Luckily where I was at the time Graybar was right down the road from where I worked:) Got all that I needed from them, including the non-impact 66-block punch for jury-rigging the 66-block for POTS service:)
Graybar customer for life:)
Jury rig a 66-block. Connect the top pair on one side, and then use extra wire (preferably from piece of cat5, you'll need about 3 feet) to punch-down to each corresponding pair below it (you'll need a 66-block punchdown tool, just make sure not to use the blade side except to trim the extra wire:P). Connect all your bridging clips to the middle posts, then the other side you'll have 25 unterminated POTS jacks. From there get cable (either standard telephone[make sure it's solid core] or raw 1-pair telco wire) and put a RJ-11 on one end and connect it to the unpopulated side of your 66-block. Should take care of you.
Actually, 100base-t requires the same 2 pair that 10base-t require. Only needs the orange and green pairs (1-2 and 3-6). Blue and brown are free for use in POTS, but I'm not sure about the crosstalk once a 90vAC current is put down the wire for the ringer on a POTS phone versus a 100base-t connection... >.>
I should have taken pictures of the Cat5e/RG-6QS runs throughout my old house. Every place that had a box got one of the following:
-Box 1--- (2) blue cat5e (data) (1) white cat5e (voice) (1) RG-6QS (CATV)
-Box 2--- (1) blue cat5e (data) (1) white cat5e (voice) (1) RG-6QS (CATV)
In an existing home (esp mine with finished drywall ceilings in the basement[Uck!]), this project for the weekend warrior could take a couple weeks. But, it now has GigE capable drops to each room in the house (at least one in -every- room, including bathrooms) (it's been spec'd out to 100Base-T, though the cable is capable of GigE).
It was all finished off with a 48-port Panduit patch panel (not cheap, but used Panduit throughout the house), connected to an inexpensive rack-mount 24-port 10/100 unmanaged switch for data (mounted in a low-depth [~8"] 4U hinged wall mount rack) and a good old 66-block for the voice (that, I'll admit is a jury-rigged setup). I also tagged a whole-house distribution amplifier from SmartHome to drive the 6 TVs (analog cable w/ one cablemodem before the amp) without any distortion in the higher channels.
All in all I believe it was a well done project and well worth the time and materials invested into it.
Something like this would make me cringe with the possibility of running afoul with the FCC for using the wireless connection for commercial purposes... What if someone were to use the wireless connection to order something (food, pizza, amazon)? That's a commercial transaction, and that's verboten in FCC Part 97. Besides, with longwave and shortwave, you're not gonna get any better than 9600bps. Best off looking at bouncing the data off a bird in the sky (satellite).
To my knowledge, the strips where the IL-76's operated from are nowhere near capable of landing even an -empty- 747-100. The only strip that can handle a 747 landing here in San Diego county is Lindberg Field (SAN-KSAN). (I don't think a 747 has landed here in years.) Note, the CDF (California Dept. of Forestry) operates from Gliespie Field (SEE) in El Cajon/La Mesa, and from Ramona. Neither of which are rated to even land a 737.
(when I'm talking about rating, I'm meaning the wieght ratings of the tarmac and concrete for the landing strips)
I carry around an Apple iBook running OS X Panther.
Last I checked, neither Apple's or Sun's versions of OpenFirmware allow direct communication to the network chipsets.
The parent comment didn't say that it had to be a root account. Any user-level account would suffice, even one that has close to -zero- priviliges. All that would need to be done is to allow it to check a file in the user's home directory. You don't even need to give the user write permissions.
My only problem with the 'press release' is that it only uses future tense verbs to describe the product. That leads me to believe that this is still in the planning stages, and thusly will never see the light of day. Use of present tense and past tense verbs, though, would make be believe them a little more. But like most of you, I don't believe it until I see it myself.
Actually, you are mistaken. The controller can work with multiple displays, the problem resides in how the manufacturer of the controller interfaces with the LCD. From what I remember as a laptop tech for a large US/JP laptop manufacturer, we could swap LCDs, with some luck. The main limiting factor is making sure you get your (electrical) data and timing signals from the chipset to the LCD in a reasonable fashion.
You ever wonder if a laptop manufacturer uses different mainboards for different LCDs? At least with the above company, we didn't. 12.0, 13.3, 14.1, 15.0... all on the same platform. Just different LCD housings. At most, we threw a couple of DIP switches, cut identification traces on the signal cable or used a different cable.
You might want to check out EarthLCD. They carry a good number of parts for making LCD panels usable outside their original housings and configurations.
Actually, any carrier in the US (world) that uses the GSM spectra, either in the 800, 850, 1800, or 1900 MHz bands have to use the SIM cards. To my knowledge, those carriers include, but are not limited to:
Cingular AT&T Wireless T-Mobile
Nextel (the original walkie-talkie cellphone people) has been using SIM chips in the last two generations of their phones, the i35sx thru i95cl (now being phased out) and the newer, 'Condor-series' phones, the i205 thru the i730; but, these phones do not work on *any* GSM spectra, they work on the propietary iDEN network made by Motorola.
Sprint is a PCS provider. I'm unaware of any international PCS provider, either in existance, or that is compatible with Sprint PCS.
Verizon is currently CDMA 1xRTT, which is incompatible with GSM. They also do not utilize SIM chips in their handsets.
Don't you understand that the NY Times has withstood slashdotting quite a few times already? Providing a Google'd cache of the story is about as useless as the flat tire in my back yard.
Thank you to all the moderators out there that decided to flamebait my comment. It actually was my desired effect:P
Ja mata minna san!
Case Mods... Uuugh.
on
Alien Case Mod
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Honestly I'm not sure what to say about the whold case modding scene. I can understand a couple lights on the front of the case, maybe a LCD panel. But things like this make me wonder about the people who do these 'extreme' mods to their cases. I personally see (I've got my flame retardant undies on) that this is getting to be a waste of time, the whole modding scene that is. Honestly, my computer and the computers of nearly *all* of my friends never see the light of day outside their desks except for hardware upgrades. And then, it's for a very short timespan.
I'm sorry, I just have to say *uuugh*.
The problem with the pringle cans is that you get too much power out of the can, over the FCC maximum for unlicensed users on the band (ISM 2.4GHz). If you were to get a bunch of Ham radio operators, it might be more feasable.
As a former Tennesseean, and as I still have family and friends back there, I am worried about the current track on SB-213 and HB-457. Thank you Kosturko-san and Mr. Kozicki, for your quick repsonse and putting together a central information point on the bills. I'm worried though, as a Ham radio operator, that if I decide to move back to Tennessee, or even decide to travel thru Tennessee, if I overhear a transmission, or am even in posession of my gear, could the state confiscate my equipment and charge me under these bills for having telecomunication equipment that is capable of recieving a stray 49MHz analouge cordless phone call. Failing not to mention that as ham, we have primary status on the 2.4GHz ISM band (802.11b/802.11g turf). And we all know how easy it is to pick up stray packets on WiFi...:/
All that I ask is for everyone who carries or has a Voters Registration card is to contact your district Senator and Representative and ask them to vote NO on SB-213 and HB-457, respectively.
Thank you and God Bless.
P.S. Kosturko-san, I owe you a dinner at China King:)
Slashdot Mirror
Luckily where I was at the time Graybar was right down the road from where I worked :) Got all that I needed from them, including the non-impact 66-block punch for jury-rigging the 66-block for POTS service :)
Graybar customer for life :)
Jury rig a 66-block. Connect the top pair on one side, and then use extra wire (preferably from piece of cat5, you'll need about 3 feet) to punch-down to each corresponding pair below it (you'll need a 66-block punchdown tool, just make sure not to use the blade side except to trim the extra wire :P). Connect all your bridging clips to the middle posts, then the other side you'll have 25 unterminated POTS jacks. From there get cable (either standard telephone[make sure it's solid core] or raw 1-pair telco wire) and put a RJ-11 on one end and connect it to the unpopulated side of your 66-block. Should take care of you.
Actually, 100base-t requires the same 2 pair that 10base-t require. Only needs the orange and green pairs (1-2 and 3-6). Blue and brown are free for use in POTS, but I'm not sure about the crosstalk once a 90vAC current is put down the wire for the ringer on a POTS phone versus a 100base-t connection... >.>
I should have taken pictures of the Cat5e/RG-6QS runs throughout my old house. Every place that had a box got one of the following:
-Box 1---
(2) blue cat5e (data)
(1) white cat5e (voice)
(1) RG-6QS (CATV)
-Box 2---
(1) blue cat5e (data)
(1) white cat5e (voice)
(1) RG-6QS (CATV)
In an existing home (esp mine with finished drywall ceilings in the basement[Uck!]), this project for the weekend warrior could take a couple weeks. But, it now has GigE capable drops to each room in the house (at least one in -every- room, including bathrooms) (it's been spec'd out to 100Base-T, though the cable is capable of GigE).
It was all finished off with a 48-port Panduit patch panel (not cheap, but used Panduit throughout the house), connected to an inexpensive rack-mount 24-port 10/100 unmanaged switch for data (mounted in a low-depth [~8"] 4U hinged wall mount rack) and a good old 66-block for the voice (that, I'll admit is a jury-rigged setup). I also tagged a whole-house distribution amplifier from SmartHome to drive the 6 TVs (analog cable w/ one cablemodem before the amp) without any distortion in the higher channels.
All in all I believe it was a well done project and well worth the time and materials invested into it.
Something like this would make me cringe with the possibility of running afoul with the FCC for using the wireless connection for commercial purposes... What if someone were to use the wireless connection to order something (food, pizza, amazon)? That's a commercial transaction, and that's verboten in FCC Part 97. Besides, with longwave and shortwave, you're not gonna get any better than 9600bps. Best off looking at bouncing the data off a bird in the sky (satellite).
brian de kf4zwz
Yeah, Miramar can launch 747s, we've had our share of Presidential visits with Air Force One.
To my knowledge, the strips where the IL-76's operated from are nowhere near capable of landing even an -empty- 747-100. The only strip that can handle a 747 landing here in San Diego county is Lindberg Field (SAN-KSAN). (I don't think a 747 has landed here in years.) Note, the CDF (California Dept. of Forestry) operates from Gliespie Field (SEE) in El Cajon/La Mesa, and from Ramona. Neither of which are rated to even land a 737. (when I'm talking about rating, I'm meaning the wieght ratings of the tarmac and concrete for the landing strips)
And since when was Microsoft so willing to help the F/OSS community that it holds so dearly to the bottom of it's foot? Gimme a break.
I carry around an Apple iBook running OS X Panther. Last I checked, neither Apple's or Sun's versions of OpenFirmware allow direct communication to the network chipsets.
The parent comment didn't say that it had to be a root account. Any user-level account would suffice, even one that has close to -zero- priviliges. All that would need to be done is to allow it to check a file in the user's home directory. You don't even need to give the user write permissions.
My only problem with the 'press release' is that it only uses future tense verbs to describe the product. That leads me to believe that this is still in the planning stages, and thusly will never see the light of day. Use of present tense and past tense verbs, though, would make be believe them a little more. But like most of you, I don't believe it until I see it myself.
Actually, you are mistaken. The controller can work with multiple displays, the problem resides in how the manufacturer of the controller interfaces with the LCD. From what I remember as a laptop tech for a large US/JP laptop manufacturer, we could swap LCDs, with some luck. The main limiting factor is making sure you get your (electrical) data and timing signals from the chipset to the LCD in a reasonable fashion. You ever wonder if a laptop manufacturer uses different mainboards for different LCDs? At least with the above company, we didn't. 12.0, 13.3, 14.1, 15.0... all on the same platform. Just different LCD housings. At most, we threw a couple of DIP switches, cut identification traces on the signal cable or used a different cable.
You might want to check out EarthLCD. They carry a good number of parts for making LCD panels usable outside their original housings and configurations.
My apologies, corrections noted. Hopefully same mistake won't be made again (also being as I just picked up Sprint service today).
Actually, any carrier in the US (world) that uses the GSM spectra, either in the 800, 850, 1800, or 1900 MHz bands have to use the SIM cards. To my knowledge, those carriers include, but are not limited to:
Cingular
AT&T Wireless
T-Mobile
Nextel (the original walkie-talkie cellphone people) has been using SIM chips in the last two generations of their phones, the i35sx thru i95cl (now being phased out) and the newer, 'Condor-series' phones, the i205 thru the i730; but, these phones do not work on *any* GSM spectra, they work on the propietary iDEN network made by Motorola.
Sprint is a PCS provider. I'm unaware of any international PCS provider, either in existance, or that is compatible with Sprint PCS.
Verizon is currently CDMA 1xRTT, which is incompatible with GSM. They also do not utilize SIM chips in their handsets.
Didn't I see this here about a year ago? Or am I remember ign things about the XPlane project that this guy happened to be linked to?
Don't you understand that the NY Times has withstood slashdotting quite a few times already? Providing a Google'd cache of the story is about as useless as the flat tire in my back yard.
There is *already* a 'Slashdot Victims' BitTorrent tracker. Head over to http://f.scarywater.net for your favorite Slashdot victim's wares.
Ja mata.
Thank you to all the moderators out there that decided to flamebait my comment. It actually was my desired effect :P
Ja mata minna san!
Honestly I'm not sure what to say about the whold case modding scene. I can understand a couple lights on the front of the case, maybe a LCD panel. But things like this make me wonder about the people who do these 'extreme' mods to their cases. I personally see (I've got my flame retardant undies on) that this is getting to be a waste of time, the whole modding scene that is. Honestly, my computer and the computers of nearly *all* of my friends never see the light of day outside their desks except for hardware upgrades. And then, it's for a very short timespan. I'm sorry, I just have to say *uuugh*.
The problem with the pringle cans is that you get too much power out of the can, over the FCC maximum for unlicensed users on the band (ISM 2.4GHz). If you were to get a bunch of Ham radio operators, it might be more feasable.
As a former Tennesseean, and as I still have family and friends back there, I am worried about the current track on SB-213 and HB-457. :/
:)
Thank you Kosturko-san and Mr. Kozicki, for your quick repsonse and putting together a central information point on the bills.
I'm worried though, as a Ham radio operator, that if I decide to move back to Tennessee, or even decide to travel thru Tennessee, if I overhear a transmission, or am even in posession of my gear, could the state confiscate my equipment and charge me under these bills for having telecomunication equipment that is capable of recieving a stray 49MHz analouge cordless phone call. Failing not to mention that as ham, we have primary status on the 2.4GHz ISM band (802.11b/802.11g turf). And we all know how easy it is to pick up stray packets on WiFi...
All that I ask is for everyone who carries or has a Voters Registration card is to contact your district Senator and Representative and ask them to vote NO on SB-213 and HB-457, respectively.
Thank you and God Bless.
P.S. Kosturko-san, I owe you a dinner at China King