It's a lot simpler to just puchase a phase coupler that plugs into a 220v outlet (like the one probably used by your dryer). Combine it with a signal amplifier (a repeater might work too, but I find those to be somewhat annoying) located on a small circuit close to the box and you won't have any signal problems for a moderately sized home.
You really need to check out some of the products that have been released by Smarthome over the last 5 years. You can do some pretty cool stuff with them these days.
Most plug-in modules can now detect when you turn on the load (light) and turn the light on when you activate it manually. Some modules will even transmit a command when you locally turn on the light (so, say, other lights in the room turn on along with it).
Both 1-way and 2-way light switches and relays are available (2-way switches allow you to "link" individual devices together). Inline switches and relays can also be purchased (no physical switch; it's wired in with the device it is controlling).
Many devices support scenes (the ability to assign a single light multiple "names"; each name can specify a different on-level and ramp-rate). You can get some pretty sophisticated lighting effects using scenes (ex: a light "wave", "ring", or a "sunrise" type effect)
You can purchase programmable keypads that you can label.
There are wireless transceivers (turn your lights on/off via remote control). Most remotes these days have "on" and "off" buttons for each address they can control (the remotes are generally labelable). You can also purchase key-fobs to go with your car keys (I use mine to turn on the porch light when I come home and to make sure all of the house lights are off when I leave).
You can purchase temperature sensors that transmit commands when setpoints are reached (I use one to automatically turn on the ceiling fan in the summer).
You can purchase programmable controllers (turn lights on/off in response to events, or perform events based on time). In my house I have a programable controller which does some simple tasks such as turn the bathroom fan off after a set period of time. I also have it managing a "dim" scene; I keep all of the upstairs lights on at a dim level at night; when I turn off a light it returns the light to the "dim" level. It also manages the overlap of lights between scenes (ie: the kitchen and dining room "share" some lights which each room wants to keep at different levels; it handles keeping everything in the desired state). Additionally, it is responsible for keeping track of some simple state information displayed on keypads (I have an "upstairs lights on" and "downstairs lights on" indicators shown in a few keypads located at the entrance, downstairs hallway, and upstairs hallway). There are a bunch of smaller details I have controllers managing, but those aren't as cool.;)
You used to be able to purchase devices which would send IR commands when it received an X-10 signal, however they appear to be discontinued. I actually own a few and plan on using it to automate some motorized blinds (when I get off my ass and finish up a few other projects).
The only real problem with the protocol is that it is DIRT SLOW. It takes about 1/4 of a second to transmit an address + command. This problem can be worked around with some creative thinking (use of fade rates, scenes, and "all house" commands which take only 1/8th sec), but it does limit the scope of what you can do (the more commands you transmit, the greater the likelyhood of a collision).
Don't confuse the X-10 protocol (a [slow] way to transmit home automation signals over the powerline) with x10.com (the pop-under ad kings).
Insteon is made by Smarthome. Smarthome also products a very nice line of X-10 (protocol) compatible switches and home automation devices. Insteon was designed to "solve" many of the problems with the X-10 protocol discovered over the years.
For me, the technology is still a bit too new... they're still working out the bugs, they don't have a very diverse set of devices yet, and there still aren't programmable controllers available.
If it's still around next time I move, I suspect I'll probably end up using Insteon switches, but until then I'll keep my existing hardware.
Microsoft used to do this: patches were released the instant they left QA. It doesn't work that way you'd hope it to.
The instant you release a patch, you're in a race between "l33t haxx0rs" reverse engineering the patch and the customers applying the patch. Now, this doesn't seem like a big deal when you've just got a single patch you release.
Imagine for a moment you've got 1 patch released per day, every day, for a week. Now imagine how quickly it takes your customer to apply, validate, and deploy each of those patches... note that patches are released faster than a customer can apply, validate, and deploy each patch.
The net result is that the act of releasing patches as they're available gives the black hats a larger window to reverse engineer and exploit the unpatched binary. For proof, go back a few years and read about the blaster worm.
Now, is this true in all cases (or, specifically in cases where exploits have been made public)? No. However, you still end up with the patch arrival/test collision regardless, and lots of unhappy customers in the process. Microsoft has stated that they would release a patch out of cycle for certain types of problems (ie: a publicly disclosed remote attacks), but in cases where it requires the user to actively "do" something to be attacked I don't blame them for sticking to the cycle.
I agree it is completely useless, though we are taking this one piece of out context. At any rate, my point is that it isn't underhanded or twisted. To put it another way, the clause doesn't permit "evil Microsoft" to do anything they already can't do.
This clause allows your anti-spyware software to scan your computer for spyware instzalled with some other 3rd party application and remove it and it allows it to take steps to prevent it from adding itself to your computer in the first place.
This is true, though my personal expectation is that its weight will be similar to a large remote control. (I would also point out that small pistols are a horrible choice to shoot something with unless you plan on being in close proximity to your target, but that's another story for another time:)).
One of the other posters made a good point about how the aiming mechanism could be done -- through some sort of non-linear relationship between movement of the controller and the pistol on screen, but I'm not convinced that would be an improvement (it would trade off one set of issues for another set).
I'm still pretty skeptical about the whole concept, and nobody has yet to present any arguments that convince me that this will definately work out well (most of the times it boils down to "I think people will get used to it"), but then again my natural tendency is to think of the negatives (when you test software for a living, you develop a tendency to focus on what can go horribly, horribly wrong), so take that for what you will.
The real test will be when the device hits the market and people start using it. Until then the only think we can do is speculate and correlate its use with "existing" real world analogs.
I've definately got to give Nintendo props for trying something way out there at least.:)
Unfortunately, the/. effect on the site with videos (if there were any on the site) prevents me from watching them.
That said, I think that I'm starting to understand the point you're trying to make -- that there can be a non-linear relationship between where the device is "pointing" and where it is positioned on the screen. (that is what you're trying to say right?)
That does make things a bit more interesting -- essentially making the device more or less sensative. Though I have to wonder if there are any interesting effects related to range of movement with the wrist... (somewhat compensated for by movement of the arm, though your arm is much less precise than your wrist)
Of course not, it's doing other stuff IN ADDITION to projecting a line, but at the end of the day the point you are shooting at on the screen is a LINE projected from the controller.
A real gun has additional mass, making it easier to hold steady. It is also held differently, and the stance in which you hold the gun improves accuracy. Additionally, in real life, your targets will be much larger the small targets presented on a 27" TV at viewing distance. I would also submit that real people move slower than their videogame counterparts.
But we're not talking about real life. We're talking about video games. And we're talking about a game requiring precision using a mechanism that isn't... 'precise'.
Granted, I think that it is still a better mechanism than a handheld controller, but it does have its own unique set of problems.
Get off the crack. All those fancy sensors are doing is projecting a line from the controller to the screen based on the device's position. Or are you attempting to argue that where your "shoot" is not related to where you point the controller?
The "aiming" problem (wobbly dot) is the same regardless of the method used to determine where you are aiming.
No, you'd get a different result (well, depending on your training). A real gun has much more mass and is easier to hold steady. The way you hold a gun and your stance is also a factor.
Have you ever tried to hold a laser pointer in a constant position on a wall? See it wobble much? (If you haven't, I'll answer for you -- YES) Yeah, same problem...
High end = top of the line. Though I do agree that some nice "budget" cards can be had at under $200 -- I've got a Radeon X800GT in my current machine that cost me about $170; it's great for games that came out a year or two ago, but for games that are coming out now it doesn't really cut the mustard (ex: Oblivion).
My god, what century are you living in? 2d acceleration has been done for the last 5 years -- it hasn't changed one bit. Any run of the mill 32mb Geforce MX card is more than capable of displaying at 1600x1200. Hell, at work I've got some POS 32mb ATI Radeon 7000 card spitting out 1760x1320 to two monitors...
The slowest CPU you can buy on the open market today is more than capable of decoding DVDs in real-time without breaking a sweat. My old 500mhz K7 could do it with 80% cpu utilization. Divx & Xvid are far more processor intensive (and they are NOT hardware accelerated by any video card you can purchase).
This has nothing to do with "power users" -- if you wanted nothing to do with 3d graphics whatsoever, a $20 video card is all you need. Maybe you're referring to the "my dick is bigger than yours" users?
My argument is that if you want your PC to perform at a level equal to that of a xbox360 or PS3, you need a $400 video card, and that if you're buying a $400 videocard it's sole purpose in life is for videogames and NOTHING ELSE.
Unfortunately for you this game costs 75c, not 50c. Find another quarter before the timer finishes counting down.
Double rubbish. Any $20 PCI card is more than adequate for the tasks you mentioned, minus 3d cad work. And if you're doing real 3d graphic design work, you AREN'T buying a gaming card.
Broken record and loss of perspective, meet this thread.
Sounds like a horridly crufty jury-rig that they're going to be spending the next decade patching to me.
As opposed to your brilliant idea, which is apparently do nothing and hope the problem fixes itself. Oh, I forgot about pointing fingers, bitching, and complaining.
Sounds almost like a monty pythonesque skit
No, it sounds like work you have to do to cope with code that was written to assume that it would always be run as Admin.
No. The problem is that XP home needs to run admin by default to keep users from freaking out and running away at the fact that 90% of their software would be broken out of the box.
So if I wrote a piece of software that ran on Linux which required admin privleges (for no reason whatsoever, through some sort of "am I running as root check" [which applications on Windows actually DO for no reason other than they didn't want to test non-admin scenarios]), you'd be perfectly satisfied blaming my lazy ass shit-tastic coding skills on Linux?
The fact that developers decided to write their software so that they save files outside of the user profile directory, modify registry keys outside of the HKCU hive, open HKLM registry keys in rw mode instead of just read mode, etc, is the result of shit code.
Writing code that runs as a non-admin user is not hard. It's about as difficult as doing it on any unix platform -- store all data on a user level instead of a system level and don't request write access to system level resources.
If you're spending money on a high end video card (which costs just as much as a console), you're getting it soley for the purpose of entertainment; that card isn't going to be useful for anything other than games, negating your argument.
No, someone with modpoints acting as a dick will mod someone down as a troll, overrated, or redundant because they disagree with what's being said (ignoring the merits of any argument being made).
That sort of bullshit happens to me all the time. If you ever metamod you'd see that this sort of thing happens quite frequently. The fact that you were a victim of this sort of ass-hattery doesn't mean there is some sort of vast Microsoft conspiracy targeting you...
I'm really not following you here. How exactly does pointing out that the standard bias on Slashdot is anti-Windows, help support your argument in even the smallest way?
He's saying that people with modpoints have a tendancy to be dicks, and that in all likelyhood you're just being paranoid.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a lot simpler to just puchase a phase coupler that plugs into a 220v outlet (like the one probably used by your dryer). Combine it with a signal amplifier (a repeater might work too, but I find those to be somewhat annoying) located on a small circuit close to the box and you won't have any signal problems for a moderately sized home.
You really need to check out some of the products that have been released by Smarthome over the last 5 years. You can do some pretty cool stuff with them these days.
;)
Most plug-in modules can now detect when you turn on the load (light) and turn the light on when you activate it manually. Some modules will even transmit a command when you locally turn on the light (so, say, other lights in the room turn on along with it).
Both 1-way and 2-way light switches and relays are available (2-way switches allow you to "link" individual devices together). Inline switches and relays can also be purchased (no physical switch; it's wired in with the device it is controlling).
Many devices support scenes (the ability to assign a single light multiple "names"; each name can specify a different on-level and ramp-rate). You can get some pretty sophisticated lighting effects using scenes (ex: a light "wave", "ring", or a "sunrise" type effect)
You can purchase programmable keypads that you can label.
There are wireless transceivers (turn your lights on/off via remote control). Most remotes these days have "on" and "off" buttons for each address they can control (the remotes are generally labelable). You can also purchase key-fobs to go with your car keys (I use mine to turn on the porch light when I come home and to make sure all of the house lights are off when I leave).
You can purchase temperature sensors that transmit commands when setpoints are reached (I use one to automatically turn on the ceiling fan in the summer).
You can purchase programmable controllers (turn lights on/off in response to events, or perform events based on time). In my house I have a programable controller which does some simple tasks such as turn the bathroom fan off after a set period of time. I also have it managing a "dim" scene; I keep all of the upstairs lights on at a dim level at night; when I turn off a light it returns the light to the "dim" level. It also manages the overlap of lights between scenes (ie: the kitchen and dining room "share" some lights which each room wants to keep at different levels; it handles keeping everything in the desired state). Additionally, it is responsible for keeping track of some simple state information displayed on keypads (I have an "upstairs lights on" and "downstairs lights on" indicators shown in a few keypads located at the entrance, downstairs hallway, and upstairs hallway). There are a bunch of smaller details I have controllers managing, but those aren't as cool.
You used to be able to purchase devices which would send IR commands when it received an X-10 signal, however they appear to be discontinued. I actually own a few and plan on using it to automate some motorized blinds (when I get off my ass and finish up a few other projects).
The only real problem with the protocol is that it is DIRT SLOW. It takes about 1/4 of a second to transmit an address + command. This problem can be worked around with some creative thinking (use of fade rates, scenes, and "all house" commands which take only 1/8th sec), but it does limit the scope of what you can do (the more commands you transmit, the greater the likelyhood of a collision).
Don't confuse the X-10 protocol (a [slow] way to transmit home automation signals over the powerline) with x10.com (the pop-under ad kings).
... they're still working out the bugs, they don't have a very diverse set of devices yet, and there still aren't programmable controllers available.
Insteon is made by Smarthome. Smarthome also products a very nice line of X-10 (protocol) compatible switches and home automation devices. Insteon was designed to "solve" many of the problems with the X-10 protocol discovered over the years.
For me, the technology is still a bit too new
If it's still around next time I move, I suspect I'll probably end up using Insteon switches, but until then I'll keep my existing hardware.
Microsoft used to do this: patches were released the instant they left QA. It doesn't work that way you'd hope it to.
... note that patches are released faster than a customer can apply, validate, and deploy each patch.
The instant you release a patch, you're in a race between "l33t haxx0rs" reverse engineering the patch and the customers applying the patch. Now, this doesn't seem like a big deal when you've just got a single patch you release.
Imagine for a moment you've got 1 patch released per day, every day, for a week. Now imagine how quickly it takes your customer to apply, validate, and deploy each of those patches
The net result is that the act of releasing patches as they're available gives the black hats a larger window to reverse engineer and exploit the unpatched binary. For proof, go back a few years and read about the blaster worm.
Now, is this true in all cases (or, specifically in cases where exploits have been made public)? No. However, you still end up with the patch arrival/test collision regardless, and lots of unhappy customers in the process. Microsoft has stated that they would release a patch out of cycle for certain types of problems (ie: a publicly disclosed remote attacks), but in cases where it requires the user to actively "do" something to be attacked I don't blame them for sticking to the cycle.
I agree it is completely useless, though we are taking this one piece of out context. At any rate, my point is that it isn't underhanded or twisted. To put it another way, the clause doesn't permit "evil Microsoft" to do anything they already can't do.
So how would you phrase it instead?
Oh for crying out loud ...
This clause allows your anti-spyware software to scan your computer for spyware instzalled with some other 3rd party application and remove it and it allows it to take steps to prevent it from adding itself to your computer in the first place.
This is true, though my personal expectation is that its weight will be similar to a large remote control. (I would also point out that small pistols are a horrible choice to shoot something with unless you plan on being in close proximity to your target, but that's another story for another time :)).
:)
One of the other posters made a good point about how the aiming mechanism could be done -- through some sort of non-linear relationship between movement of the controller and the pistol on screen, but I'm not convinced that would be an improvement (it would trade off one set of issues for another set).
I'm still pretty skeptical about the whole concept, and nobody has yet to present any arguments that convince me that this will definately work out well (most of the times it boils down to "I think people will get used to it"), but then again my natural tendency is to think of the negatives (when you test software for a living, you develop a tendency to focus on what can go horribly, horribly wrong), so take that for what you will.
The real test will be when the device hits the market and people start using it. Until then the only think we can do is speculate and correlate its use with "existing" real world analogs.
I've definately got to give Nintendo props for trying something way out there at least.
Unfortunately, the /. effect on the site with videos (if there were any on the site) prevents me from watching them.
That said, I think that I'm starting to understand the point you're trying to make -- that there can be a non-linear relationship between where the device is "pointing" and where it is positioned on the screen. (that is what you're trying to say right?)
That does make things a bit more interesting -- essentially making the device more or less sensative. Though I have to wonder if there are any interesting effects related to range of movement with the wrist... (somewhat compensated for by movement of the arm, though your arm is much less precise than your wrist)
http://www.majornelson.com/2006/04/09/show-170-the -one-about-accessories/#comments
Exact figures about how well it sold weren't stated, but the tone leads me to believe that it sold way more than he thought it should have.
Indeed. The truth hurts, what can I say? :)
Of course not, it's doing other stuff IN ADDITION to projecting a line, but at the end of the day the point you are shooting at on the screen is a LINE projected from the controller.
If you wish to view it as such, feel free to.
... 'precise'.
A real gun has additional mass, making it easier to hold steady. It is also held differently, and the stance in which you hold the gun improves accuracy. Additionally, in real life, your targets will be much larger the small targets presented on a 27" TV at viewing distance. I would also submit that real people move slower than their videogame counterparts.
But we're not talking about real life. We're talking about video games. And we're talking about a game requiring precision using a mechanism that isn't
Granted, I think that it is still a better mechanism than a handheld controller, but it does have its own unique set of problems.
Get off the crack. All those fancy sensors are doing is projecting a line from the controller to the screen based on the device's position. Or are you attempting to argue that where your "shoot" is not related to where you point the controller?
The "aiming" problem (wobbly dot) is the same regardless of the method used to determine where you are aiming.
No, you'd get a different result (well, depending on your training). A real gun has much more mass and is easier to hold steady. The way you hold a gun and your stance is also a factor.
Have you ever tried to hold a laser pointer in a constant position on a wall? See it wobble much? (If you haven't, I'll answer for you -- YES) Yeah, same problem ...
High end = top of the line. Though I do agree that some nice "budget" cards can be had at under $200 -- I've got a Radeon X800GT in my current machine that cost me about $170; it's great for games that came out a year or two ago, but for games that are coming out now it doesn't really cut the mustard (ex: Oblivion).
My god, what century are you living in? 2d acceleration has been done for the last 5 years -- it hasn't changed one bit. Any run of the mill 32mb Geforce MX card is more than capable of displaying at 1600x1200. Hell, at work I've got some POS 32mb ATI Radeon 7000 card spitting out 1760x1320 to two monitors ...
The slowest CPU you can buy on the open market today is more than capable of decoding DVDs in real-time without breaking a sweat. My old 500mhz K7 could do it with 80% cpu utilization. Divx & Xvid are far more processor intensive (and they are NOT hardware accelerated by any video card you can purchase).
This has nothing to do with "power users" -- if you wanted nothing to do with 3d graphics whatsoever, a $20 video card is all you need. Maybe you're referring to the "my dick is bigger than yours" users?
My argument is that if you want your PC to perform at a level equal to that of a xbox360 or PS3, you need a $400 video card, and that if you're buying a $400 videocard it's sole purpose in life is for videogames and NOTHING ELSE.
Unfortunately for you this game costs 75c, not 50c. Find another quarter before the timer finishes counting down.
Double rubbish. Any $20 PCI card is more than adequate for the tasks you mentioned, minus 3d cad work. And if you're doing real 3d graphic design work, you AREN'T buying a gaming card.
It doesn't matter. Malware doesn't need admin privs to access user data.
Broken record and loss of perspective, meet this thread.
Sounds like a horridly crufty jury-rig that they're going to be spending the next decade patching to me.
As opposed to your brilliant idea, which is apparently do nothing and hope the problem fixes itself. Oh, I forgot about pointing fingers, bitching, and complaining.
Sounds almost like a monty pythonesque skit
No, it sounds like work you have to do to cope with code that was written to assume that it would always be run as Admin.
No. The problem is that XP home needs to run admin by default to keep users from freaking out and running away at the fact that 90% of their software would be broken out of the box.
So if I wrote a piece of software that ran on Linux which required admin privleges (for no reason whatsoever, through some sort of "am I running as root check" [which applications on Windows actually DO for no reason other than they didn't want to test non-admin scenarios]), you'd be perfectly satisfied blaming my lazy ass shit-tastic coding skills on Linux?
The fact that developers decided to write their software so that they save files outside of the user profile directory, modify registry keys outside of the HKCU hive, open HKLM registry keys in rw mode instead of just read mode, etc, is the result of shit code.
Writing code that runs as a non-admin user is not hard. It's about as difficult as doing it on any unix platform -- store all data on a user level instead of a system level and don't request write access to system level resources.
Your math needs help.
Last gen, avg game cost = $50. $60 for "special edition" versions.
Next gen, avg game cost = $50-$60. $70 for "special edition" versions.
50-50/50 = 0%
60-50/50 = 20%
70-60/60 = 16.7%
So you're looking at UP TO 20% more expensive; a far cry from "at least" 25% more expensive.
If you're spending money on a high end video card (which costs just as much as a console), you're getting it soley for the purpose of entertainment; that card isn't going to be useful for anything other than games, negating your argument.
No, someone with modpoints acting as a dick will mod someone down as a troll, overrated, or redundant because they disagree with what's being said (ignoring the merits of any argument being made).
That sort of bullshit happens to me all the time. If you ever metamod you'd see that this sort of thing happens quite frequently. The fact that you were a victim of this sort of ass-hattery doesn't mean there is some sort of vast Microsoft conspiracy targeting you...
I'm really not following you here. How exactly does pointing out that the standard bias on Slashdot is anti-Windows, help support your argument in even the smallest way?
He's saying that people with modpoints have a tendancy to be dicks, and that in all likelyhood you're just being paranoid.