Posts by placidranger

So, Bill Gates sends out this message: "Wi-Fi on please press 1 or 0 .."?
And then nothing happens when you actually hit '1' or '0'?

Do you have any baud rate settings adjusted in your terminal program? It’s set to 9600 on the Bill Gates side—that should match the terminal too, assuming you haven't missed some other minor setting somewhere.

Maybe post the code you're uploading to the Arduino—there might be an issue buried in there somewhere.

http://www.instructables.com/id/Ardu...ecting-easily/
Is this what you're after?

The module seems to work right out of the box—no fuss there. Just drop a comment below. What exactly is the program supposed to be doing?

This code assumes you've got a potentiometer hooked up to analog 0. It pulls the current reading into a variable called val. If the value shifts from the last reading, it triggers the motor for a set number of units.

The logic expects the Stepper pins to be wired to 8, 9, 10, and 11. You’ll need to either rewire your setup to match the code or just update the code to match your wiring—your choice.

Once that's sorted, go ahead and mess around with the STEP values and try adjusting the "setSpeed (30)" call. It's the best way to actually wrap your head around how the thing behaves.

Fire up the Arduino IDE, head over to Examples, and pull up the Stepper library; just sit there and study the code. You can find a massive amount of tutorials out there specifically on how to manage steppers.

edit:
Actually, this isn't the exact same shield we discussed on the previous page.

http://www.geeetech.com/wiki/index.p...rd_for_Arduino
It uses the same ULN2003 chip—just with a slightly different pin layout—but the schematic remains identical.

Helpful enough?

Is this a wiring error or just a matter of misidentifying the leads? Red ought to be ground—that’s the center pin on the shield—followed by the others in this order:
1 blue, 2 pink, 3 yellow, 3 orange

http://www.adafruit.com/products/858#Technical_Details

coastaldrifter6 said:They arrive in a week.
The Arduino is decent enough—but honestly, the non-standard dimensions are a headache. I know I’ll have to make a run to Digi-Key for certain components, but I’m not looking to turn this into a massive project; hoping to keep the extra work to a bare minimum.
I found a mountain of sensors over on Banggood (way more variety than what you find on eBay), so I was thinking about pairing them with a GSM module if I can snag one cheap and hack together some kind of monitoring device.

If that module is designed for a standard Arduino, then it should be fine, right? Are you sure a full kit is actually better for you than just grabbing an Arduino and a shield?

I can't speak for Banggood, but it took me forever to track down specific sensors on eBay because they all go by completely different names.

Arduino! Honestly, I had no clue that was even an option. And right here in Des Moines, too. Nice.
The price for this Arduino kit seems solid—even if it looks like they’re currently out of stock. Either way, you might as well prepare for those inevitable visits from the tech enthusiasts, regardless of which kit you end up grabbing.

goldenhound32 said:McAvoy is more than capable of pulling off that kind of role. He’s got the range.

Sure, he’s a talented actor. But I can't stand how he vacillates between being pure filth and being somehow likable—only to end up landing on "likable." It’s exhausting. One minute he's a complete scumbag, then he's repenting, then he's back to being a piece of work, and suddenly it’s all chalked up to him being "sick"... What kind of sickness is that even supposed to be? Is what happened with [redacted] really so traumatic that he just loses track of his own actions? It doesn't hold water. If you name a movie Filth, you finish it with filth. Period.

And he’s really telling me that a simple oversight is his motivation for all this? I don't buy it—not for a second.

What's wrong with these guys? Honestly—they look like they were painted with a house brush instead of an actual fine art brush—but they get the job done. The only thing is, for the lead character, they used a palette.

The Sergeant is mostly fine—if you can stomach John Sessions. They function more like elements of a grotesque caricature than actual people in a real-world setting, which might have been the point. Personally, I would’ve preferred a bit more realism.

And there's something fundamentally broken with the film's pacing—it just doesn't land.

Total disaster. I’ve read Charles Bukowski—not Filth, mind you—but I really dug three or four of his other novels. Trainspotting is a masterpiece. I went into this expecting something similar to that vibe, which it technically is, but only by a slim margin. For instance, both settings are in Scotland.

The cinematography just misses the mark for me. The lighting feels off. I wasn't a fan of the soundtrack either, nor those frequent, jarring silences. The pacing is... frantic. The characters feel like caricatures. Even the twist felt unearned. And McAvoy... I don't know. He’s just not the guy for this role.

Amanda Diaz said:Look, all I was trying to get at is that if something doubles over a set period, that isn't the definition of exponential growth...

No—actually, that exact property—doubling at regular intervals—is precisely what defines exponential growth. It can be described by an exponential function with a base of two.

New industries often see exponential growth in their early stages. Just as frequently, they hit a plateau after that initial surge. That's what we call a sigmoid, or S-curve. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmoid_function

Moore's law doesn't account for that eventual slowdown toward a plateau, though—who knows where that's headed...

Amanda Diaz said:Do you still not get it? The graph of a function like that would be a straight line—just the diagonal of some imaginary rectangle—not a parabola like you see in a standard exponential equation.🤷

Oh, look at that. Someone’s heard the term "logarithmic scale" but hasn't actually wrapped their head around how it works. You're lost in the weeds here. 😬

--------------

Nobody has brought up Cryptocurrencies 3D as a major pillar of this new industrial revolution. Look, 3D printers are cool enough—even better if you can actually make money off what you print. But what if you have a global marketplace where you can operate anonymously without some middleman breathing down your neck? Banking and financial services haven't seen real innovation since credit cards hit the scene back in the sixties and seventies. We're looking at a massive boom in finance.

The "hot" technologies for the next few years—not necessarily in order of importance:

Cryptocurrencies 3D
3D printers
Arduino and its derivatives
Security and anonymity tech (Linux, Tor, Open Source in general)
Open hardware and collaborative product development platforms
Content publishing and voting platforms (Imgur, Tumblr, Reddit...)

coastaljackal2 said:I definitely agree that printers are going to play a massive role in manufacturing down the road. But, if I’m being honest... there are just way too many people jumping into this conversation who don't have the slightest clue how actual production or industrial processes work. Like someone mentioned earlier, the specific type of tech or process isn't even the main hurdle... the real challenge is the idea itself—the product. Around here, we're still struggling to master basic metalworking and fabrication. It's easy to talk about complex geometries when science fiction can dream up a perfect weld, but we're still out here trying to get the fundamentals right. We aren't even close to competing on the level of major players like Germany, Japan, or the USA...

That's exactly where 3D printing shines—the conceptual phase. It is significantly cheaper and faster to print a plastic prototype—or eventually a metal one—than to try and machine it using traditional methods. For me, the real value lies in rapid prototyping; it's about testing those initial iterations before you ever commit to mass production.

Check this out: www.localmotors.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azCRuwtE_n0

Collaborative design and engineering—all built locally.

What’s the deal with US laws regarding DIY car manufacturing?

Jerry Turner7 said:Honestly, I think your perspective is a little warped here—you're looking at innovation like it's some effortless thing that just falls into your lap, like "oh, innovation is easy, I'll just dream something up whenever."
But there's this fundamental principle—call it rocket science if you want—which is basically the reality of copying... once you finally pull off an innovation that feels like a godsend, you gain this huge window of opportunity before anyone can scan your product and churn out a cheap knockoff.🤷

Developing a product is a bloodbath—it takes forever, costs a fortune, and you have to test every single damn thing... whereas copying? That's nothing. It's a total joke.

And I really don't get why people get so hung up on the idea that we should just scrap all patents and copyrights. Is it Mercedes' fault that your old Lancia doesn't have a decent engine? Of course not. It's the Lancia's fault.
Just put in the work, spend the time and the cash, and build your own stuff. Don't waste your breath worrying about what everyone else is doing.

Fine, let's be reasonable. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. Sometimes innovations are just minor tweaks to an existing design, and other times they are multi-billion dollar endeavors. It’s the same deal with copying—sometimes you have to build an entire new factory from scratch with specialized manufacturing processes and hunt down rare experts just to replicate a competitor, while other times, all you need is a stolen CAD file. It all depends on the sector, the sophistication of the tools, the science involved, and how many people actually hold the necessary expertise...

I honestly don't get why people obsess over the idea of abolishing all patents and copyrights. Is Ford to blame because your Chevy doesn't have an equally good engine? No. It's the Chevy's fault.
Put in the work, spend the money, and develop your own stuff. Don't lose sleep over what others are doing.

If 3D printing continues its current trajectory—becoming cheaper, more precise, and capable of handling diverse materials—the entire concept of intellectual property and patent-based business models will face a reckoning. We'll see a repeat of what's currently happening with music and video, but applied to physical goods. Basically, big corporations will fail in their attempts to protect profits through sheer legal force, eventually being forced to pivot and accept the new tech.

At the same time, just as YouTube clips and indie music are being created today, we'll see public blueprints for "things" and machines that bypass patents entirely. That’s what will actually trigger the next industrial revolution.

What we really need is to let kids play around and upload their creations online, allowing them to participate in a global ecosystem of innovation and iteration.

Jerry Turner7 said:You’re being incredibly vague here.🤷

If you can just swoop in and copy every innovation anyone else makes—and they can all swoop in and copy yours—then where exactly is this "advantage" you're talking about?🤷

How does your specific innovation line your pockets while someone else's innovation somehow lines *your* pockets too? And if everyone is out there innovating, how do we not all just end up becoming identical clones doing the exact same thing?🤷

How long do you honestly think you'll hold onto that "advantage" before someone else just copies your homework?

People don't just copy random ideas—they copy what’s already winning. It's basic math. By definition, if someone is crushing it in the market, they’ve already successfully monetized their innovation. You aren't reinventing the wheel; you're just piggybacking on something that's proven to work while they're busy collecting the initial profits. Then, the cycle repeats. Next time, you'll be copying someone else. Eventually, maybe you'll actually stumble upon an innovation of your own—and then someone else will be right back where you are now, copying you.

Innovation gives you a head start—plain and simple. If you’re the one building the new tech, you get to roll it out first. That means you’re the first one to collect the checks while everyone else is still trying to figure out how you did it. It’s a race, and being early pays.

goldengull3 said:And once again, you aren't stopping anyone from setting their own terms within their own company. You sound just like those Linux enthusiasts on tech forums who spend more time weeping over conspiracy theories than actually addressing the market reality: "Look, I offer this, Microsoft offers that, Apple does this, and the consumer can decide which one fits their needs."

Sure, they can turn a profit by exploiting a patent. They get twenty years of exclusivity, and after that, everyone is free to use it. Why should you be allowed to profit off someone else's invention?

I don't doubt WIPO will find its footing once 3D printing goes mainstream; they’ll have to find ways to protect innovation eventually.

African nations can either develop their own technology or simply pay for licenses; even the South saw steady development through licensing deals with companies like Ford. If you didn't invent it, it isn't yours.

By all means, feel free to voice your opinion to the US Congress tomorrow and demand your representatives defend your stance at the EU and the UN. Once the most developed nations decide to align with your view, there won't be any trouble getting WIPO and the rest of the crew to change the rules. Until then, we operate under the current ones. And regarding 3D printing, returning to the point, it will inevitably introduce new regulations—simply because inventors tend to be quite protective of their work.

It doesn't stop them from making it available to everyone, does it? It’s quite simple, really. Much like how you have the right to develop your own word processor, release it for free, and simply watch people choose to use your software instead of Microsoft's.

Am I complaining? Maybe. I don't really care. I'll copy whatever I feel like copying, and besides, this isn't about me.
You keep suggesting things for me to do—you don't actually know what I do, and frankly, I'm not interested in telling you.

Sure, they make money by exploiting patents. They have twenty years, then after that—everyone uses it how they want. Why would you profit off someone else's invention?

Why would I profit off someone else's invention? I have no idea what you're talking about.
Actually, people regularly make legal money off other people's inventions specifically because of patent protections. If you're against that principle, how can you support the concept of corporate ownership over patents instead of individual ownership by the person who actually created the invention?

I don't doubt WIPO will find solutions once 3D printing expands, since innovation will need protection.

I have no doubt it'll be a massive failure. There just isn't a strong enough global force.

African nations can develop their own tech or use licenses; even America developed steadily using licenses from companies like Ford, for instance. If you didn't invent it, it isn't yours.

That's just lobbying to protect massive profit margins. I don't have an issue with big corporations, but I do have an issue with destroying competition through monopoly strategies. No one creates inventions out of thin air—it relies on the work of thousands of people, so no single entity has an exclusive right to the profit. Besides, the opportunity to earn comes simply from being first.

goldengull3 said:Protect the creator, plain and simple. An author holds the sole right to do whatever they please with their own work. It isn't your concern to police creations you didn't write, nor is it your business to worry about inventions where you don't hold the patent.

It’s quite simple, really. Once all five permanent members of the Security Council finally find common ground, everyone else will fall in line and cease their illicit activities, fearing the inevitable imposition of sanctions. This rampant copying we see today persists only because it serves the interests of one particular player—China. Once they achieve enough development to decide that such imitation no longer suits them—which, frankly, seems imminent—the entire landscape will shift.

Of course there will be some level of pandering; crime has been an inherent part of the human condition since the dawn of civilization.

Protect the copyright holder—which, let's be honest, is rarely the actual creator. In this industry, it's usually just a massive corporation.

Of course it's an issue for patent holders. 😁 So what? Since when did they deserve some kind of social hierarchy? You can make money off innovation without needing special privileges.

Quincy:

It's pretty straightforward—once all five permanent members of the Security Council agree, everyone will fall in line and stop their illegal activities because, well, they have the power to slap on sanctions. Copying is rampant right now simply because it suits China. Once they grow powerful enough to decide they no longer care, the landscape will shift.

Yeah... we'll see about that. It takes an incredible amount of industry lobbying to actually trigger sanctions against someone just copying industrial products.

I'm surprised you're fine with that logic. How are African nations supposed to develop if they don't build upon Western tech through imitation? Some things stay patented in the West, sure—but would it really be right to hit them with sanctions just for trying to catch up?

goldengull3 said:That is precisely why a rule of law exists—to prevent such things, much like how it prevents you from doing 120 mph on an interstate. Either you follow the law, or you commit a crime. And given how fast technology moves, detection is easier than ever; we went from fingerprinting to DNA sequencing, which has become increasingly efficient. Crime has never been more easily uncovered.

Yes, but there is absolutely nothing stopping you from developing your own inventions your way. Nothing at all. It just means you cannot meddle with inventions that someone else has protected—it’s that simple. Otherwise, you face the consequences. It's straightforward. Of course, nobody will bother you if you build something in your garage for non-profit use, but once you take it to market, that is a different story entirely.

The logic is simple: stop forcing your philosophy on everyone else and just live it. Use open-source projects, free industrial designs, royalty-free music, and independent films. Don't bypass payment when creators explicitly ask for it—whether it’s a movie ticket, a rental, or a patent license. Then everyone stays happy.

Otherwise, you have to be prepared to deal with the fallout.

Anyway, we are getting off track. 🙂

Fine, whatever. But who is this "rule of law" actually protecting? It protects the people pouring hundreds of billions into the system just to ensure they claw back an extra hundred billion in profit instead of just fifty.

Quincy:

Sure, but nothing stops you from developing your own inventions. Absolutely nothing. You just don't mess with designs that someone else has protected—it's that simple. Otherwise, you deal with the consequences. It's basic logic. No one cares if you build something in your garage for fun, but once you take it to market, that’s a different story. It’s pretty straightforward: don't force your philosophy on everyone else; just live it. Use open-source projects, free industrial designs, free music, free films—you get the idea. Don't bypass payment when creators are asking for it—whether it’s a movie ticket, a rental, or a patent license. Then everyone stays happy. [/B] Otherwise—you better be ready to face the fallout.

Alright... Mom? What is the point of this post?

Industrial piracy is already a reality. With 3D printing, it’s just going to scale up. Go ahead—try to stop some African nation from copying the engine design of a brand-new Mercedes. What are you going to do? Send in the military? Sanctions?

We aren't off-topic here; 3D printing could significantly lower industrial production costs. Look at how parts of Africa are starting to industrialize. What are we supposed to do about Somali pirates? (edit: there’s your headline in the news seven or eight years from now 🙂 )