew what Disney is doing now?
When I first read this article, I thought Slashdot's "Swarm Bots" took over the articles too..
This Article was generated by a Swarm of Tiny Robots for josh crawley (537561).
It doesn't quite have to be liberated... Perhaps some sort of a super-massive black hole. Still, my belif is that that half of the 'Universe' is matter and the other half is anti-matter.
I'm more than glad to have a decent conversation about particle physics :-) Well, lets get on with the 'meat of the matter'...
"I dont think anyone *knows* why it seems there is an imbalance in the universe."
I'm not quite sure that is true either. My thoery of matter/anti-matter has to do with the big bang and placement of mass.
The old thoery went something like this: Picture a Sphere with jets out of the top and bottom. Those were the Tachyon region (particles faster than light itself). On one side of the sphere (sort of like the east side), matter was in excess there, and annihilated most all antimatter. On the 'other side', there was in excess of anti-matter and it annhilated most all the matter on that side.
Now be aware, I don't quite buy the Tachyion part of it, but the M/A-M makes sense. But I figured that if there was equal matter on each side, placement was the same (so there is an anti-Earth, anti Sun, anti-everything). Essentially, so that everything would balance out, the universe we see is 1/2 of the whole universe, a universe including antimatter.
Josh Crawley
Some of the thinks I've questioned have been on this topic, but nobody ever answers these (guess they're too tough).
First, I believe the major difference between matter/anti-matter is that they are 'different sides of the same coin'. A theory about that statement I make is that there is an equal amount of matter as there is anti-matter. My premise is that only matter can annihilate anti-matter (and the reverse). I can explain this line of thought deeper if you wish (only if you request). I'd rather not bore you.
Secondly, building upon the first theory, is that 'turning' matter to antimatter would require a total reversal of every charge in the molecule/atom. We know there is a anti-proton and an anti-electron. Did you know there is an anti-neutron (you'll probably doubt me since the neutron is neutral)? Consider this: What is the sub-structures of a neutron? Doesn't it weigh a 'tiny' bit more than a proton? It does, exactly 1 electon and a neutrino 'bit more' but the neutrino is in energy form. What I'm saying is Neutron = (+Proton) + (-electron) + energy(neutrino) . Like charges do repel and different charges attract, right? The problem is that an Electron is so far known as a 'basic' particle: it cannot be broken into smaller pieces. The proton can be broken, however, so the process of making a anti-neutron cannot be done just by switching charges with each other.
The last sentance, I must quote you on:
The other point is that you get energy from both the matter and antimatter (they annihilate each other), meaning that even if you were constructing antimatter out of thin air, so long as you could do better than 50% efficiency over the whole process, you still come out on top.
"The other point is that you get energy from both the matter and antimatter (they annihilate each other), meaning that even if you were constructing antimatter out of thin air, so long as you could do better than 50% efficiency over the whole process, you still come out on top."
Now think of that, 'If its better than 50%'. I'm assuming you're using either Air or energy as your source, pair-antipair creation would limit you to a MAXIMUM of 50% energy capture assuming you had perfect capturing 'tanks'. By the way, to correct one of your statements, This is pair annhilation, not Fission (no bonds 'only' are being broke, everything is), and not fusion (nothing's being created that has more mass, such as H+H+H+H=He)
Josh Crawley
Let's leave the Slashdot 'no news' story out for a minute. Let's focus on the TRUE emulation for a minute.
1: It is known that the CPU inside a Xbox is a 733P3.
2: The ram is standard sdram, and there is a known ram 'hack' to add more (being there is connections on the motherboard to do so.
3: The HD is a standard IDE HD, using standard 'home use' parts.
4: The graphics chipset (by Nvidia), could probably be 'instruction linked'to that of a heavily modified Geforce3. I know of no better way to describe this other than comparing the Voodoo2 Chipset to the N64 console. Using a High Level Emulation layer, N64's calls were mapped easily to the Glide DLL that of a Voodoo2
My idea would to map the instructions found on the HD and the Game dvd's to determine patters of data, and write interfaces (along with a processing power of a another 733P3 (used to preprocess the data for the gfx card) and a Geforce3. With the BIOS matter, I'd dump memory from RAM and look for telltale signs of mirroring of the BIOS in ram. If that wouldn't work, use a Linux boot disk (the netplay one) and have debug tools to pull the encrypted BIOS image off to another medium. My premise is that if the console can decrypt it (and can start the machine up), we can decrypt it too, by hand if nessisary.
Josh Crawley
ps: The emulation community didn't think the N64 could be emulated at all.
You see those Phillips commercials on the music and 'techy' shows? The commercial goes something like this:
,from his collection, a mix cd for listening with dates.
"1- Guy with date plays cd and has crummy music on it. Date winces.
2- Guy goes home and 'mixes'
3- Guy then plays music with date. Date is happy."
If anything, Phillips will NOT change the standard, since all cd players operate by it. Nobody would buy thier product if it was incapible of playing other media. They cut thier own throats.
If you put this all together it makes tremendous sense.
1: Congressman makes statement questioning legality of 'Blank CD' tax (authorizing fair use in copying) and the Copy-Protection by Universal and other companies.
2: Copy-Protected CD's are not compatible with the Red Book Standard (therefore will not play in some players). In other words, Stay with Red Book, people stay happy.
3: There is a large amount of capital involved in copy protection, and Phillips doesn't want to waste money on a scheam that may flop and may be illegal (possible law suits may pursue).
And past that, more games are being copy-protected by brain dead scheams. If I could buy a decently priced, self contained unit with a reader and a writer and make perfect copies, I'd buy 1, maybe 2.
Josh Crawley
ps: About pirating, stopping making cd burners wont stop pirating. It's like saying, "The internet has caused evil stuff to spread, let's shut it down". Both are infeasible, one much more than the other.
"Tight code is not an inherent property of proprietary code, and being proprietary, how can you tell if it's well written?"
:-) Reverse engineering of software apps readily shows this time and time again. VB isn't even worth the effort, as even the "compiled" code is nothing but slightly compressed OBJ and FRM code with 1 asm code to JMP to the VB dll. MASM does weird stuff if you use the instructions they provide, as it cannot seem to assemble JMP and JMP-like instructions correctly (it assumes that you always want a JMP or a JMP "boolean type". I usually use NASM and TASM.
Very true, but you fail to see the last 2 VERY important words that I included: "upgradable eeprom". I would expect to use standard modules in dips or the like. If you wanted, you could dump the eeprom with the os and dissassemble it, as ARM instruction set is open. I would expect nothing less than tight asm code coming from a pda os. A casual user wouldn't do this, but we probably would. Swap a chip, change the OS
If you ever do asm programming, you can feel if code was generated or actually written. Of course, you can always look at the internal make stamp
First off, I'm not a Dude. Second, Yes I do remember the 80386, 80286, 8086, and even older computers quite well.
If my memory serves me right, the Linux Kernel was created at about '92, and the 80386 was created at about '85 with mHz speeds rating 12.5 and 15, ranging up to 33. The 486 was released in '89, the major difference is that the 486 has the FPU. Torvalds wanted to run his kernel/OS on older CPU's. Hence why we still use 386 basic kernels (so we don't bump into non-implemented instructions like sse or 3d now).
Next, gui processing takes a toll of cpu. Hopefully, they implemented a gfx chip that does hardware windowing.
Well, have you ever used a TI-86? That's what I've used as a pda/handheld cpu. It's a Z80 (very supported) with rom calls to simplify programming. I've made math apps and downloaded Full Elemental Chart programs with electron shell energy levels. I played Mario and like games with sound on it. And all the programs are free. It may have 80KB but that's plenty for me.
Josh Crawley
Thanks for the link, but Boo's to MS because the data sheet is non-existant and the download isn't there (after registering bogus passport crap). Don't know if it's me. I just get thier bloated 404 file not found.
:-P Back in it goes....
Josh Crawley
btw: I had to get MS out of Hosts cause of the link
I've seen enough about this Linux PDA tripe. Big deal they are running a modified version of Linux. I'd rather see propertiary tight code on a upgradable eeprom than a larger OS designed FOR desktop/tower/laptop computers. :-) No Microsoft, we aren't going to pay a 1000$ for your "WinCE"ing devel kit.
All I would ask is for OPEN STANDARDS to connect the computer to the pda, wether that be mac or pc. USB would probably be the way to go, since it's on the hardware architecure of both platforms.
I wouldnt mind PAYING for a devel kit for this pda if was at a decent price. They gotta make money somehow, and the devel kit isnt a bad idea, but just as long as they don't go the MS way of Wince.. I mean WinCE
Josh Crawley
Big deal, the download to PGP (mit version) and the FBI's web site has been doing this for years. Now, AD idiots willl do this. Whoop-de-shit
I see how nasty this can sound, but ask yourself, " How will I get around this tech?". Simple, somebody else will make it. Back in the old days of Atari, Colecio made a atari-like console from reverse engineering. Circumvention tech has ALWAYS been around, even if it's in the black market. Who hasn't seen a spidery black box hanging from behind a cable box? Just a few Years ago, PSX was hit with that nice thing called a Mod Chip. All it is is just a Pic processor with programmed instructions. I even "burnt" mine (eeprom burner). However if this ever does become mandatory, I'll be using the buffer overrun type chip that crashes computer-readers, or I'll just emp the sucker. I'm sure that it will be using cmos gates (the only way for devices to be fried with emp).
Josh Crawley
First of all, companies who charge an arm and a leg for thier devel apps are killing themselves. Mainly, it's MS who's doing this. The last I checked, thier WinCE devel platform was about $1000 .
Go on haead, try and find free apps for it... All app makers HAVE to charge way bloated prices for thier programs.
Josh Crawley
That was supposed to have a tag like:
(lessthan)newbie(greaterthan) But I thought that X Windows could run Windows stuff.
I specified for it to be Plain old text, thinking it would ignore tags. Guess not.
Ok, if there's a 1 letter substitution between Windows and Lindows, what about X Windows? For somebody that doesn't know what X WIndows is, the two can seem quite confusing.
But I thought that X Windows could run Windows stuff.
What a sad, sad world.
Josh Crawley
Well, I've been in a few psych and stats classes. Well, what does psych have to do with this? Well they do a lots of surveys. Many people grumble how 'this survey is bad' or other tripe but don't give any ideas on how to DO IT RIGHT.
/dev/null
1: Buy a spammer's mailing list. I ASSUME that equal percentages of OS users use email, so there would be windows/mac/linux/amiga/... users on this list.
2: Choose a certain number of users to email a list of questions (eg: what Operating system are you running? what is your browser and what is the version?). These should be fairly through without going into 'debug-like' detail.
3: Have some sort of reward for completing this survey. If you do go this way, having a college webpage will surely help (you probably won't get any respondants if you don't). Surveys usually have a 'dollar for your time' or some such trifilng amount of 'payment'.
4: Compile your data to a usable form and include % of error by compairing to the thoeritical max number of users on the web.
Be aware this will likely cost money, but at least gets fair results.
Josh Crawley
ps: This is nowhere complete, suggestions are GLADLY accepted. Flames to
==1. We are indeed made up of a lot of water but
that need not be the case for things elsewhere
in the universe.
I didn't specify water,I just used water as an example. JJ made an excellent point that ammonia does satisfy the 3 main characteristics that water has.
==2. Water has many unique properties but none
of these may be needed by lifeform X.
Irrelavent, my point was to find different structures for a chemical transfer agent. Water is an excellent CTA.
==3. Supernovae create abundant iron. Are we to
presume that lifeforms near supernovae are
iron based?
We are too. At least our hemoglobin that carries oxygen is. A very easy way to 'carry' oxygen around is as rust: FeO2, Fe2O3 or Fe3O4. It's easy to get O in and out, and it's abundant enough that our bodies use it as such.
==4. Blood? Why does lifeform X need blood? Are we
now presuming anatomy?
My general use of 'Blood' was as a general Chemical Trasfer Agent. In any complex system, there is 'energy' of some sort needed and waste is generated (chemicals or heat). In order to transfer the waste to one part to another, a carrier is needed. In our bodies, if we didn't get rid of CO2, We'd die through cellular asphyxiation. In the case of CO, that is exactly what happens. CO jams up hemoglobin by NOT uncombining for oxygen transport. Still, a transport mechanism is needed for large biological systems.
==To take a slightly pessimistic view, in a few
hundred years humans may have driven themselves
to extinction leaving behind smart silicon-based
computers. Now you've got a race that needs no
blood and uses primarily copper and silicon to
replicate. Water may still be important for
some industial purposes but not in as large
quantities.
Josh Crawley
Too true. Considering the weight of the molecule, it weights either 17g/mol or 18 g/mol. This weight change is an effect of ammonia being in presence of water: NH3 or (aq)[NH4]- . Tempature range is a moot point _AS_LONG_ as the environment has the acceptable liquid tempature. What interests me the most is what the ammonia does to biological reation with water. It'd be fun to work out the chemistry with that instead.
Josh Crawley