What's next ? Evian complaining that the Public Water Works is "unfair competition" ? Or The Orkin Man complaining that City Health Depts or the CDC has no right to spray for mosquitoes because it unfairly competes with their insect control business ?
Whether or not it is actually a good idea for a city gov't to provide public Internet access (many pros and cons), Verizon's claim of "unfair competition" is absurd. Verizon et al has no guaranteed right to market any particular product free from overlap with any service that the government deems is in the public interest to provide as a gov't sponsored function. Will P.I.'s and security companies complain that the police force is unfair competition for its security and investigatory services ? Nope, no such right to assume a wide-open market exclusively for the commercial sector...
Contracting is fine, but you need to address the differences.
If you want some of the stability, you can write that into your contract, like minimum 1 year at minimum 250 8 hour days. Or you can do it by project.
As far as compensation, figure at least 1.5-3X what you would expect in a standard salaried position.
This is to cover lots of expenses, from tangible factors, like FICA (9%), health insurance (for the whole family! not cheap), retirement benefits, sick time and vacation time, etc, to less tangible factors like stability, title, overtime/exempt, etc. A typical "overhead" rate is 35% (the amount over and above the annual salary that institutions charge for FICA, benefits, etc). So it is easy to see where you need at least 1.5X your expected annual salary.
2X would be better.
Point is, make sure this "we'll put you on a consulting basis for now", isn't a ploy to short change you. If you were expecting, e.g. $70,000/year, then you want at least $50-70/hour for 2000 hours/year (which works out to be $100-140K).
My personal theory about why Gates stepped down as CEO, handing the job to Ballmer is that basically Gates is a decent guy who is just interested in technology and tinkering. His foundation (with Melinda) certainly is trying to do some good with all that money. Gates eventually grew tired of all the lying and deceiving that seems to be required (he certainly didn't lie very well in court and the DOJ). Whereas Ballmer clearly has no compunctions about lying and deceiving the public. He doesn't seem to have an ethical bone in his body. My sense was/is that Gates was sincere (however misguided or faulty his technology has been) about trying to do good things for the customer, whereas Ballmer clearly has no true interest in what is best for customer compared with his own self-interests. Gates never talked the way that Ballmer now talks...
Don't forget microwave ovens, and x-ray machines...
and IR "night" vision imagers, and probably still some video cameras (though most have gone to CCDs now).
(an Infocus LP330/335 for $450), I don't see the point of this project.
For example the LP335 is a decent, 2000 real output lumen (not maybe 3500 lumen going into an LCD panel, who knows what comes out), with XGA resolution, fancy video processing that can accept NTCS, S-Video, DVI, VGA), with a built-in line doubler, ZOOM lens, HDTV compatibility, in a nice 6lb package. The DLP will have fairly decent contrast.
The overhead+LCD will have numerous problems, like 1) huge light leakage, which will cut viewing contrast tremendously, 2) cannot be driven by NTCS/S-video without extra stuff and no linedoubler, 3) noisy fan on the overhead, 4) no zoom lens to match screen size/distance, 5) fragile "construction" in an unwieldy "package".
Darl McBride gave a speech comparing the software industry to the 'wild west' and warning companies that they must protect their intellectual property or risk being 'sacked by open source-touting bandits.'
Nevermind the legalese and who can "win" lawsuits...
I was reading a recent review of SCO's Unixware. The review seemed fair, objective and Unixware didn't come out too badly, BUT it was amply clear that the MAJOR reason that Unixware is still a product that one wouldn't be totally crazy to deploy, the MAJOR reason that Unixware could be viewed as even somewhat competitive is OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE, the OSS packages such as Samba, Apache, Open-SSH, etc that SCO "grabbed" from OSS to make Unixware a credible product.
So here we have SCO borrowing HEAVILY from OSS, not paying a dime for key, strategic software that form the basis for whether Unixware is even slightly competitive on the market, and yet SCO is crying that OSS is 1) bad for the industry, 2) is stealing their oldy-moldy SysV code. I just find that APPALLING. Those guys have no shame, really. They should be GIVING BACK to OSS something for all the software they have taken into their own products, rather than trying to claim IP rights to this SysV, invalid as their claims are. This "all TAKE, no GIVE" approach of theirs to the community is the ultimate in despicable behavior.
1) You know, it seems there were far more compilers available for DOS and OS/2 than are available for Linux.
2) To me, this says that Open Source removes software choices from the consumer in the long run,
3) which means that open source is not a good thing for the general software-consuming public.
how exactly do you get from 1) to 2) to 3) ? Geesh...
Yes, there were a LOT of compiler choices under DOS (not so many under OS/2). But that says NOTHING about Open Source REMOVING choices. In order to remove something, it has to exist first. And the fact is that not very many folks have gone to the trouble to write noteworthy C compilers for Open Source, particularly since there already exists a pretty good one (GCC). But nothing has been "removed", actively or otherwise. And just how many C compiler choices are available for Win32 ? Also not very many: Watcom is dead, Borland is basically dead.
And now how do you get from 2) to 3) ? Have a lot of choices within an environment isn't ALWAYS a good or desireable thing, and certainly not always natural. Particularly for certain core, foundation software, one doesn't necessarily want lots of choices. The compiler upon which most system software is built is certainly a candidate for this category. If Windows has 10 different system calls to open a file and Unix/Linux only has one, does that mean that Windows is better because there are more choices ?
If part of what you are saying is that in a submarket where there is a lot of money, more produce choices will be offered and florish, sure... though not always (witness Win32 and compilers, or spreadsheets or presentation software). But once again you are confusing Open Source with Free software, and Free with "generates no revenue". The Open Source software business model has not fully matured YET... but the future looks promising to many of us observers.
It may not be too many years before floppy disks are joined by DVDs. Microsoft founder Bill Gates recently predicted the DVD would be obsolete within a decade.
Gee, I don't suppose the fact that it looks like MS won the contract for having their codecs be a part of HD-DVD as anything to do with this "prediction".
It will NOT be the average consumer that will push the drive away from DVD and towards Blu-ray and HD-DVD, but rather the MPAA and Microsoft, so to: 1) have everyone buy the SAME movies and content all over again, on the new media, 2) get rid of DECSS and institute much more "unbreakable" encryption, 3) push new codecs that MS licenses, getting a constant license revenue stream and protecting it with DMCC.
Anyone remember who came out with image maps first? It's possible that Microsoft did.
No, no, image maps were part of the web long before
MS even knew what the Internet was. Netscape 1.1 and the browsers even earlier could handle image maps.
With MS successfully patenting the obvious and the ridiculous, it just might be the beginnings of real patent law reform and/or the stature of software patents, since it should be clear to the common person that the current situation is silly, stifling and not in the interest of the common good.
Microsoft's patent blitzkrieg is actually diluting the value of the US patent system. So go ahead, by filing thousands of silly patents, it should contribute to the downfall of the US patent (or at least software patent) system itself.
Its THREE pounds, display is only 800x600 10" TFT, no Xterm, and battery of "up to" 4 hours, and looks "fat" (not 0.5" thick). In short, it is no better than my (old) Toshiba Portege 3020ct, which is 2.8lbs, with 800x600 TFT, 0.4" when open (very thin). In addition the 3020ct is a fully laptop with hard disk and keyboard and could be an Xterm or run a full x86 OS.
So it is intended to address the same market, but falls very short of even old and current ultralight laptops.
No, to be different than current ultralight laptops, the remoteable display needs to be very thin, light (1lb or less), high res screen (at least 100dpi, 8.5x11"), and at least 8-10 hours to make it through the day, like a PDA. Otherwise might as well get a Tablet PC or ultralight laptop.
FYI, I already have a great Palm smartphone, a 1.8lb Toshiba libretto, an HP handheld and several ultralight laptops. The point is that this "postcard" computer is just yet another example of the ground that is already very well trodden; small, full or mostly-full featured computers that can run full OSs and are relatively friendly for traveling. Sure, fine, lets have yet another entry, though it doesn't seem like this unit is much better than a OQO or even a WinCE handheld - basically a variant of a Libretto.
But there are basically NO examples of a device that targets the ultraportable full-sized display category. Something that can replace a thin stack of papers or a magazine. Fine if they do, but I see no reason why these device have to be full-fledged computers running full OSs. I'm quite sure you'll change your tune, 1) if you actually could get a hold of one of what I'm talking about, 2) as you get older. Right now, I'm guess you're thinking something not to distant from a Gameboy SP.
What I really want: A 1lb Xterm with WiFi ...
on
HagakiPC - "Postcard" PC
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Why do we need all these architecturally heavyweight handhelds ? What I want is for the engineers to concentrate on the display/power aspect. It would be great to have a very lightweight remoteable graphics display, about as smart as an Xterm, connected via Wifi, weigh no more than 1lb, sized like a magazine (8.5x11), INCLUDING depth (no more than 0.5"), and battery life of 10 hours or more. I would probably even consider color secondary.
Can't they take the display technology from the Palm's (even Palm V), add just enough CPU and memory to make a decent performing Xterm, add Wifi and that's it. Backlight optional as long as the reflectivity is very high (like Palm V).
Perhaps pouring methanol into it would help it last 10 hours or more (but the Palm V already lasts 30 hours).
Then you could just connect up to the near compute server, with specs of your choice and just surf, read, hack, whatever, from the comfort of your sofa, your lounge chair outside, etc. Most current laptops are just too unwieldy to replace a magazine.
Transportation like on star trek is a long ways off... however we are on trak for the star trek universe... transparent aluminum in 20 years according to scotti when they went to 1985 earth... we've discovered it now...
Maybe we've "discovered" it now because Scotty DID come back to one of us and taught us...
From the beginning of my using FreeBSD (2.2), it has ALWAYS had problems with its FAT support, leading to corruption. I love FreeBSD and use it on a several dozen servers, scattered across the NorthEast states, some with uptimes approaching 2 years, all remotely administered, but I TOTALLY don't trust its FAT support and just don't use it.
Its not that FM modulation is inherently a bad idea. Its fine, though care has to be taken to avoid drift. Its that why bother to go through all these contortions and building this circuitry when you can buy a perfectly good 8-channel ADC for $100 ?
As far as isolation, that is the job of the EEG amplifier. You will need very good, high gain, stable, multi-channel isolated amplifiers with 10,000 gain, as EEG signals are very small. These will be harder to build than the VCF/FM modulator. And buying these off the shelf for cheap is less likely than buying a suitable cheap ADC.
First, lest this website get you too excited about cheap EEG via a soundcard, lets not forget that you will need a very good, high gain, stable, electrically isolated multichannel amplifier to get the EEG signals up to the point where they can be digitized.
Now, elsewhere in this post is a pointer to the notion that one can "inject light" to directly stimulate neurons. This is grossly misleading. What they fail to tell you is that the technique that they are refering to: 1) depends upon either loading up neurons with a light sensitive compound that releases neurotransmitters, or 2) genetically altering neurons to activate with light. Neither approach is going to be too feasible or attractive to any of us. The first would require constant infusions of this compound into your brains, the second, well, would you want to alter your genes so that your children's brains would be light sensitive (Gotta keep junior in the dark... Oh no, he ran out into the sun and suffered a massive seizure...) All of the mentioned techniques are for researching neuronal properties only, in the lab. Which brings us to major problem number two...
Brain tissue scatters light tremendously. You cannot penetrate more than a few fractions of a millimeter without light, even laser light, scattering all over the place and it will not penetrate the deeper layers of the brain (cortex), nevermind the countless deep structures of the brain. So all those techniques mentions were really designed for "brain slice" work in a dish, or perhaps surface activations. I don't think you want your brain sliced up in a dish just to get direct input to your brain...
The website talks about the problems of using a cheapo soundcard to do EEGs...
SoundcardEEG (scEEG) prototype
BR>
The idea
Everyone has a sound input to their computer these days. If we used it to record EEG signals, the EEG hardware itself would be simpler and cost less.
There is only one problem: Most audio systems, including sound cards, filter out frequencies below 20 Hz. The signals we want to capture are mostly below this frequency, so we can not just plug in the EEG amps and go.
There is a way to get past the filter, and it is called frequency modulation. In a frequency modulator, a varying input voltage (say EEG) is translated to an output sine wave of varying frequency.
We can for example build a modulator which takes input voltages between 1 and 2 volts and let it produce a wave as output that changes frequency between 2 kHz and 4 kHz, depending on the input. The output is still well within the audio range, but far above the 20Hz that is filtered out. It all works as long as the input signal varies at a frequency much less than 1 kHz.
When the modulated signal has been captured by the sound card, it is demodulated to its original form, in software.
That's all fine, except that is a hell of a lot of work, FM encoding frequencies below 20Hz, when pretty cheap ADC are available. Instead of all of the above, either:
1) settle on a particular sound card, like the Creative Soundblaster 64 PCI, and engineering some
trivial mods to allow it to pass 20Hz and below. Should be pretty simple.
2) If not, or in any case, just buy a cheap ADC. I bet you can find them for $50 that will talk either RS-232 serial or Parallel Printer Port or USB.
I am currently using a pretty good one that gives you EIGHT channels of 12bit Analog->digital, with USB interface and other I/O for only $110. (http://www.measurementcomputing.com/usb.html).
I would bet that you can find even cheaper. You will want more than the TWO-channels that a sound card gives you if you want to be even semi-serious about EEG.
So if you can get a decent 8-channel ADC for $110, why bother building a complicated FM-mod/demod circuit that will probably drift all over the place just to get 2-channels while chewing up all your CPU cycles to do the acquisition ?
If you ask the question "How many ophthalmologists opt for Lasik themselves ?", I think you will have your answer. (Hint: Very, very few. In fact I don't know of any, and I know many dozens of ophthalmologists, many who do research on all the problems with Lasik.)
How about the point that most people would be perfectly happy with Photoshop 4.0. No need to buy 6.0, etc. Similarly, most people would be perfectly happy with MS Word 97. No need for Word 2000, 2003, XP, etc.
The notion that the software industry can and should expect a constant stream of growth or even just stable revenue based on upgrades and otherwise selling mostly the same functionality over and over again is simply flawed. That's like Madonna expecting flat or growth of revenue based on selling Borderline version 1.0, Borderline 3.0, Borderline XP.
People have had it with constant upgrades, both software and hardware. Why exactly do I need a 3Ghz machine and Word XP when I type my letters perfectly fine with a P5-166 and Word 95 ? And with the downturn in the economy, I'm simply going to spend my smaller budgets elsewhere. Nicer to blame P2P and the boogyman instead, I suppose...
See that this "scooter replacement" was $14K was one thing... but then reading the details raised even more concern about the TCO (total cost of ownership). Sure it talks about costing only "pennies" to run, but in the "fine print", you find out the 1) the batteries need to be replaced after 200-500 charge cycles (which, if you commute with it as suggested, would mean shelling out for a new set of batteries every 2 years, and they don't mention the cost of that, but a generous guess would be $1000), 2) brushes on the motor need to be replaced regularly, 3) undoubtedly other servicing costs not even hinted at, like brakes, lubrication, tires, etc.
So what IS the real cost of this thing ?
Let's try: 20-30 miles/day * 300-360 days == 10000 miles/year.
Ok, that is barely covered by one charge cycle/day, but we'll be generous. So that is a NEW set of batteries every year. The cost of 13 new batteries and services charges must be at least $1000. The other servicing costs must be around $500/year or so, so let's say $1500/year.
Now, electricity: the thing needs 8kwh of energy per charge. I pay 12 cents/kwh from NiagraMohawk, so that's $1/day or $400/year/10000 miles, not too bad.
So the TCO for 10000 miles/year is about $2000 or 20 cents/mile. I suppose that is similar to a regular car...
Okay so, no way is it much cheaper to run than a regular car...
Most of the fuel cell prototypes proposed for laptop use and similar run on methanol, not hydrogen. This is probably because it is obviously much easier to deal with a few ounces of fluid fuel rather than a high pressure compressed tank of hydrogen. It would be lunacy to allow an average consumer to deal with a tank of compressed hydrogen that has the potential of venting into open air.
So similarly, even if a hotel would foolishly allow you to crack tap water to produce hydrogen and oxygen in your hotel room in the quantities needed without causing a fire or explosion, how would you propose to carry around these gases ? You would need a good, portable compressor to fill up a tank.
I think if you thought about it a bit, you'd realize that supplying and storing alcohols is much more simple and practical than hydrogen, for the same reasons that this whole "hydrogen economy" notion has so many problems of practicality that it will probably never happen and that biofuels (alcohols, biodiesel, etc) are much more likely.
Slashdot Mirror
What's next ? Evian complaining that the Public Water Works is "unfair competition" ? Or The Orkin Man complaining that City Health Depts or the CDC has no right to spray for mosquitoes because it unfairly competes with their insect control business ?
Whether or not it is actually a good idea for a city gov't to provide public Internet access (many pros and cons), Verizon's claim of "unfair competition" is absurd. Verizon et al has no guaranteed right to market any particular product free from overlap with any service that the government deems is in the public interest to provide as a gov't sponsored function. Will P.I.'s and security companies complain that the police force is unfair competition for its security and investigatory services ? Nope, no such right to assume a wide-open market exclusively for the commercial sector...
Contracting is fine, but you need to address the differences. If you want some of the stability, you can write that into your contract, like minimum 1 year at minimum 250 8 hour days. Or you can do it by project. As far as compensation, figure at least 1.5-3X what you would expect in a standard salaried position. This is to cover lots of expenses, from tangible factors, like FICA (9%), health insurance (for the whole family! not cheap), retirement benefits, sick time and vacation time, etc, to less tangible factors like stability, title, overtime/exempt, etc. A typical "overhead" rate is 35% (the amount over and above the annual salary that institutions charge for FICA, benefits, etc). So it is easy to see where you need at least 1.5X your expected annual salary. 2X would be better. Point is, make sure this "we'll put you on a consulting basis for now", isn't a ploy to short change you. If you were expecting, e.g. $70,000/year, then you want at least $50-70/hour for 2000 hours/year (which works out to be $100-140K).
My personal theory about why Gates stepped down as CEO, handing the job to Ballmer is that basically Gates is a decent guy who is just interested in technology and tinkering. His foundation (with Melinda) certainly is trying to do some good with all that money. Gates eventually grew tired of all the lying and deceiving that seems to be required (he certainly didn't lie very well in court and the DOJ). Whereas Ballmer clearly has no compunctions about lying and deceiving the public. He doesn't seem to have an ethical bone in his body. My sense was/is that Gates was sincere (however misguided or faulty his technology has been) about trying to do good things for the customer, whereas Ballmer clearly has no true interest in what is best for customer compared with his own self-interests. Gates never talked the way that Ballmer now talks...
Don't forget microwave ovens, and x-ray machines... and IR "night" vision imagers, and probably still some video cameras (though most have gone to CCDs now).
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&cate gory=41842&item=5133694753&rd=1
(an Infocus LP330/335 for $450), I don't see the point of this project.
For example the LP335 is a decent, 2000 real output lumen (not maybe 3500 lumen going into an LCD panel, who knows what comes out), with XGA resolution, fancy video processing that can accept NTCS, S-Video, DVI, VGA), with a built-in line doubler, ZOOM lens, HDTV compatibility, in a nice 6lb package. The DLP will have fairly decent contrast.
The overhead+LCD will have numerous problems, like 1) huge light leakage, which will cut viewing contrast tremendously, 2) cannot be driven by NTCS/S-video without extra stuff and no linedoubler, 3) noisy fan on the overhead, 4) no zoom lens to match screen size/distance, 5) fragile "construction" in an unwieldy "package".
Nevermind the legalese and who can "win" lawsuits...
I was reading a recent review of SCO's Unixware. The review seemed fair, objective and Unixware didn't come out too badly, BUT it was amply clear that the MAJOR reason that Unixware is still a product that one wouldn't be totally crazy to deploy, the MAJOR reason that Unixware could be viewed as even somewhat competitive is OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE, the OSS packages such as Samba, Apache, Open-SSH, etc that SCO "grabbed" from OSS to make Unixware a credible product.
So here we have SCO borrowing HEAVILY from OSS, not paying a dime for key, strategic software that form the basis for whether Unixware is even slightly competitive on the market, and yet SCO is crying that OSS is 1) bad for the industry, 2) is stealing their oldy-moldy SysV code. I just find that APPALLING. Those guys have no shame, really. They should be GIVING BACK to OSS something for all the software they have taken into their own products, rather than trying to claim IP rights to this SysV, invalid as their claims are. This "all TAKE, no GIVE" approach of theirs to the community is the ultimate in despicable behavior.
C'mon:
how exactly do you get from 1) to 2) to 3) ? Geesh...
Yes, there were a LOT of compiler choices under DOS (not so many under OS/2). But that says NOTHING about Open Source REMOVING choices. In order to remove something, it has to exist first. And the fact is that not very many folks have gone to the trouble to write noteworthy C compilers for Open Source, particularly since there already exists a pretty good one (GCC). But nothing has been "removed", actively or otherwise. And just how many C compiler choices are available for Win32 ? Also not very many: Watcom is dead, Borland is basically dead.
And now how do you get from 2) to 3) ? Have a lot of choices within an environment isn't ALWAYS a good or desireable thing, and certainly not always natural. Particularly for certain core, foundation software, one doesn't necessarily want lots of choices. The compiler upon which most system software is built is certainly a candidate for this category. If Windows has 10 different system calls to open a file and Unix/Linux only has one, does that mean that Windows is better because there are more choices ?
If part of what you are saying is that in a submarket where there is a lot of money, more produce choices will be offered and florish, sure... though not always (witness Win32 and compilers, or spreadsheets or presentation software). But once again you are confusing Open Source with Free software, and Free with "generates no revenue". The Open Source software business model has not fully matured YET... but the future looks promising to many of us observers.
First bit ? No more obsolete than a "core dump" or "tty, stty, getty", or dd, or C:.
Microsoft's patent blitzkrieg is actually diluting the value of the US patent system. So go ahead, by filing thousands of silly patents, it should contribute to the downfall of the US patent (or at least software patent) system itself.
Its THREE pounds, display is only 800x600 10" TFT, no Xterm, and battery of "up to" 4 hours, and looks "fat" (not 0.5" thick). In short, it is no better than my (old) Toshiba Portege 3020ct, which is 2.8lbs, with 800x600 TFT, 0.4" when open (very thin). In addition the 3020ct is a fully laptop with hard disk and keyboard and could be an Xterm or run a full x86 OS.
So it is intended to address the same market, but falls very short of even old and current ultralight laptops.
No, to be different than current ultralight laptops, the remoteable display needs to be very thin, light (1lb or less), high res screen (at least 100dpi, 8.5x11"), and at least 8-10 hours to make it through the day, like a PDA. Otherwise might as well get a Tablet PC or ultralight laptop.
FYI, I already have a great Palm smartphone, a 1.8lb Toshiba libretto, an HP handheld and several ultralight laptops. The point is that this "postcard" computer is just yet another example of the ground that is already very well trodden; small, full or mostly-full featured computers that can run full OSs and are relatively friendly for traveling. Sure, fine, lets have yet another entry, though it doesn't seem like this unit is much better than a OQO or even a WinCE handheld - basically a variant of a Libretto.
But there are basically NO examples of a device that targets the ultraportable full-sized display category. Something that can replace a thin stack of papers or a magazine. Fine if they do, but I see no reason why these device have to be full-fledged computers running full OSs. I'm quite sure you'll change your tune, 1) if you actually could get a hold of one of what I'm talking about, 2) as you get older. Right now, I'm guess you're thinking something not to distant from a Gameboy SP.
Can't they take the display technology from the Palm's (even Palm V), add just enough CPU and memory to make a decent performing Xterm, add Wifi and that's it. Backlight optional as long as the reflectivity is very high (like Palm V).
Perhaps pouring methanol into it would help it last 10 hours or more (but the Palm V already lasts 30 hours).
Then you could just connect up to the near compute server, with specs of your choice and just surf, read, hack, whatever, from the comfort of your sofa, your lounge chair outside, etc. Most current laptops are just too unwieldy to replace a magazine.
From the beginning of my using FreeBSD (2.2), it has ALWAYS had problems with its FAT support, leading to corruption. I love FreeBSD and use it on a several dozen servers, scattered across the NorthEast states, some with uptimes approaching 2 years, all remotely administered, but I TOTALLY don't trust its FAT support and just don't use it.
As far as isolation, that is the job of the EEG amplifier. You will need very good, high gain, stable, multi-channel isolated amplifiers with 10,000 gain, as EEG signals are very small. These will be harder to build than the VCF/FM modulator. And buying these off the shelf for cheap is less likely than buying a suitable cheap ADC.
Now, elsewhere in this post is a pointer to the notion that one can "inject light" to directly stimulate neurons. This is grossly misleading. What they fail to tell you is that the technique that they are refering to: 1) depends upon either loading up neurons with a light sensitive compound that releases neurotransmitters, or 2) genetically altering neurons to activate with light. Neither approach is going to be too feasible or attractive to any of us. The first would require constant infusions of this compound into your brains, the second, well, would you want to alter your genes so that your children's brains would be light sensitive (Gotta keep junior in the dark... Oh no, he ran out into the sun and suffered a massive seizure...) All of the mentioned techniques are for researching neuronal properties only, in the lab. Which brings us to major problem number two...
Brain tissue scatters light tremendously. You cannot penetrate more than a few fractions of a millimeter without light, even laser light, scattering all over the place and it will not penetrate the deeper layers of the brain (cortex), nevermind the countless deep structures of the brain. So all those techniques mentions were really designed for "brain slice" work in a dish, or perhaps surface activations. I don't think you want your brain sliced up in a dish just to get direct input to your brain...
1) settle on a particular sound card, like the Creative Soundblaster 64 PCI, and engineering some trivial mods to allow it to pass 20Hz and below. Should be pretty simple.
2) If not, or in any case, just buy a cheap ADC. I bet you can find them for $50 that will talk either RS-232 serial or Parallel Printer Port or USB.
I am currently using a pretty good one that gives you EIGHT channels of 12bit Analog->digital, with USB interface and other I/O for only $110. (http://www.measurementcomputing.com/usb.html). I would bet that you can find even cheaper. You will want more than the TWO-channels that a sound card gives you if you want to be even semi-serious about EEG.
So if you can get a decent 8-channel ADC for $110, why bother building a complicated FM-mod/demod circuit that will probably drift all over the place just to get 2-channels while chewing up all your CPU cycles to do the acquisition ?
If you ask the question "How many ophthalmologists opt for Lasik themselves ?", I think you will have your answer. (Hint: Very, very few. In fact I don't know of any, and I know many dozens of ophthalmologists, many who do research on all the problems with Lasik.)
The notion that the software industry can and should expect a constant stream of growth or even just stable revenue based on upgrades and otherwise selling mostly the same functionality over and over again is simply flawed. That's like Madonna expecting flat or growth of revenue based on selling Borderline version 1.0, Borderline 3.0, Borderline XP. People have had it with constant upgrades, both software and hardware. Why exactly do I need a 3Ghz machine and Word XP when I type my letters perfectly fine with a P5-166 and Word 95 ? And with the downturn in the economy, I'm simply going to spend my smaller budgets elsewhere. Nicer to blame P2P and the boogyman instead, I suppose...
So what IS the real cost of this thing ?
Let's try: 20-30 miles/day * 300-360 days == 10000 miles/year. Ok, that is barely covered by one charge cycle/day, but we'll be generous. So that is a NEW set of batteries every year. The cost of 13 new batteries and services charges must be at least $1000. The other servicing costs must be around $500/year or so, so let's say $1500/year.
Now, electricity: the thing needs 8kwh of energy per charge. I pay 12 cents/kwh from NiagraMohawk, so that's $1/day or $400/year/10000 miles, not too bad.
So the TCO for 10000 miles/year is about $2000 or 20 cents/mile. I suppose that is similar to a regular car... Okay so, no way is it much cheaper to run than a regular car...
And 254 meters is *exactly* 10000 inches. How about that ?
Oh wait, maybe that ain't too different than remembering that 2.54cm == 1inch after all...
We can all be "informative", its easy...
So similarly, even if a hotel would foolishly allow you to crack tap water to produce hydrogen and oxygen in your hotel room in the quantities needed without causing a fire or explosion, how would you propose to carry around these gases ? You would need a good, portable compressor to fill up a tank.
I think if you thought about it a bit, you'd realize that supplying and storing alcohols is much more simple and practical than hydrogen, for the same reasons that this whole "hydrogen economy" notion has so many problems of practicality that it will probably never happen and that biofuels (alcohols, biodiesel, etc) are much more likely.
Indeed these will actually give a reason for geeks to raid the mini-bar...