An engineer's emergency kit business card(boldport.blogspot.co.uk)
boldport.blogspot.co.uk
An engineer's emergency kit business card
http://boldport.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/an-engineers-emergency-kit-business-card.html
78 comments
Is it the default now for individual entries on blogger.com blogs to be displayed as lightboxes, or is this just an unusual option this one user chose?
Just try reading it on an iPad. It's an absolutely miserable experience. It feels like they tried to reimplement scrolling, which, of course, they get totally wrong.
It baffles me that companies spend significant amounts of time and resources making a user experience that works great rather awful[1].
[1] See also: Flickr.
It baffles me that companies spend significant amounts of time and resources making a user experience that works great rather awful[1].
[1] See also: Flickr.
Oddly they are continuing to make it worse. For at least a year you have needed JavaScript enabled to view Blogger sites. It's a blog, why do you need JavaScript to display a loading screen! And they scroll horribly in mobile Safari too.
And now these light boxes. I don't get it.
Related to the BoldPort product though, I think electrical engineering world is world could use some better tools. Earlier in the week one of our electrical engineers spent a day helping to debug a new board. The problem ended up being a signal name was renamed in one place but not another. If the current EE design tools don't have refactoring support much less some sort of electrical "uninitialized variable" error, there must be room for improvement in these tools.
And now these light boxes. I don't get it.
Related to the BoldPort product though, I think electrical engineering world is world could use some better tools. Earlier in the week one of our electrical engineers spent a day helping to debug a new board. The problem ended up being a signal name was renamed in one place but not another. If the current EE design tools don't have refactoring support much less some sort of electrical "uninitialized variable" error, there must be room for improvement in these tools.
I can't respond to the article itself, since I can't read it, since I refuse to turn on JavaScript for random web sites. BTW HN itself works great without JavaScript.
To your point about "uninitialized variable" nets, if the net was truly a singleton it would show up as such in a netlist report. This capability existed in board design tools I used 30 years ago. What might have happened is a renamed net might have been split into two different nets. E.g. a net that connected 10 places became two nets, one to 8 places, another to 2 places. Not a singleton.
There are additional checks that netlist generation tools can do. E.g. does every net have a "driver" or "output" on it, or does it consist of all "inputs". Absence of driver can easily be flagged as an error. However, there is one wrinkle. Sometimes, nets are "busses" and are bidirectional. Each pin of the net can be either an input or an output at various times. That's harder to detect as an error.
There are many ways to avoid problems like this. Two common ones: 1) READ THE LOGS. I'd bet even money that your problem shows up in the logs as a singleton net or as a net without a driver. 2) SIMULATE. Board functional simulation has been possible for over 30 years; it's not always done. Did your engineer simulate his design? Why didn't his simulation catch the problem?
Sometimes, in board design (as in FPGA design) it's faster and certainly easier to just get 99% of the way there ahead of time and debug the final few errors on the board itself. That might be the case here, so if your company made this decision a priori, then you shouldn't be surprised if you need to spend some time debugging a few simple errors.
BTW that sort of sloppiness just wouldn't fly in chip design. Chips are usually far far far too complicated; extensive pre-tapeout simulation is de rigueur. And it takes weeks (if you have much money and a very good relationship with a fab) or months to get revised silicon. Much easier to do a few cuts and jumpers to a board than to do a silicon spin.
As to "refactoring support", most CAD systems I was familiar with didn't have an easy way to rename a net across multiple "pages" of a board design. Maybe the tools have gotten better. IMO that sort of refactoring (if done extensively) is a losing proposition anyway. You're much better off with careful attention to detail up front. You should be very careful renaming nets that cross schematic pages; you wouldn't have the problem if you carefully thought about the names before you created the schematic.
In summary, even the best tools won't help a sloppy designer.
To your point about "uninitialized variable" nets, if the net was truly a singleton it would show up as such in a netlist report. This capability existed in board design tools I used 30 years ago. What might have happened is a renamed net might have been split into two different nets. E.g. a net that connected 10 places became two nets, one to 8 places, another to 2 places. Not a singleton.
There are additional checks that netlist generation tools can do. E.g. does every net have a "driver" or "output" on it, or does it consist of all "inputs". Absence of driver can easily be flagged as an error. However, there is one wrinkle. Sometimes, nets are "busses" and are bidirectional. Each pin of the net can be either an input or an output at various times. That's harder to detect as an error.
There are many ways to avoid problems like this. Two common ones: 1) READ THE LOGS. I'd bet even money that your problem shows up in the logs as a singleton net or as a net without a driver. 2) SIMULATE. Board functional simulation has been possible for over 30 years; it's not always done. Did your engineer simulate his design? Why didn't his simulation catch the problem?
Sometimes, in board design (as in FPGA design) it's faster and certainly easier to just get 99% of the way there ahead of time and debug the final few errors on the board itself. That might be the case here, so if your company made this decision a priori, then you shouldn't be surprised if you need to spend some time debugging a few simple errors.
BTW that sort of sloppiness just wouldn't fly in chip design. Chips are usually far far far too complicated; extensive pre-tapeout simulation is de rigueur. And it takes weeks (if you have much money and a very good relationship with a fab) or months to get revised silicon. Much easier to do a few cuts and jumpers to a board than to do a silicon spin.
As to "refactoring support", most CAD systems I was familiar with didn't have an easy way to rename a net across multiple "pages" of a board design. Maybe the tools have gotten better. IMO that sort of refactoring (if done extensively) is a losing proposition anyway. You're much better off with careful attention to detail up front. You should be very careful renaming nets that cross schematic pages; you wouldn't have the problem if you carefully thought about the names before you created the schematic.
In summary, even the best tools won't help a sloppy designer.
Author of article. Someone posted a static version of the page:
> In summary, even the best tools won't help a sloppy designer.
Sloppy engineering is bad. But excusing shitty EDA tools by suggesting the engineer is sloppy is not much better. Most EDA tools are crap at DRC (static rules that only cover geometry and physical connections) and user experience. (Most engineers wouldn't have access to very expensive tools that might be better than some.) You talk about FPGAs (I'm an FPGA/Verilog expert); have you ever looked at the logs? It's getting progressively better, but wading through hundreds and thousands of warning and info messages is not exactly the most effective way to tell an engineer that something might be wrong. Sure, you can write scripts, but the tools are shit out-of-the-box in finding problems and communicating them to the engineer. This is one example, but they're equally bad at guiding the engineer to good design practices that reduces faults, as I think they should.
Circuit design tools are worse, and engineers must rely on their experience and keen eye for detail. Some engineers don't have one or both of those. Are they sloppy? Can't the tools be more intelligent to help?
I think that there is a lot to improve in this domain, and I'm trying to do that with PCBmodE. Blaming the engineer and falling into the "digital Stockholm syndrome" isn't the way forward here.
http://ajasmin.net/saved_page/an-engineers-emergency-kit-business-card.html
> In summary, even the best tools won't help a sloppy designer.
Sloppy engineering is bad. But excusing shitty EDA tools by suggesting the engineer is sloppy is not much better. Most EDA tools are crap at DRC (static rules that only cover geometry and physical connections) and user experience. (Most engineers wouldn't have access to very expensive tools that might be better than some.) You talk about FPGAs (I'm an FPGA/Verilog expert); have you ever looked at the logs? It's getting progressively better, but wading through hundreds and thousands of warning and info messages is not exactly the most effective way to tell an engineer that something might be wrong. Sure, you can write scripts, but the tools are shit out-of-the-box in finding problems and communicating them to the engineer. This is one example, but they're equally bad at guiding the engineer to good design practices that reduces faults, as I think they should.
Circuit design tools are worse, and engineers must rely on their experience and keen eye for detail. Some engineers don't have one or both of those. Are they sloppy? Can't the tools be more intelligent to help?
I think that there is a lot to improve in this domain, and I'm trying to do that with PCBmodE. Blaming the engineer and falling into the "digital Stockholm syndrome" isn't the way forward here.
As a followup, I've written a 'defence of the "sloppy" engineer' http://boldport.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/in-defense-of-sloppy-...
I've used EDA tools (both board design and chip design) for over 30 years, and in that time there's been one constant: what the designers want to accomplish is usually at (or beyond) the limit of what the tools and platforms are capable of. So yes the tools are "shitty" for what we want to accomplish tomorrow. They're superb compared to what we had yesteryear.
You might not like my "sloppy" choice of words. But IMO the difference between good engineers and mediocre ones is exactly what you called a "keen eye for detail".
I agree the tools could be, and should be, a lot better. It's a copout by the tool vendors when they produce "thousands of warning and info messages". And yet the good engineer must wade through those messages. That is part of the necessary "get on with it" attitude.
You might not like my "sloppy" choice of words. But IMO the difference between good engineers and mediocre ones is exactly what you called a "keen eye for detail".
I agree the tools could be, and should be, a lot better. It's a copout by the tool vendors when they produce "thousands of warning and info messages". And yet the good engineer must wade through those messages. That is part of the necessary "get on with it" attitude.
It displayed as the default "Microsoft Word" layout when I first viewed it (after enabling Javascript), but then, when I used the "back" keyboard shortcut to try and come back here, the page re-displayed in a lightbox. Fun.
Every blog there seems to do this by default, which means that Pocket, etc., can't read them.
Here's a reformatted copy of the article (no lightbox):
http://ajasmin.net/saved_page/an-engineers-emergency-kit-bus...
I really like the concept. Time to to make my own PCB business card.
I really like the concept. Time to to make my own PCB business card.
Typical HN negativity: someone posts a cool project and the top comment is bitching about the blog design.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I am impressed by the amount of work someone did to make this site completely unusable on iOS devices.
It loads slowly, poorly animates (what for?), scrolls abysmally, and prevents zooming in.
I'm sorry for the slightly off-topic comment, but I think this needs to be said. I long for clean, simple, readable web pages.
It loads slowly, poorly animates (what for?), scrolls abysmally, and prevents zooming in.
I'm sorry for the slightly off-topic comment, but I think this needs to be said. I long for clean, simple, readable web pages.
I'm the author and maker of this board. The blog is hosted on blogger (Google). When I decided to use blogger I wrongly assumed that it will 'just work' across platforms, but it hasn't been the case, unfortunately. There isn't much I can do in terms of configuration, and the only option is to find a new blogging platform, which I may do in the future.
I think it is because of the Blogger's "Dynamic Views" template your blog uses. Maybe another (more classic) template would be better for cross-device compatibility.
I will test that, although I'd normally expect this brand name service's back-end to handle this stuff gracefully.
Blogger is a rather poorly supported product at Google. I'm sure it's on the chopping block soon as it duplicates a lot of G+ functionality.
... and to be honest, this might not be such a bad thing. For simple articles, G+ is about a billion times better than blogger, and would make a pretty good replacement for many people.
Indeed, ideally as part of such a move, they'd enhance G+ a bit[1] to cover the areas where it's currently weaker than blogger. Then everybody would win...
[1] E.g. better support for formatting articles; curently it only supports a rather pathetic subset of markdown.
Indeed, ideally as part of such a move, they'd enhance G+ a bit[1] to cover the areas where it's currently weaker than blogger. Then everybody would win...
[1] E.g. better support for formatting articles; curently it only supports a rather pathetic subset of markdown.
You don't necessarily have to get off blogger. You can change the template to be more sane. Currently you are using the "dynamic view" template with "magazine" as the default view. If you select "classic" (the first choice in all the dynamic view templates) your blog will stop popping up light boxes by default.
Any template outside of the "dynamic view" category will be even better. Where better means to me "does not need JavaScript to display properly".
Any template outside of the "dynamic view" category will be even better. Where better means to me "does not need JavaScript to display properly".
I hate what blogger is doing, but the project is very cool.
The thing is, Mobile Safari and the Chrome on Android are perfectly good web browsers, and can render web pages pretty much exactly as can a desktop browser. Misfeatures like this are the result of pathetic platform envy. Yes, native applications have access to superior controls. No, your uncanny valley reimplementation of native UI is not cool; it's not innovative; it's bad design. It's dishonest, aggravating, and in a better world, would lead to revocation of the offender's internet license.
which leads me to mention : http://motherfuckingwebsite.com
It was referenced here yesterday and now it ranks with "Programming MutherFucker" in my brain.
It was referenced here yesterday and now it ranks with "Programming MutherFucker" in my brain.
How exactly would you get through TSA with that...
remember they almost shot and killed that MIT student that was wearing some circuits as art on her shirt
remember they almost shot and killed that MIT student that was wearing some circuits as art on her shirt
The author never expressed a wish to visit the US.
The author applied to YC which sort of implies wanting to visit the US for a few months.
If you can take a laptop through (or in fact any electronics) then in principle, this should be no problem.
"Here is a true story about a glass tty: One day an MIT hacker was in a motorcycle accident and broke his leg. He had to stay in the hospital quite a while, and got restless because he couldn't hack. Two of his friends therefore took a terminal and a modem for it to the hospital, so that he could use the computer by telephone from his hospital bed.
Now this happened some years before the spread of home computers, and computer terminals were not a familiar sight to the average person. When the two friends got to the hospital, a guard stopped them and asked what they were carrying. They explained that they wanted to take a computer terminal to their friend who was a patient.
The guard got out his list of things that patients were permitted to have in their rooms: TV, radio, electric razor, typewriter, tape player, ... no computer terminals. Computer terminals weren't on the list, so the guard wouldn't let it in. Rules are rules, you know. (This guard was clearly a droid.)
Fair enough, said the two friends, and they left again. They were frustrated, of course, because they knew that the terminal was as harmless as a TV or anything else on the list... which gave them an idea.
The next day they returned, and the same thing happened: a guard stopped them and asked what they were carrying. They said: "This is a TV typewriter!" The guard was skeptical, so they plugged it in and demonstrated it. "See? You just type on the keyboard and what you type shows up on the TV screen." Now the guard didn't stop to think about how utterly useless a typewriter would be that didn't produce any paper copies of what you typed; but this was clearly a TV typewriter, no doubt about it. So he checked his list: "A TV is all right, a typewriter is all right ... okay, take it on in!"
[Historical note: Many years ago, "Popular Electronics" published solder-it-yourself plans for a TV typewriter. Despite the essential uselessness of the device, it was an enormously popular project. Steve Ciarcia, the man behind "Byte" magazine's "Circuit Cellar" feature, resurrected this ghost in one of his books of the early 1980s. He ascribed its popularity (no doubt correctly) to the feeling of power the builder could achieve by being able to decide himself what would be shown on the TV. --ESR]
[Antihistorical note: On September 23rd, 1992, the L.A. Times ran the following bit of filler:
http://www.jargon.net/jargonfile/t/TVTypewriters.html
----
If you went ahead and assumed that TSA agents are really just cleverly projected computer algorithms (androids perhaps?), your predictions concerning their behavior probably wouldn't be far off.
Now this happened some years before the spread of home computers, and computer terminals were not a familiar sight to the average person. When the two friends got to the hospital, a guard stopped them and asked what they were carrying. They explained that they wanted to take a computer terminal to their friend who was a patient.
The guard got out his list of things that patients were permitted to have in their rooms: TV, radio, electric razor, typewriter, tape player, ... no computer terminals. Computer terminals weren't on the list, so the guard wouldn't let it in. Rules are rules, you know. (This guard was clearly a droid.)
Fair enough, said the two friends, and they left again. They were frustrated, of course, because they knew that the terminal was as harmless as a TV or anything else on the list... which gave them an idea.
The next day they returned, and the same thing happened: a guard stopped them and asked what they were carrying. They said: "This is a TV typewriter!" The guard was skeptical, so they plugged it in and demonstrated it. "See? You just type on the keyboard and what you type shows up on the TV screen." Now the guard didn't stop to think about how utterly useless a typewriter would be that didn't produce any paper copies of what you typed; but this was clearly a TV typewriter, no doubt about it. So he checked his list: "A TV is all right, a typewriter is all right ... okay, take it on in!"
[Historical note: Many years ago, "Popular Electronics" published solder-it-yourself plans for a TV typewriter. Despite the essential uselessness of the device, it was an enormously popular project. Steve Ciarcia, the man behind "Byte" magazine's "Circuit Cellar" feature, resurrected this ghost in one of his books of the early 1980s. He ascribed its popularity (no doubt correctly) to the feeling of power the builder could achieve by being able to decide himself what would be shown on the TV. --ESR]
[Antihistorical note: On September 23rd, 1992, the L.A. Times ran the following bit of filler:
Solomon Waters of Altadena, a 6-year-old first-grader, came home
from his first day of school and excitedly told his mother how he
had written on "a machine that looks like a computer -- but
without the TV screen." She asked him if it could have been a
"typewriter." "Yeah! Yeah!" he said. "That's what it was
called."
http://www.jargon.net/jargonfile/t/TVTypewriters.html
----
If you went ahead and assumed that TSA agents are really just cleverly projected computer algorithms (androids perhaps?), your predictions concerning their behavior probably wouldn't be far off.
> If you went ahead and assumed that people are really just cleverly projected computer algorithms (androids perhaps?), your predictions concerning their behavior probably wouldn't be far off.
Fixed that for you.
Fixed that for you.
Easier said than done. I have personally experienced what happens when flying with a nonstandard electronic device in your carry on and it's not an experience I would like to repeat. In my case, all I was carrying was a hardware prototype consisting of a standard Samsung touch panel + control module in a custom injection molded plastic enclosure. Basically a glorified iPad.
This resulted in me being detained for over an hour while they ran every possible test on it, inspected every single item in my carry on and even photographing every individual page in my notebook. I was then followed until I got on the plane and even had to confirm that I was on the plane before it was cleared to depart.
This was on a US domestic flight. I have flown with prototypes in Europe several times (international flights) and have never had any problems.
Either way: bringing nonstandard electronics, even things that are much less sophisticated than acceptable things like laptops etc. can cause you major headaches when the TSA is involved.
This resulted in me being detained for over an hour while they ran every possible test on it, inspected every single item in my carry on and even photographing every individual page in my notebook. I was then followed until I got on the plane and even had to confirm that I was on the plane before it was cleared to depart.
This was on a US domestic flight. I have flown with prototypes in Europe several times (international flights) and have never had any problems.
Either way: bringing nonstandard electronics, even things that are much less sophisticated than acceptable things like laptops etc. can cause you major headaches when the TSA is involved.
Just out of curiosity, how were you carrying it? I'm picturing it stuffed in your bag like most people carry an iPad.
I'm wondering if you'd be better off carrying prototypes in a separate, custom piece of luggage, like a Pelican case. Something that says 'this is expensive and important', rather than 'someone made this in a garage'.
I'm wondering if you'd be better off carrying prototypes in a separate, custom piece of luggage, like a Pelican case. Something that says 'this is expensive and important', rather than 'someone made this in a garage'.
Sorry for the late response. I carried it in a small carry-on suit case, along with my other stuff, so not in a separate custom luggage. I did take it out and put it through the scanner separately though, as one would with a laptop. It looked fairly expensive and on its own though, as it was professionally made, but if I ever have to do this again, I'll try packing it separately :)
In principle a bomb detonator is a custom piece of electronics, as a consequence, airport security has a problem with different electronics circuits.
I fully acknowledge that "custom" and "different" are not equivalent concepts, but well, that's the rationale.
I fully acknowledge that "custom" and "different" are not equivalent concepts, but well, that's the rationale.
This is the TSA we're talking about.
The laptop is on a list + the card is not on the list + it looks different = not on the list and different gets you in trouble
I'm building the DIY cellphone specifically to see what sort of TSA pushback I receive.
I've gone through with lockpicks, booze, arduinos, rpis, various components and boxes full of electronic bits. Only major issue I've encountered was accidentally packing items in a box that shipped reloading supplies.
I've gone through with lockpicks, booze, arduinos, rpis, various components and boxes full of electronic bits. Only major issue I've encountered was accidentally packing items in a box that shipped reloading supplies.
a) Citation needed. b) Aren't the TSA officers unarmed?
Citation: https://www.boston.com/news/globe/city_region/breaking_news/... It was Massachusetts state police who arrested her at gunpoint, and were completely unapologetic about freaking out and blamed the victim for being scary.
Edit: yeah, the same police force who had just freaked out over LED advertisements earlier that same year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Boston_bomb_scare
Edit: yeah, the same police force who had just freaked out over LED advertisements earlier that same year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Boston_bomb_scare
Wow that's appalling.
Major Scott Pare of the State Police: "Again, this is a serious offense ... I’m shocked and appalled that somebody would wear this type of device to an airport."
Switch out 'wear' with 'carry' and we've got a future headline starring this device! Or indeed any device with exposed wires / circuits.
Major Scott Pare of the State Police: "Again, this is a serious offense ... I’m shocked and appalled that somebody would wear this type of device to an airport."
Switch out 'wear' with 'carry' and we've got a future headline starring this device! Or indeed any device with exposed wires / circuits.
You have to admit, it is a bit like walking into a lion's den with raw meat pinned to your shirt.
Appalling that someone could be stupid enough to walk around with a flashing circuit board and carrying play-doh?
It's about as bright as carrying a realistic-looking toy gun into an airport.
It's about as bright as carrying a realistic-looking toy gun into an airport.
Because flashing circuit boards are so often used by terrorists?
Yeah, man, with big red flashing LED clock faceplates and wires of various distinct colors where you have to know the exact color wire to cut in order to deactivate the device. And when that happens, the clock has to stop at exactly 1 second remaining.
Is there some movie that's source of the cliche of needing to defuse a bomb by cutting the wire with the right color? This is so common a cliche that it must have come from somewhere.
And while I'm asking random questions, where did the cliche of the anarchist with the spherical black bomb with a fuse coming out the top come from? This icon was used for system errors on the original Mac, but it must be way older than that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomb_(symbol)
And while I'm asking random questions, where did the cliche of the anarchist with the spherical black bomb with a fuse coming out the top come from? This icon was used for system errors on the original Mac, but it must be way older than that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomb_(symbol)
Re the spherical bomb: an example from 1946: Tom & Jerry, Trap Happy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyMfR_yoEdE#t=1m59
In 1922, Buster Keaton's "Cops" features a bomb-throwing anarchist: http://images.greencine.com/images/article/keaton-bomb-2.jpg (Buster unknowingly lights his cigarette with it)
And 1919, a 'Red Scare' cartoon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Come_unto_me,_ye_opprest....
But this has got to be older, as this type of throwing bomb was obsolete in the early 1900s. There's the Haymarket affair (1886): http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/haymarket/just...
I'm guessing that's the incident that ties this bomb to political activists. But the design is a lot older; the badge of Napoleon's grenadier guards is an image of this type of bomb, but the round throwing bomb is way, way older: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ming_Dynasty_fragmentatio...
Recognisably the same bomb, from the 14th century.
In 1922, Buster Keaton's "Cops" features a bomb-throwing anarchist: http://images.greencine.com/images/article/keaton-bomb-2.jpg (Buster unknowingly lights his cigarette with it)
And 1919, a 'Red Scare' cartoon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Come_unto_me,_ye_opprest....
But this has got to be older, as this type of throwing bomb was obsolete in the early 1900s. There's the Haymarket affair (1886): http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/haymarket/just...
I'm guessing that's the incident that ties this bomb to political activists. But the design is a lot older; the badge of Napoleon's grenadier guards is an image of this type of bomb, but the round throwing bomb is way, way older: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ming_Dynasty_fragmentatio...
Recognisably the same bomb, from the 14th century.
I think it may have originated with Wargames (1983 movie starring Matthew Modine and a pretty good movie at that), but what do I know: I'm old and confused.
I think you mean Matthew Broderick. Anyway the "cut the blue wire" cliche is a lot older than that. I think I remember it from old Mission Impossible episodes on TV when I was a kid, and those were produced in the late '60s/early '70s.
According to TVTropes, under Wire Dilemma, Get Smart also had an instance of it around the same time, which leads me to believe that it was a widespread trope even then.
There is an idea that it originated in WWII, when some German bombs featured overly complicated designs that purposely didn't explode all the time, because a live bomb is arguably worse than an already exploded bomb.
There is an idea that it originated in WWII, when some German bombs featured overly complicated designs that purposely didn't explode all the time, because a live bomb is arguably worse than an already exploded bomb.
The police probably watch too much bad Hollywood movies.
The "victim" comes in to an airport, holding what looks like a malleable substance hooked to a 9 volt battery, not responding to a request as to what that was, potentially freaking out an airport employee and it is completely Boston PD's fault here? What should Boston PD have done? Gone after little harmless white MIT girl there and politely asked her what the device was? I am going by the article you sent me and all I see there is that she was arrested at gunpoint to determine whether she had a bomb or not.
After they saw she didn't have a bomb, they should have let her off. Instead they charged her with "possessing a hoax device" and threatened anyone else wearing exposed circuitry with potentially being shot.
OK. Yeah, that is where it gets arguable and gets into the realm of where lawyers and judges come into place. I don't think the Police's decision making process as far as charging is concerned is relevant here. I think if she was actually fined, it means that the law is broken and that is something the legislation should change on.
As far as the whole "potentially being shot." thing. I am unclear of what to say there. They are investigating a potential threat, if it was indeed a threat. The guns are necessary there. I am not clear how wearing an exposed circuit board connected to a 9Volt battery with what looks like putty is different from me waving a toy gun around in a bank. Should that imply that if someone had something that looked like a weapon, the cops shouldn't draw their guns? Sure, I don't disagree with the statement that not all bombs are open circuit boards. Neither are all open circuit boards bombs. How do you however practically implement an alternative solution in such a scenario? Complaining about the cops is useless unless you are bringing up a solid alternative.
As far as the whole "potentially being shot." thing. I am unclear of what to say there. They are investigating a potential threat, if it was indeed a threat. The guns are necessary there. I am not clear how wearing an exposed circuit board connected to a 9Volt battery with what looks like putty is different from me waving a toy gun around in a bank. Should that imply that if someone had something that looked like a weapon, the cops shouldn't draw their guns? Sure, I don't disagree with the statement that not all bombs are open circuit boards. Neither are all open circuit boards bombs. How do you however practically implement an alternative solution in such a scenario? Complaining about the cops is useless unless you are bringing up a solid alternative.
Circuit boards and putty are not weapons. Are you aware of any instance where circuit boards and putty were used to harm someone? Are such events a big enough problem to justify threatening law-abiding citizens with machine guns?
There is no factual basis for linking her activities to a bomb threat. Bombs do not look like that. Perhaps a bomb could look like that, but a bomb can look like anything, like a rolling suitcase.
My solution is to allow cops to step in only if they have reasonable suspicion to believe a criminal act is taking place. An unrecognized object should not be considered a weapon unless it is being used in a threatening manner. Walking around an airport should not be considered threatening behavior.
There is no factual basis for linking her activities to a bomb threat. Bombs do not look like that. Perhaps a bomb could look like that, but a bomb can look like anything, like a rolling suitcase.
My solution is to allow cops to step in only if they have reasonable suspicion to believe a criminal act is taking place. An unrecognized object should not be considered a weapon unless it is being used in a threatening manner. Walking around an airport should not be considered threatening behavior.
Plastic explosives look astonishingly like putty: http://pl.b5z.net/i/u/6070324/i/Simulated_Plastic_Explosives...
[deleted]
you don't have to carry on, you can still check in.
At first I wondered why you needed all those parts just to light an LED. Then you explained what they were for. Nicely done.
I prefer Kevin Mitnicks:
https://secure.flickr.com/photos/ranh/106709219/
https://secure.flickr.com/photos/ranh/106709219/
Obligatory link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YBxeDN4tbk
This is cool, but I like Michael Ossmann's better.
http://ossmann.blogspot.com/2011/02/throwing-star-lan-tap.ht...
PCB board for a LAN tap. Definitely one of the coolest business cards I've received- particularly at a hacker con.
http://ossmann.blogspot.com/2011/02/throwing-star-lan-tap.ht...
PCB board for a LAN tap. Definitely one of the coolest business cards I've received- particularly at a hacker con.
I think that the banana peel is a reference to this: http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/1qkd9x/secret_staircase...
Nicely done, I wonder if you could add a 555 timer with the legs pulled straight out to the sides. Not sure you could clip it and still plug it in a socket but you could rewire it 'dead bug' style.
That's a thought. I'm interested in new mechanical configurations of components, and how to hide/embed them into the board in interesting new ways.
Next on my wishlist - a business-card-sized emergency soldering iron!
https://www.sparkfun.com/products/9450
it's not business card sized, but it'd probably fit in a pocket.
Love the banana for scale reference.
What a cool idea. Hope he finds a way to make it scalable.
The most impressive board designed using PCBmodE so far in my opinion is Saar's 'lifegame' http://boldport.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/the-lifegame.html