Re:new technique for displays?
on
Mastering Light
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I flat panel displays will no longer need separate reg, green and blue pixels. They could just have uniform pixels which could produce light in any shade required. Should be good for higher resolution displays, greater colour depth. But might mess up things like sub pixel rendering.
Ummm... How would you get white (red, green, and blue at the same time)? I suppose that you COULD rapidly switch between multiple frequencies to get a simulated white, but the article did not explain how much control you could get over the process... Perhaps a single crystal would only provide a fixed shift (red->blue), and if you wanted red->green, you use a different crystal.
Also, each pixel would need its own crystal and "hammer" (probably a piezo element). This would probably be even more expensive than current flat-screen televisions.
Just one more note -- if you have little crystals being hit at 60Hz (assuming a progressive scan display), that sucker would humm like crazy!
If you shine light (photons) on a solar cell (for example), the photons need to have a minimum energy (wavelength) in order to generate electricity. If a photon has enough energy, it can knock an electron around and produce electricity. If a photon does not have enough energy, it just jiggles the atoms and makes heat.
The only question is... how much energy to continuously hit the crystal so that it does its magic. I suspect it would take more energy than you could get out of the system.
As I understand them, the theories you mention are attempts to explain observed phenomena. Without data to suggest multiple universes that theory has no more scientific basis than any form of creationism you might subscribe to. Some say God made the universe. Others say the universe cam out of some super-foam. Both are an appeal to the undetectable, since we can't reach outside the universe from inside.
Mod the parent up!
The original article states All we can expect is to have a very incomplete and metaphorical view of this deep reality. His arguments about multple universes is just as speculateive as an actual real God as most religions postulate. In fact, there is more evidence for the deity of Jesus than there is for multiple universes!
1) Let's assume for a second that there ARE multiple infinite universes and that it is possible to travel between them. Certainly somewhere there is a super-agressive species that wants to invade all universes. We have not seen them, and we are certainly not enslaved by any aliens right now. So I would consider this theory to be unlikely.
2) OK. Let's assume that ther ARE multiple universes, but they are completely separated from us -- no travel or information may cross universe boundaries. If this is the case, then there can be absolutely NO experimental evidence for this. The only evidence is a little bit of statistical evidence and a lot of faith. How is this so different from religion?
3) Finally, let's assume that a deity DID create the universe, and has a plan for us. It seems reasonable that He left clues about what He wants. At least in this possibility, there is a possibility of searching for evidence and clues, unlike option 2 above.
In short, everybody has to take SOMETHING on faith (Goedel proved that). You can either take it on faith that there IS a God, and look for evidence or clues, or take it on faith that there is NOT a God, and try to postulate multiple unreachable universes to explain the impossible odds of having a universe with life.
At least the multiverse theory is not quite as absurd as the bifucating universe theory... but that is a whole other can of worms!
Re:SCO has Dirty Hands. Will not be able to collec
on
SCO To Show Copied Code
·
· Score: 2, Informative
This is simply false. Once you distribute your code under the GPL, you lose ALL CONTROL over that code PERMANENTLY. That is simply what the GPL is designed to do.
You can't "take it back". This is something that the GPL is specifically designed to prevent.
Wrong. Imaging that YOU wrote some code -- you own it. You can then "fork" your code. One branch can be GPL, the other can be sold/modified/whatever without having any requirements. The GPL just guartees that you cannot "take back" the forked version. Also, once forked, you cannot re-merge them or "borrow" bug-fixes from the GPL version without making your proprietary version GPL.
In short, if you "own" some code, you can do whatever you want with it! If you GPL it, then you can have a "GPL" version and a "private" version -- you can give away what you want, and keep what you want.
In fact, some companies do exactly this! Note that the code for Open Office came from Star Office. Yet Star Office is NOT GPL. In other words, Sun forked the code into a GPL and a non-GPL version.
It makes a difference on this issue. I happen to be male.
Sorry to be off-topic...
The whole "no uterus-no vote" thing is absurd. This is like saying "You are not allowed to have an opinion on child abuse -- you don't have kids. Once you have children, then you can tell me to stop abusing mine." Clearly, no sane person would agree with this. What is the difference between this and the abortion issue?
We now return you to our regularly scheduled topic...
Creating ex-temp webs like this might assist insurance adjusters and other computer-needing personnel to work better in emergency hot zones... it would be nice if a company out there started manufacturing the "cans" for emergency use and the FCC made some modifications to the rules for emergency usage... so every little town could have a few "wi-fi" kits in storage to chain up when a hurricane has leveled everything.. you could also throw some authentication mechanisms on the idea and build a quick "emergency VoIP network" the same way. Just a thought from the thoughtbrew: www.bigattichouse.com [bigattichouse.com]
Or you could just get an amateur radio license and do packet radio. Emergency service is one of the big reasons that the FCC is so kind to ham radio. There is money in them there airwaves, but we still have some frequency to play with.
Actually, the problem isn't that a pringle can antenna will put out too much power. The problem is that the *entire* part 15 system, including antenna, radio and any amplifier you might have has to be certified together as a system.
I already have problems with my 2-year-old son scratching my CD collection. DVDs are even MORE sensitive to scratching. As the wavelength shortens and density increases, it seems reasonable to expect the thing to be a lot more sensitive to scratching. If the format stores a disc in a cartridge, then this is not a problem. However, cartridges seem to have died out years ago.
I would just like to point out that at least *SOME* of the spammer's complaints are legis. SPAMHAUS.ORG does NOT list any valid contact info. The following info came from www.whoisd.com...
Domain ID:D10906601-LROR Domain Name:SPAMHAUS.ORG Created On:01-Oct-1999 11:03:57 UTC Last Updated On:23-Apr-2003 19:43:38 UTC Expiration Date:01-Oct-2004 11:03:57 UTC Sponsoring Registrar:R25-LROR Status:OK Registrant ID:25-C Registrant Name:SEE SPONSORING REGISTRAR Registrant Street1:Whois Server:whois.joker.com Registrant Street2:Referral URL:www.joker.com Registrant City:N/A Registrant Postal Code:N/A Registrant Country:CA Registrant Email:not@available.org Admin ID:25-C Admin Name:SEE SPONSORING REGISTRAR Admin Street1:Whois Server:whois.joker.com Admin Street2:Referral URL:www.joker.com Admin City:N/A Admin Postal Code:N/A Admin Country:CA Admin Email:not@available.org Billing ID:25-C Billing Name:SEE SPONSORING REGISTRAR Billing Street1:Whois Server:whois.joker.com Billing Street2:Referral URL:www.joker.com Billing City:N/A Billing Postal Code:N/A Billing Country:CA Billing Email:not@available.org Tech ID:25-C Tech Name:SEE SPONSORING REGISTRAR Tech Street1:Whois Server:whois.joker.com Tech Street2:Referral URL:www.joker.com Tech City:N/A Tech Postal Code:N/A Tech Country:CA Tech Email:not@available.org Name Server:DNS2.ULTRADESIGN.NET Name Server:AMETHYST.NSTC.COM Name Server:NS1.HAVENCO.NET Name Server:NS1.SIMKIN.CA Name Server:BOS.NAMESERVER.NET
It could be that joker.com as a matter of course does not provide this information, and spamhaus.org IS innocent. But spamhaus should at least check their own WHOIS before saying that they are in the clear.
What if they have a CATALOG on the net, but you order over the PHONE? Would that be taxable???
What if the order came over a private x.25 line, which was all electronic, but still avoided the public internet?
Would the next step be to then tax all mail orders, regardless of the method of order placement?
Qualitatively, how is a phone order and a net order different?
I am *SOOOO* glad that I did not take that job offer in Berkley! California is such a mess. The cost of living is insane, the traffic is terrible, and it is an awful place to raise kids.
Take a mass and hang it from a spring. This will represent "The (strong) Force". Gravity, as always, will work. You then pull the mass to the floor. The spring pulls it up. When it reaches the ceiling, gravity will pull it down.
All you have to do to make this into perpetual motion is to suck all of the gas from the room, and find a new type of spring with no internal friction losses. It will bounce forever!
Now, getting energy from such a system would cause it to slow down and stop.
Feel free to try this experiment if you wish!
Most people on here can just set up a Linux router that *doesn't* support sFlow, and do NAT with that.
The only people that'd get fucked is Joe Windows User types with hardware router/DHCP thingamabobs.
Not quite.
1) This means having an extra PC lying around. I do not.
2) You also have to have a PLACE to put this PC. If I tried stuffing another PC in the corner of the family room, my wife would freak!
3) At my current PC desk, I have an outlet that I can use for a NAT box. This box does not use much power. For a Linux box, it will be physicaly large gray box (most likely). You will either need to a) give it its own keyboard and monior (big and uses another outlet), or switch keyboards and monitors (move main PC, unplug cables, etc.). Neither are good options (Yes, you can telnet once it is set up, but when first installing the OS, you need a keyboard/monitor).
To summarize: using a Linux and/or a BSD box for NAT is a fine idea for those without spouses and/or children. For the rest of us, the space/power requirements may be too much (and one of those new mini-PCs costs at lest 10x what a NAT does).
Worse yet, look at this technology after a few iterations and a few million dollars, and you've got screen = scanner = webcam.
Not quite. The problem with this is that the paper has to be TOUCHING the LCD panel. It is probably more of a "shadow detector" than a camera.
The LCD panel is supposed to be a SCANNER! Here is an experiement. Open the lid to your flatbed scanner and begin a scan. You will NOT see a perfectly-formed image of your ceiling. You will see a whole lot of nothing.
The point of this is that if you want to use this thing as a webcam, you will need to put a lens in front of it. Perhaps a lensboard from a small view camera might work (with bellows). Otherwise, you will not get much of an image.
The only way that your monitor can monitor you is if each pixel had the equivalent of a zoom lens in front of it - very unlikely. And if this DID happen, the montior would have a very bad case of tunnel vision.
Perhaps if we started behaving responsibly we could become an oil-independent economy.
I think that you are missing the point...
This WOULD make us oil-independent! In essence, you would be burning chicken guts, feathers, old tires, and all sorts of waste (that would otherwise end up in a landfill) in your car!
It just happens to become oil at some intermediate stage -- but don't worry. The "oil" stage is only temporary!
I wonder how many people will write this off as an April Fools joke. I've only skimmed The Discover article, but it is an extremely optimistic piece, and the writer seems chagrinned that he couldn't present a more skeptical case. If this technology was widely deployed it could almost eliminate foreign oil dependence.
I gathered that something equivalent to heating oil was produced. This stuff might be OK for power plants and possibly making plastics, but I am not sure that you can turn this stuff into gasoline. We would still need dinosaur guts for cars. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Even if what I said above IS true, it would still revolutionize the American economy (and eventually the world).
Discover magazine has been known to pull a couple of good ones come 4/1, but this is not one of them. First of all, this is in the MAY issue of the magazine (magazines usually publish a month early, remember).
I read this story three or four days ago when the issue appeared in my snail-mail folder.
This issue may not be on newsstands yet, but if you know somebody who has a subscription, then they probably already have it.
Not that it isn't cool to hope that things go faster than light and that we're just getting part of the picture...
In the article they stated a possible violation of the speed of light. The problem is...
How can light violate the speed of light?
The speed of light is defined by the speed of light! The actual physical law involves the "SPEED OF LIGHT," not C. C is defined as the speed of light IN A VACUUM! They are two different things.
Re:I spent 2 yrs playing IT guy for a tank battali
on
Military Grade Laptops
·
· Score: 1
If someone made a copier or printer that could be bounced around working in heat, cold and dust, they'd make a killing with the US Army.
I would use three bits: One for Green, one for Red, and one for Blue. Then I'd pulse the bits to vary the intensity of each color.
This would work fine, but would require your program to be actively working the entire time. If you use your computer for other things, then you LEDs may start flashing. If you are using DOS, or you do not use your computer for other things, then this would be OK.
By using several bits for each color, you could have your program update the colors every 5 minutes or so -- very light load on the processor.
Ya know if you were to make it work via USB it coudl grab its power off the bus as well.
Since the original post mentioned "relays," it is likely to assume that this person is not extremely experienced in do-it-yourself electronics.
USB is NOT for the faint of heart. While the hardware for USB is easy with some processors from Cypress, the software for USB is quite complex. Using an old-fashioned RS-232 port is easy compared to USB stuff. Definately not for beginners. I have a master's degree in electrical engineering, but I would have problems getting the USB software to work.
My recomendation: use the parallel port, and create your own D/A converter. You get 8 data bits, plus one or two handshaking bits.
Assuming that you are only using 8 bits, I would assign 3 to green, 3 to red, and 2 to blue. Then, for each channel (R,G, or B), wire up one bit to the color channel of the LED through a resistor (10 ohms might be a good starting point). The next bit for that color would have double the resistance (20 ohms), and the next bit would have double the last one again (40 ohms).
One thing to keep in mind with parallel port stuff is that you CANNOT use this method easily with any NT-kernal OS (this may include Win XP) because of the way that the hardware layer is abstracted. This method is guaranteed to work with DOS, Win3.1, Win 9X, and probably Win ME.
The web is full of information on parallel port interfacing. A control program would be almost trivial to write in C.
It seems like a different kind of signal encoding could make it possible to have many transmitters on the same frequency band. I think the amount of processing power at the receiver goes up pretty quickly as the signal gets more complex.
Ummm.... No. Stand in the middle of a large talking crowd and try to listen to sombody 20 feet away -- very difficult.
Actually, this IS done, but there are limits. Every GPS satellite transmits on the same frequency. The reason that they don't interfere is the they are all transmitting a different code. The catch is that each code has to be "orthogonal." This means that each code cannot be able to be made up of combinations of the other codes. So, yes it can be done.
BUT... there is no such thing as a free lunch. Within a given bandwidth, you can only squeeze a few codes in there. The only way out is to use more bandwidth -- which defeats the purpose.
There was a guy by the name of "Claude Shannon" (who died recently) who had a nice theory on this type of stuff. This theory is sort of like the speed of light -- you can try to get closer and closer, but you can't exceed it.
As a previous poster indicated -- the only way around this is with directional antennas, but this gets very difficult in urban environments, and impossible in mobile environments.
Slashdot Mirror
Ummm... How would you get white (red, green, and blue at the same time)? I suppose that you COULD rapidly switch between multiple frequencies to get a simulated white, but the article did not explain how much control you could get over the process... Perhaps a single crystal would only provide a fixed shift (red->blue), and if you wanted red->green, you use a different crystal.
Also, each pixel would need its own crystal and "hammer" (probably a piezo element). This would probably be even more expensive than current flat-screen televisions.
Just one more note -- if you have little crystals being hit at 60Hz (assuming a progressive scan display), that sucker would humm like crazy!
Actually, this MIGHT be a good idea...
If you shine light (photons) on a solar cell (for example), the photons need to have a minimum energy (wavelength) in order to generate electricity. If a photon has enough energy, it can knock an electron around and produce electricity. If a photon does not have enough energy, it just jiggles the atoms and makes heat.
The only question is ... how much energy to continuously hit the crystal so that it does its magic. I suspect it would take more energy than you could get out of the system.
Mod the parent up!
The original article states All we can expect is to have a very incomplete and metaphorical view of this deep reality. His arguments about multple universes is just as speculateive as an actual real God as most religions postulate. In fact, there is more evidence for the deity of Jesus than there is for multiple universes!
1) Let's assume for a second that there ARE multiple infinite universes and that it is possible to travel between them. Certainly somewhere there is a super-agressive species that wants to invade all universes. We have not seen them, and we are certainly not enslaved by any aliens right now. So I would consider this theory to be unlikely.
2) OK. Let's assume that ther ARE multiple universes, but they are completely separated from us -- no travel or information may cross universe boundaries. If this is the case, then there can be absolutely NO experimental evidence for this. The only evidence is a little bit of statistical evidence and a lot of faith. How is this so different from religion?
3) Finally, let's assume that a deity DID create the universe, and has a plan for us. It seems reasonable that He left clues about what He wants. At least in this possibility, there is a possibility of searching for evidence and clues, unlike option 2 above.
In short, everybody has to take SOMETHING on faith (Goedel proved that). You can either take it on faith that there IS a God, and look for evidence or clues, or take it on faith that there is NOT a God, and try to postulate multiple unreachable universes to explain the impossible odds of having a universe with life.
At least the multiverse theory is not quite as absurd as the bifucating universe theory ... but that is a whole other can of worms!
Wrong. Imaging that YOU wrote some code -- you own it. You can then "fork" your code. One branch can be GPL, the other can be sold/modified/whatever without having any requirements. The GPL just guartees that you cannot "take back" the forked version. Also, once forked, you cannot re-merge them or "borrow" bug-fixes from the GPL version without making your proprietary version GPL.
In short, if you "own" some code, you can do whatever you want with it! If you GPL it, then you can have a "GPL" version and a "private" version -- you can give away what you want, and keep what you want.
In fact, some companies do exactly this! Note that the code for Open Office came from Star Office. Yet Star Office is NOT GPL. In other words, Sun forked the code into a GPL and a non-GPL version.
Sorry to be off-topic...
The whole "no uterus-no vote" thing is absurd. This is like saying "You are not allowed to have an opinion on child abuse -- you don't have kids. Once you have children, then you can tell me to stop abusing mine." Clearly, no sane person would agree with this. What is the difference between this and the abortion issue?
We now return you to our regularly scheduled topic...
Or you could just get an amateur radio license and do packet radio. Emergency service is one of the big reasons that the FCC is so kind to ham radio. There is money in them there airwaves, but we still have some frequency to play with.
-KG4ZUD
It's only illegal if you're caught!
KG4ZUD
I already have problems with my 2-year-old son scratching my CD collection. DVDs are even MORE sensitive to scratching. As the wavelength shortens and density increases, it seems reasonable to expect the thing to be a lot more sensitive to scratching. If the format stores a disc in a cartridge, then this is not a problem. However, cartridges seem to have died out years ago.
I would just like to point out that at least *SOME* of the spammer's complaints are legis. SPAMHAUS.ORG does NOT list any valid contact info. The following info came from www.whoisd.com ...
Domain ID:D10906601-LROR
Domain Name:SPAMHAUS.ORG
Created On:01-Oct-1999 11:03:57 UTC
Last Updated On:23-Apr-2003 19:43:38 UTC
Expiration Date:01-Oct-2004 11:03:57 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:R25-LROR
Status:OK
Registrant ID:25-C
Registrant Name:SEE SPONSORING REGISTRAR
Registrant Street1:Whois Server:whois.joker.com
Registrant Street2:Referral URL:www.joker.com
Registrant City:N/A
Registrant Postal Code:N/A
Registrant Country:CA
Registrant Email:not@available.org
Admin ID:25-C
Admin Name:SEE SPONSORING REGISTRAR
Admin Street1:Whois Server:whois.joker.com
Admin Street2:Referral URL:www.joker.com
Admin City:N/A
Admin Postal Code:N/A
Admin Country:CA
Admin Email:not@available.org
Billing ID:25-C
Billing Name:SEE SPONSORING REGISTRAR
Billing Street1:Whois Server:whois.joker.com
Billing Street2:Referral URL:www.joker.com
Billing City:N/A
Billing Postal Code:N/A
Billing Country:CA
Billing Email:not@available.org
Tech ID:25-C
Tech Name:SEE SPONSORING REGISTRAR
Tech Street1:Whois Server:whois.joker.com
Tech Street2:Referral URL:www.joker.com
Tech City:N/A
Tech Postal Code:N/A
Tech Country:CA
Tech Email:not@available.org
Name Server:DNS2.ULTRADESIGN.NET
Name Server:AMETHYST.NSTC.COM
Name Server:NS1.HAVENCO.NET
Name Server:NS1.SIMKIN.CA
Name Server:BOS.NAMESERVER.NET
It could be that joker.com as a matter of course does not provide this information, and spamhaus.org IS innocent. But spamhaus should at least check their own WHOIS before saying that they are in the clear.
An internet order would then be taxable...
What if they have a CATALOG on the net, but you order over the PHONE? Would that be taxable???
What if the order came over a private x.25 line, which was all electronic, but still avoided the public internet?
Would the next step be to then tax all mail orders, regardless of the method of order placement?
Qualitatively, how is a phone order and a net order different?
I am *SOOOO* glad that I did not take that job offer in Berkley! California is such a mess. The cost of living is insane, the traffic is terrible, and it is an awful place to raise kids.
You ***CAN*** do this....
Take a mass and hang it from a spring. This will represent "The (strong) Force". Gravity, as always, will work. You then pull the mass to the floor. The spring pulls it up. When it reaches the ceiling, gravity will pull it down.
All you have to do to make this into perpetual motion is to suck all of the gas from the room, and find a new type of spring with no internal friction losses. It will bounce forever!
Now, getting energy from such a system would cause it to slow down and stop. Feel free to try this experiment if you wish!
Not quite.
1) This means having an extra PC lying around. I do not.
2) You also have to have a PLACE to put this PC. If I tried stuffing another PC in the corner of the family room, my wife would freak!
3) At my current PC desk, I have an outlet that I can use for a NAT box. This box does not use much power. For a Linux box, it will be physicaly large gray box (most likely). You will either need to a) give it its own keyboard and monior (big and uses another outlet), or switch keyboards and monitors (move main PC, unplug cables, etc.). Neither are good options (Yes, you can telnet once it is set up, but when first installing the OS, you need a keyboard/monitor).
To summarize: using a Linux and/or a BSD box for NAT is a fine idea for those without spouses and/or children. For the rest of us, the space/power requirements may be too much (and one of those new mini-PCs costs at lest 10x what a NAT does).
Who says????
Microsoft has been doing it for years. And, apparently, it works too. Just be quiet and say "baaaaa baaaa."
Not quite. The problem with this is that the paper has to be TOUCHING the LCD panel. It is probably more of a "shadow detector" than a camera.
The LCD panel is supposed to be a SCANNER! Here is an experiement. Open the lid to your flatbed scanner and begin a scan. You will NOT see a perfectly-formed image of your ceiling. You will see a whole lot of nothing.
The point of this is that if you want to use this thing as a webcam, you will need to put a lens in front of it. Perhaps a lensboard from a small view camera might work (with bellows). Otherwise, you will not get much of an image.
The only way that your monitor can monitor you is if each pixel had the equivalent of a zoom lens in front of it - very unlikely. And if this DID happen, the montior would have a very bad case of tunnel vision.
In short - stop worrying.
I think that you are missing the point...
This WOULD make us oil-independent! In essence, you would be burning chicken guts, feathers, old tires, and all sorts of waste (that would otherwise end up in a landfill) in your car!
It just happens to become oil at some intermediate stage -- but don't worry. The "oil" stage is only temporary!
I gathered that something equivalent to heating oil was produced. This stuff might be OK for power plants and possibly making plastics, but I am not sure that you can turn this stuff into gasoline. We would still need dinosaur guts for cars. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Even if what I said above IS true, it would still revolutionize the American economy (and eventually the world).
And they would certainly not run them in their MAY issue!
Check the date on the cover before assuming. News CAN happen today! Or maybe those dead people in Iraq are an april fools joke too!
Ummmmmm..... nope.
Discover magazine has been known to pull a couple of good ones come 4/1, but this is not one of them. First of all, this is in the MAY issue of the magazine (magazines usually publish a month early, remember).
I read this story three or four days ago when the issue appeared in my snail-mail folder.
This issue may not be on newsstands yet, but if you know somebody who has a subscription, then they probably already have it.
How can light violate the speed of light?
The speed of light is defined by the speed of light! The actual physical law involves the "SPEED OF LIGHT," not C. C is defined as the speed of light IN A VACUUM! They are two different things.
Try this...
http://chs2.gdc4s.com/Products/LCIP_PIB.pdf
It will even survive the EMP pulse of a nuclear warhead. I don't want to think about how much is costs.
This would work fine, but would require your program to be actively working the entire time. If you use your computer for other things, then you LEDs may start flashing. If you are using DOS, or you do not use your computer for other things, then this would be OK.
By using several bits for each color, you could have your program update the colors every 5 minutes or so -- very light load on the processor.
Since the original post mentioned "relays," it is likely to assume that this person is not extremely experienced in do-it-yourself electronics.
USB is NOT for the faint of heart. While the hardware for USB is easy with some processors from Cypress, the software for USB is quite complex. Using an old-fashioned RS-232 port is easy compared to USB stuff. Definately not for beginners. I have a master's degree in electrical engineering, but I would have problems getting the USB software to work.
My recomendation: use the parallel port, and create your own D/A converter. You get 8 data bits, plus one or two handshaking bits.
Assuming that you are only using 8 bits, I would assign 3 to green, 3 to red, and 2 to blue. Then, for each channel (R,G, or B), wire up one bit to the color channel of the LED through a resistor (10 ohms might be a good starting point). The next bit for that color would have double the resistance (20 ohms), and the next bit would have double the last one again (40 ohms).
One thing to keep in mind with parallel port stuff is that you CANNOT use this method easily with any NT-kernal OS (this may include Win XP) because of the way that the hardware layer is abstracted. This method is guaranteed to work with DOS, Win3.1, Win 9X, and probably Win ME.
The web is full of information on parallel port interfacing. A control program would be almost trivial to write in C.
You just have two clothes dryers!
In fact, you could probably put a dryer in your bedroom and disguise it as a dresser.
I am always telling my wife that my dresser is out in the garage (the dryer).
CAUTION
Do NOT try this with jeans or anything else with metal rivets/buttons/zippers.
Ummm.... No. Stand in the middle of a large talking crowd and try to listen to sombody 20 feet away -- very difficult.
Actually, this IS done, but there are limits. Every GPS satellite transmits on the same frequency. The reason that they don't interfere is the they are all transmitting a different code. The catch is that each code has to be "orthogonal." This means that each code cannot be able to be made up of combinations of the other codes. So, yes it can be done.
BUT... there is no such thing as a free lunch. Within a given bandwidth, you can only squeeze a few codes in there. The only way out is to use more bandwidth -- which defeats the purpose.
There was a guy by the name of "Claude Shannon" (who died recently) who had a nice theory on this type of stuff. This theory is sort of like the speed of light -- you can try to get closer and closer, but you can't exceed it.
As a previous poster indicated -- the only way around this is with directional antennas, but this gets very difficult in urban environments, and impossible in mobile environments.