Searching \ for '[PIC]: I &' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/microchip/devices.htm?key=pic
Search entire site for: 'I &'.

No exact or substring matches. trying for part
PICList Thread
'SPI & Memory Migrains'
1999\03\05@191059 by jmnewp

flavicon
face
I seem to be having horrible troubles trying to use an X25F008 SPI flash
memory chip.  I have never used spi before, so I chose to try and use
the spi port on a PIC16C73B.  It just doesn't seem to be writing or
reading or something.  I beleive everything is right, but a second
opinion would be much appreciated.  In addition to trying with the 73b,
I tried bit banging it with an F84.  This also lead to no success.  What
could be wrong? Could I have screwed up the flash chips and just need
new ones?  Anyways, my code for just the 16C73B is here, if anyone WANTS
to take a look at my bit banging code I can send it no problem.  Also, I
read a couple weeks/months ago someone was succesfully using the bit
banging technique.  If that person might re-post that that would be
great.  Anyways, I'm really killin' myself on this one....thanks for the
input....


Jonathan






trisa           equ             0x85
trisb           equ             0x86
trisc           equ             0x87
porta           equ             0x05
portb           equ             0x06
portc           equ             0x07
status          equ             0x03
sspstat         equ             0x94
sspcon          equ             0x14
sspbuf          equ             0x13

count1          equ             0x20
count2          equ             0x21
membyte         equ             0x22
received        equ             0x23

pren            equ             b'00000110'
prog            equ             b'00000010'
read            equ             b'00000011'

rp0             equ             5
w               equ             0
f               equ             1
sspen           equ             5
bf              equ             0

#define         cs              portc,2
#define         pb              portc,0

               org             0x000
               goto            start

start:          bsf             status,rp0
               movlw           0x00                    ;teach portb outputs
               movwf           trisb
               movlw           b'10010011'
               movwf           trisc
               bcf             status,rp0
               bsf             cs                      ;cs high

               movlw           B'00010000'             ;CPOL = 1, clock = OSC/4
               movwf           SSPCON
               bsf             SSPCON,SSPEN            ;enable spi

               movlw           0xff
               movwf           portb                   ;blink LEDs on portb
               call            delay200
               call            delay200
               call            delay200
               call            delay200
               movlw           0x00
               movwf           portb
               call            delay200
               bcf             cs                      ;data sheets say clear t
hen set cs
               nop
               nop
               bsf             cs

               call            delay200

               movlw           0xAA                    ;0xAA is the byte to be
sent
               movwf           membyte

               bcf             cs                      ;select x25f008 chip
               movf            pren,w                  ;write program enable in
struction
               call            spixfr

               bsf             cs
               nop
               nop
               bcf             cs                      ;necessary to program
               movf            prog,w                  ;program instruction
               call            spixfr
               movlw           0x00                    ;address highbyte
               call            spixfr
               movlw           0x00                    ;address lowbyte
               call            spixfr
               movf            membyte,w               ;send 8-bits o' data
               call            spixfr
               nop
               nop
               nop
               nop
               nop
               bsf             cs                      ;deselect chip

w4pb:           btfsc           pb                      ;wait for push button pr
ess to read
               goto            w4pb
               call            delay200

               bcf             cs                      ;select chip
               movf            read,w                  ;read instruction
               call            spixfr
               movlw           0x00
               call            spixfr
               movlw           0x00
               call            spixfr
               call            spixfr                  ;read byte
               movwf           received
               movf            received,w
               movwf           portb                   ;display via LEDs

               bsf             cs
circle:         goto            circle



delay200:       movlw           0xff
               movwf           count2
loadcount1:     movlw           0xff
               movwf           count1
repeat1ms:      decfsz          count1,f
               goto            repeat1ms
               decfsz          count2,f
               goto            loadcount1
               nop
               nop
               nop
               nop
               nop
               nop
               nop
               return


spixfr:         movwf           SSPBUF                  ;Send byte

s_loop:         bsf             STATUS,RP0              ;Bank 1
               btfss           SSPSTAT,BF              ;Data received/xmit comp
lete?
               goto            s_loop                  ;No, go poll
               bcf             STATUS,RP0              ;Bank 0
               movf            SSPBUF,W                ;Received byte -> W
               return
               end

1999\03\06@011028 by rstickley

flavicon
face
MARK D NEWPORT wrote:
>
> I seem to be having horrible troubles trying to use an X25F008 SPI flash
> memory chip.  I have never used spi before, so I chose to try and use
> the spi port on a PIC16C73B.  It just doesn't seem to be writing or
> reading or something.  I beleive everything is right, but a second
> opinion would be much appreciated.

I believe everything is right too, except the Micro-chip app notes
and the SPI port on the 16c74 (73 too?!).  I had the same problem
with the 16c74 SPI port..tossed out the SPI stuff and bit banged
it out.  Worked like a champ and I never went back.  Somebody said
that Circuit Cellar(?) had a working version, but I never found their
code.
I don't have any code with me, let me know if you want a few simple
routines to read/write/protect/unprotect...

1999\03\06@014219 by jmnewp

flavicon
face
That would be great.  Any bit banging routines that I knew worked would
be great....I suppose if anyone wants to look at the code that I TRIED
to write for the bit banging of spi here it goes, I tried using the
serial port with this one....thanks again...


Jonathan



;is SUPPOSED to setup x25f008 flash memory chip, wait for a character
send out an "A"
;then a "B" then wait for another start bit to read from flash memory
and send it along
;with a "C".  doesn't work however, and always seems to return the 255
character (I think)
;programmed for 16F84 on a 4MHz clock.

porta           equ             0x05
portb           equ             0x06
trisa           equ             0x85
trisb           equ             0x86
status          equ             0x03
optionr         equ             0x81
tmr0            equ             0x01
intcon          equ             0x0b
fsr             equ             0x04

lowbyte         equ             0x0d
highbyte        equ             0x0c
count1          equ             0x0e
count2          equ             0x0f
sreg            equ             0x10
bitct           equ             0x11
ssr             equ             0x12
temp            equ             0x13
shiftreg        equ             0x14
shftcnt         equ             0x15
membyte         equ             0x16

w               equ             0
f               equ             1
c               equ             0                       ;carry flag
rp0             equ             5                       ;bank selction bit
gie             equ             7                       ;global interupt enable
bit
t0ie            equ             5                       ;timer interupt enable b
it
inte            equ             4                       ;rb0/int interupt enable
bit

#define         cs              portb,0
#define         sck             portb,1
#define         si              portb,2
#define         so              portb,3

#define         pb              porta,2
#define         rx              porta,3
#define         tx              porta,4


               org             0x000                   ;reset vector
               goto            start

start:          bsf             status,rp0
               movlw           b'00001110'
               movwf           trisa
               movlw           b'00001000'
               movwf           trisb
               bcf             status,rp0
               bsf             cs
               call            delay200
               bcf             cs
               nop
               nop
               bsf             cs
               nop
               nop
               bcf             cs

das:            call            rxin                    ;receive byte to be plac
ed in memory
               movwf           membyte

               movlw           .65                     ;send "A" for debugging
               call            serialout



               movlw           b'00000110'             ;issue PREN instruction
               call            spiout
               bsf             cs
               nop
               nop
               bcf             cs
               movlw           b'00000010'
               call            spiout
               movlw           0x00
               call            spiout
               call            spiout
               movf            membyte,w               ;store received characte
r in memory
               call            spiout

               movlw           .66                     ;send "B"
               call            serialout
               bsf             cs

nope:           btfsc           rx                      ;wait for next start bit
               goto            nope

               bcf             cs
               movlw           b'00000011'             ;read instruction
               call            spiout
               movlw           0x00                    ;read address
               call            spiout
               call            spiout

               call            spiin
               movf            ssr,w                   ;send stored byte back t
o serial device
               call            serialout

               movlw           .67                     ;send "C"
               call            serialout
               bsf             cs
               goto            das




;-----------------spi-out subroutine-------------
spiout:         movwf           ssr
               clrf            count1
               movlw           .8
               movwf           count1

rota:           bcf             sck
               rlf             ssr
               btfss           status,c
               bcf             so
               btfsc           status,c
               bsf             so
               bsf             sck
               decfsz          count1
               goto            rota
               return

;-----------------spi-in subroutine---------------
spiin:          clrf            ssr
               clrf            count1
               movlw           .8
               movwf           count1

rot:            bcf             sck
               btfsc           si
               bsf             status,c
               btfss           si
               bcf             status,c
               rlf             ssr
               bsf             sck
               decfsz          count1
               goto            rot
               return

;--------------------serial out----------------------
serialout:      movwf           sreg                    ;Save W to shift later.
               movlw           .10
               movwf           bitct
               bcf             status,c                ;Start bit is a 0. (clea
r carry flag)
serout_l:       btfss           status,c                ;Sending 1?
               bcf             tx                      ;No, send 0.
               btfsc           status,c                ;Sending 0?
               bsf             tx                      ;No, send 1.
               movlw           .255 - .23              ;Setup for delay.
serout_d:       addlw           1                       ;Keep increasing W
               btfss           status,c                ;until it overflows.
               goto            serout_d                ;(C must be 1 here, so p
roper stop bits are
placed in sreg.)
               rrf             sreg,f                  ;Get another bit
out:            decfsz          bitct,f                 ;Send an other bit?
               goto            serout_l                ;Yes.
               return                                  ;Done.

;---------------just a delay--------------------------
delay200:       movlw           0xff
               movwf           count2
loadcount1:     movlw           0xff
               movwf           count1
repeat1ms:      decfsz          count1,f
               goto            repeat1ms
               decfsz          count2,f
               goto            loadcount1
               return

;------------------RXin-----------------
;waits for start bit and outputs received character to
;w register

rxin:           clrf            shftcnt
               clrf            shiftreg
               clrf            count1
               movlw           .8                      ;setup bit count registe
r
               movwf           shftcnt

wait4sb:        btfsc           rx                      ;wait for start bit
               goto            wait4sb

               movlw           .16                     ;setup for 56us delay
               movwf           count1
decreg:         decfsz          count1,f
               goto            decreg

wait:           movlw           .31                     ;setup for 104us delay
               movwf           count1
decreg1:        decfsz          count1,f                ;delay
               goto            decreg1
               nop

shift:          btfsc           rx
               bsf             temp,0
               btfss           rx
               bcf             temp,0
               rrf             temp,f                  ;rotate into carry
               rrf             shiftreg,f              ;rotate out of carry
               decfsz          shftcnt,f               ;done?
               goto            wait                    ;nope

               movlw           .48                     ;wait for stop bit
               movwf           count1
decreg2:        decfsz          count1
               goto            decreg2
               movf            shiftreg,w

               return

               end






Ralph Stickley wrote:
{Quote hidden}


'[OT]: Looking for good book Delphi & DirectX'
2001\01\15@131704 by D. Schouten
flavicon
face
Hi All,

Since lot's of you guys are also developing PC software
for interfacing with external (PIC powered) devices, I
was wondering if someone could give some advise on good
books dealing with DirectX implementations in Borland Delphi.

I already own a Delphi Unleashed book which I find very
good, but very little info about DirectX.

Thanks!

Daniel...

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email spam_OUTlistservTakeThisOuTspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2001\01\15@214841 by Antonio L Benci

flavicon
picon face
part 1 1034 bytes content-type:text/plain; charset=us-ascii (decoded 7bit)

There is a "Game Programmers Guide to DirectX for Dephi". Check out
Amazon.com.

"D. Schouten" wrote:
{Quote hidden}

Nino
--
------------------------------------------------------
| Antonio (Nino) L. Benci                            |
| Professional Officer / Electronic Services Manager |
| School of Physics & Materials Engineering          |
| Monash University                                  |
| T: 61 3 9905 3649. F: 61 3 9905 3637               |
| M: 0414 924 833                                    |
------------------------------------------------------


part 2 596 bytes content-type:text/x-vcard; name=Nino.Benci.vcf; charset=us-ascii
(decoded 7bit)

begin:vcard
n:Benci;Antonio L
tel;cell:0414 924 833
tel;fax:+61 3 9905 3637
tel;home:0414 924 833
tel;work:+61 3 9905 3649
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://www.physics.monash.edu.au/~ninob
org:Monash University;School of Physics & Materials Engineering
version:2.1
email;internet:.....Nino.BenciKILLspamspam@spam@sci.monash.edu.au
title:Professional Officer/Electronic Services Manager
adr;quoted-printable:;;PO Box 27=0D=0ASchool of Physics and Materials Engineering=0D=0AMonash University;Monash University;VIC;3800;Australia
x-mozilla-cpt:;-11280
fn:Antonio L Benci
end:vcard


part 3 136 bytes
--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listservspamKILLspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body



'[AD]: Palm to PIC Communication GUI & LCD Software'
2001\11\09@014125 by Rock Thompson
picon face
The Palm makes a fantastic LCD for a microcontroller.
Additionally, the Palm can be used as a very flexible
input device and GUI.

We are offering software for Palm/microcontroller
communication, as well as modular stacking prototype
circuit boards.  See what we have at http://www.picpalm.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Find a job, post your resume.
http://careers.yahoo.com

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics



'[EE]: Does anybody know how to generate I & Q (Hil'
2002\03\02@163323 by PY2NI
flavicon
face
   Hi fellows, another tricky question.

   I'm trying to generate signals I & Q with PICs but don't have a clue how
to do. Does anybody have tips to give me??? I want to use some DSP algorithm
to accomplish this task.


Regards
Horta



Thanks to everyone helped me with MDC 1200 PROTOCOL.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
.....piclist-unsubscribe-requestKILLspamspam.....mitvma.mit.edu



'[PIC]: GALEP III & PIC16F627 LVP / HVP'
2003\02\23@143619 by Art Alto
picon face
Hello.

Is anyone here using a Galep III programmer with PIC16F627?  If so, how do you turn off the LVP bit in the configuration word so that you can use RB4 and RA5?

According to DS40300C, page 106, section 14.13, the LVP bit cannot be cleared when using LVP.  Is there a way to make Galep III use HVP on the 16F627?

I am using ver. 1.29 of the Galep III software.

Thanks.

Art Alto

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


'[PIC] WiFi & PIC'
2006\05\24@111720 by alan smith
picon face
Client has asked....possibility of doing a WiFi with a PIC.  Well...the project in discussion is for a large greenhouse facility and monitoring temps and other stuff.  I suggested something like zigbee or even Lynx type RF, but he thinks that WiFi would be an option since he wants a web based interface to monitor and control.
 
 Anyone ever come across a 802.11b/g simple interface?  I am thinking that there is alot of overhead involved to setup each node with its IP address, etc.  The interface from the PIC can be serial of some flavor, but I need the solution to be cheap and robust as well.

               
---------------------------------
Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone  calls to 30+ countries for just 2¢/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.

2006\05\24@112601 by David Challis

face picon face
Alan,

Take a look at the Lantronix WiPort.  I've used them in a number of PIC
based solutions.  Digi also has similar solution.

www.lantronix.com/device-networking/embedded-device-servers/wiport.ht
ml

Dave Challis

{Original Message removed}

2006\05\24@113614 by olin piclist

face picon face
alan smith wrote:
> Client has asked....possibility of doing a WiFi with a PIC.  Well...the
> project in discussion is for a large greenhouse facility and monitoring
> temps and other stuff.

This is doable.  One of my current projects includes WiFi from a 18F6527.

> I am thinking
> that there is alot of overhead involved to setup each node with its IP
> address, etc.

There are several things to configure, including things like the WEP key to
use.  IP address can be static or from DHCP.


******************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, (978) 742-9014.  #1 PIC
consultant in 2004 program year.  http://www.embedinc.com/products

2006\05\24@114013 by Michael Rigby-Jones

picon face


>-----Original Message-----
>From: EraseMEpiclist-bouncesspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTmit.edu [piclist-bouncesspamspam_OUTmit.edu]
>Sent: 24 May 2006 16:17
>To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
>Subject: [PIC] WiFi & PIC
>
>
>Client has asked....possibility of doing a WiFi with a PIC.  
>Well...the project in discussion is for a large greenhouse
>facility and monitoring temps and other stuff.  I suggested
>something like zigbee or even Lynx type RF, but he thinks that
>WiFi would be an option since he wants a web based interface
>to monitor and control.
>  
>  Anyone ever come across a 802.11b/g simple interface?  I am
>thinking that there is alot of overhead involved to setup each
>node with its IP address, etc.  The interface from the PIC can
>be serial of some flavor, but I need the solution to be cheap
>and robust as well.

http://www.lantronix.com/device-networking/embedded-device-servers/wiport.html

I don't suppose they are cheap though.

Regards

Mike

=======================================================================
This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The
information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by
law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must
not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any
person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have
received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use,
forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or
services.
=======================================================================

2006\05\24@114046 by Mat Clayton

picon face
Not really done anything with WiFi but looked into it a while back, this is
apparently very good.

www.amazon.com/gp/product/0750678658/104-2833052-4062356?v=glance&n=2
83155

and also check the airdrop's

http://www.edtp.com/

the schematics are available, and the source is included with the book I
believe.

Mat

{Original Message removed}

2006\05\24@121903 by alan smith

picon face
Whats your estimated hardware costs for the WiFi portion?

Olin Lathrop <@spam@olin_piclistKILLspamspamembedinc.com> wrote:  alan smith wrote:
> Client has asked....possibility of doing a WiFi with a PIC. Well...the
> project in discussion is for a large greenhouse facility and monitoring
> temps and other stuff.

This is doable. One of my current projects includes WiFi from a 18F6527.

> I am thinking
> that there is alot of overhead involved to setup each node with its IP
> address, etc.

There are several things to configure, including things like the WEP key to
use. IP address can be static or from DHCP.


******************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, (978) 742-9014. #1 PIC
consultant in 2004 program year. http://www.embedinc.com/products

2006\05\24@124857 by Mike Harrison

flavicon
face
On Wed, 24 May 2006 09:19:03 -0700 (PDT), you wrote:

>Whats your estimated hardware costs for the WiFi portion?
>
>Olin Lathrop <KILLspamolin_piclistKILLspamspamembedinc.com> wrote:  alan smith wrote:
>> Client has asked....possibility of doing a WiFi with a PIC. Well...the
>> project in discussion is for a large greenhouse facility and monitoring
>> temps and other stuff.

Wifi would probably overkill for this - a more appropriate way may be low cost sensor/transmitters
on one of the unlicensed UHF bands sending short packets every few minutes to one or more receivers,
depending on distance - the receiver could either be a PC or a data concentrator that bulks up the
data to send via wifi/GSM/GPRS etc.

2006\05\24@130804 by alan smith

picon face
I totally agree. But he wants to know why not use it...so, aside from the firmware overhead to support it, like to estimate the cost differences as well.

Mike Harrison <RemoveMEmikeTakeThisOuTspamwhitewing.co.uk> wrote:  On Wed, 24 May 2006 09:19:03 -0700 (PDT), you wrote:

>Whats your estimated hardware costs for the WiFi portion?
>
>Olin Lathrop wrote: alan smith wrote:
>> Client has asked....possibility of doing a WiFi with a PIC. Well...the
>> project in discussion is for a large greenhouse facility and monitoring
>> temps and other stuff.

Wifi would probably overkill for this - a more appropriate way may be low cost sensor/transmitters
on one of the unlicensed UHF bands sending short packets every few minutes to one or more receivers,
depending on distance - the receiver could either be a PC or a data concentrator that bulks up the
data to send via wifi/GSM/GPRS etc.

2006\05\24@132325 by Michael Rigby-Jones

picon face


>-----Original Message-----
>From: spamBeGonepiclist-bouncesspamBeGonespammit.edu [TakeThisOuTpiclist-bouncesEraseMEspamspam_OUTmit.edu]
>Sent: 24 May 2006 18:08
>To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
>Subject: Re: [PIC] WiFi & PIC
>
>
>I totally agree. But he wants to know why not use it...so,
>aside from the firmware overhead to support it, like to
>estimate the cost differences as well.
>

How about using cheap unlicensed transceivers in the sensors that talk to a wifi equiped base-station?  This could be an embedded PC to simplify code development and gives the wireless web browser access that he wants.

Regards

Mike

=======================================================================
This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The
information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by
law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must
not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any
person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have
received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use,
forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or
services.
=======================================================================

2006\05\24@132346 by Mark Rages

face picon face
On 5/24/06, alan smith <RemoveMEmicro_eng2spamTakeThisOuTyahoo.com> wrote:
> Client has asked....possibility of doing a WiFi with a PIC.  Well...the project in discussion is for a large greenhouse facility and monitoring temps and other stuff.  I suggested something like zigbee or even Lynx type RF, but he thinks that WiFi would be an option since he wants a web based interface to monitor and control.
>
>   Anyone ever come across a 802.11b/g simple interface?  I am thinking that there is alot of overhead involved to setup each node with its IP address, etc.  The interface from the PIC can be serial of some flavor, but I need the solution to be cheap and robust as well.
>


It's crazy overkill, but you could use the Linksys WRT54GL router.  It
runs Linux, and has all that Wi-Fi stuff built in.  $70 each.

Regards,
Mark
markrages@gmail
--
You think that it is a secret, but it never has been one.
 - fortune cookie

2006\05\24@133749 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
Mike Harrison wrote:
> On Wed, 24 May 2006 09:19:03 -0700 (PDT), you wrote:
>
>  
>> Whats your estimated hardware costs for the WiFi portion?
>>
>> Olin Lathrop <olin_piclistEraseMEspam.....embedinc.com> wrote:  alan smith wrote:
>>    
>>> Client has asked....possibility of doing a WiFi with a PIC. Well...the
>>> project in discussion is for a large greenhouse facility and monitoring
>>> temps and other stuff.
>>>      
>
> Wifi would probably overkill for this - a more appropriate way may be low cost sensor/transmitters
> on one of the unlicensed UHF bands sending short packets every few minutes to one or more receivers,
> depending on distance - the receiver could either be a PC or a data concentrator that bulks up the
> data to send via wifi/GSM/GPRS etc.
>
>  
I agree. These tiny transceivers operate in the 433Mhz band, and are
quite reliable within 1/4mile. A PIC would provide packeting for
each data transfer (start char + data + CRC + term char) and another PIC
would unwrap the data and stuff it into a host PC through a
serial port. This would be very inexpensive, just a few dollars per
station. You could make it even cheaper by sending the packet only
at random intervals; for example, if the intent was to poll 16 stations
every minute, you could packet data for the last 3 intervals, then
send it at RANDOM intervals once a minute. Its always possible that two
stations would send on top of each other, but since the data
is triplicated, nothing will be lost. The receiving station would simply
receive packets and install them into a database, and toss duplicated
data. To make this work, the packet length has to be short and the
interval must have a lot of dead air. Even more reliable if the interval
is longer, such as 15 minutes. A simple encryption scheme can be
devised, such as substitution cypher, bit rotation, etc.

I hope I didn't get too far off the subject.

In general, I am not enthused about PC wireless schemes. I and some
associates looked into these for a police data dump station, and
the results were NOT heartwarming; not one method was free from hacking.
Personally, I think that IEEE803 etc was a plot hatched by
the NSA/IRS/FBI cabal to easily read everybody's computers by simply
parking in the front driveway and hacking in. It is INCREDIBLY
easy to hack.

--Bob

2006\05\24@134543 by alan smith

picon face
Too big...physically, and too expensive.

Mark Rages <EraseMEmarkragesspamgmail.com> wrote:  


It's crazy overkill, but you could use the Linksys WRT54GL router. It
runs Linux, and has all that Wi-Fi stuff built in. $70 each.

Regards,
Mark
markrages@gmail
--
You think that it is a secret, but it never has been one.
- fortune cookie

2006\05\24@134607 by alan smith

picon face
That is exactly the approach I want to use.

Michael Rigby-Jones <RemoveMEMichael.Rigby-JonesEraseMEspamEraseMEbookham.com> wrote:  

>{Original Message removed}

2006\05\24@135642 by Charles Craft

picon face
A google search on "802.11b transceiver" shows lots of chip sets.
You might find a demo board in there that fits your needs.

Or if you go with an off the shelf solution, what about a USB 802.11b adapter instead of the PCMCIA cards?

{Original Message removed}

2006\05\24@140949 by David VanHorn

picon face
I agree, there's no need to burden each sensor with the cost/complexity of
wi-fi.
Just use aloha protocol with error checking, and at some central point, do
the internet interface once.

2006\05\24@142507 by Kevin Lineberry

picon face
This is not possible.
Wifi is 2.4 GHz
Pic is less than 100MHz
Therefore, you cannot implement a wifi device with a pic.

               
---------------------------------
Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone  calls to 30+ countries for just 2¢/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.

2006\05\24@142536 by Bernd Rüter

flavicon
face
part 0 44 bytes
his is a multi-part message in MIME format.
part 1 2827 bytes content-type:text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed (decoded 7bit)

Look at this:

http://www.enocean.de

nice little parts, low power, and they are build for facility-management !



Bob Axtell schrieb:
{Quote hidden}


part 2 375 bytes content-type:text/x-vcard; charset=utf-8;
(decoded 7bit)

begin:vcard
fn;quoted-printable:Bernd R=C3=BCter
n;quoted-printable:R=C3=BCter;Bernd
org:Promaxx;Entwicklung
adr;quoted-printable;dom:;;W=C3=BClferoder Stra=C3=9Fe 10;Hannover;;30539
email;internet:RemoveMEbernd.rueterTakeThisOuTspamspampromaxx.net
title:Dipl.-Ing.
tel;work:+49 511 3746207
tel;fax:+49 511 3746208
url:http://www.promaxx.net
version:2.1
end:vcard



part 3 35 bytes content-type:text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
(decoded 7bit)

2006\05\24@143538 by Michael Rigby-Jones

picon face


>-----Original Message-----
>From: EraseMEpiclist-bouncesspamspamspamBeGonemit.edu [RemoveMEpiclist-bouncesKILLspamspammit.edu]
>Sent: 24 May 2006 19:25
>To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
>Subject: Re: [PIC] WiFi & PIC
>
>
>This is not possible.
>Wifi is 2.4 GHz
>Pic is less than 100MHz
>Therefore, you cannot implement a wifi device with a pic.

2.4GHz is simply the RF carrier frequency which has nothing to do with the clock rate of a PIC.  The OP simply wants (or doesn't, as the case may be!) to be able to control a WiFi device with a PIC, not build one from scratch with a PIC generating the RF.

Regards

Mike

=======================================================================
This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The
information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by
law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must
not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any
person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have
received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use,
forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or
services.
=======================================================================

2006\05\24@144805 by Vasile Surducan

face picon face
On 5/24/06, alan smith <micro_eng2STOPspamspamspam_OUTyahoo.com> wrote:
> Client has asked....possibility of doing a WiFi with a PIC.


My opinion after some time struggling with WIMAX with a real DSP core
(2.4GHz): WIFI with a PIC at 54Mbps 802.11b/g = zero chances if
the transciever hardware is not doing everything and the PIC almost nothing.
Doing Zigbee at slow speed with a PIC have 100% chance if a good
transciever chip is chosen.


greetings,
Vasile

Well...the project in discussion is for a large greenhouse facility
and monitoring temps and other stuff.  I suggested something like
zigbee or even Lynx type RF, but he thinks that WiFi would be an
option since he wants a web based interface to monitor and control.
>
>  Anyone ever come across a 802.11b/g simple interface?  I am thinking that there is alot of overhead involved to setup each node with its IP address, etc.  The interface from the PIC can be serial of some flavor, but I need the solution to be cheap and robust as well.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone  calls to 30+ countries for just 2¢/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
>

2006\05\24@145123 by olin piclist

face picon face
alan smith wrote:
> Whats your estimated hardware costs for the WiFi portion?

I don't know since it has never been broken out.  The parts we are using
that are only for WiFi are pretty much just the compact flash connector and
the compact flash WiFi card.


******************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, (978) 742-9014.  #1 PIC
consultant in 2004 program year.  http://www.embedinc.com/products

2006\05\24@145738 by olin piclist

face picon face
Mike Harrison wrote:
> Wifi would probably overkill for this - a more appropriate way may be
> low cost sensor/transmitters on one of the unlicensed UHF bands sending
> short packets every few minutes to one or more receivers, depending on
> distance - the receiver could either be a PC or a data concentrator
> that bulks up the data to send via wifi/GSM/GPRS etc.

That's actually what our WiFi gizmo is a receiver for.  Normally the
receivers are connected to wired ethernet, but they want to have a WiFi
option.  The real job of the gizmo is to receive periodic transmissions from
up to a few 100 little transmitters scattered about.  These use 434MHz in
the ISM band, and run for well over a year on two button cells.  The
existing full featured tags have a 16F630 in them, and the new single-use
version they just came out with has a 10F202 controlling it, so you can see
it's not that complicated.


******************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, (978) 742-9014.  #1 PIC
consultant in 2004 program year.  http://www.embedinc.com/products

2006\05\24@150816 by olin piclist

face picon face
alan smith wrote:
>> How about using cheap unlicensed transceivers in the sensors that talk
>> to a wifi equiped base-station? This could be an embedded PC to
>> simplify code development and gives the wireless web browser access
>> that he wants.
>
> That is exactly the approach I want to use.

That is the approach we are using, except that a PC is not needed.  We are
using a 30F3010 to interpret the analog data from two RF receivers, and a
18F6527 to handle external communications, which can be RS-232, wired
ethernet, or WiFi.


******************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, (978) 742-9014.  #1 PIC
consultant in 2004 program year.  http://www.embedinc.com/products

2006\05\24@151253 by Marcel Birthelmer

picon face
Well considering you can run wifi on a PC with less than 2.4GHz CPU clock,
I'd say that the only thing you've proven is that you can't bit-bang
wireless. But using dedicated hardware to do it, it's certainly possible (as
olin has stated).
- Marcel

On 5/24/06, Kevin Lineberry <spamBeGonekelineberrySTOPspamspamEraseMEyahoo.com> wrote:
>
> This is not possible.
> Wifi is 2.4 GHz
> Pic is less than 100MHz
> Therefore, you cannot implement a wifi device with a pic.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone  calls to 30+ countries for just
> 2¢/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
>

2006\05\24@151315 by olin piclist

face picon face
Kevin Lineberry wrote:
> This is not possible.
> Wifi is 2.4 GHz
> Pic is less than 100MHz
> Therefore, you cannot implement a wifi device with a pic.

This is complete nonsense.  The WiFi *carrier* frequency has absolutely
nothing to do with the PIC clock frequency or the data rate requirements.


******************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, (978) 742-9014.  #1 PIC
consultant in 2004 program year.  http://www.embedinc.com/products

2006\05\24@154911 by alan smith

picon face
OK...I wasnt sure if you were doing a chip level solution, or off the shelf (latter obviously and easier).

Olin Lathrop <KILLspamolin_piclistspamBeGonespamembedinc.com> wrote:  alan smith wrote:
> Whats your estimated hardware costs for the WiFi portion?

I don't know since it has never been broken out. The parts we are using
that are only for WiFi are pretty much just the compact flash connector and
the compact flash WiFi card.


******************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, (978) 742-9014. #1 PIC
consultant in 2004 program year. http://www.embedinc.com/products

2006\05\24@155201 by Robert Young

picon face
>
> This is not possible.
> Wifi is 2.4 GHz
> Pic is less than 100MHz
> Therefore, you cannot implement a wifi device with a pic.
>
Not to be too cruel, but ROFL...

2.4GHz is the carrier frequency, not the data rate.

Rob

2006\05\24@171046 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Wed, 2006-05-24 at 10:37 -0700, Bob Axtell wrote:
> In general, I am not enthused about PC wireless schemes. I and some
> associates looked into these for a police data dump station, and
> the results were NOT heartwarming; not one method was free from hacking.
> Personally, I think that IEEE803 etc was a plot hatched by
> the NSA/IRS/FBI cabal to easily read everybody's computers by simply
> parking in the front driveway and hacking in. It is INCREDIBLY
> easy to hack.

True, but it's also incredibly easy to make very secure. Buy the right
router and wrap VPN around the wireless connection (all the software
support is in Windows), as secure as you'd like.

TTYL

2006\05\24@172253 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Wed, 2006-05-24 at 13:56 -0400, Charles Craft wrote:
> A google search on "802.11b transceiver" shows lots of chip sets.
> You might find a demo board in there that fits your needs.
>
> Or if you go with an off the shelf solution, what about a USB 802.11b adapter instead of the PCMCIA cards?

Generally PC WiFi adapters, be they USB, PCMCIA or PCI, are very "dumb",
and offload a MAJOR portion of work on the PC's driver.

There are exceptions of course, and aiming for adapters that are used on
less powerful devices (i.e. CF or SD WiFi cards meant for PDAs) can
drastically reduce the software support.

Another option, although too big for the op, is WiFi routers. They are
so cheap today I often see them on sale for $10. Some of them have
wireless client capability, meaning they basically act as an Ethernet to
wireless bridge, connecting to a normal access point. I've got one at
home that works very well.

TTYL

2006\05\24@174336 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
Herbert Graf wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-05-24 at 10:37 -0700, Bob Axtell wrote:
>  
>> In general, I am not enthused about PC wireless schemes. I and some
>> associates looked into these for a police data dump station, and
>> the results were NOT heartwarming; not one method was free from hacking.
>> Personally, I think that IEEE803 etc was a plot hatched by
>> the NSA/IRS/FBI cabal to easily read everybody's computers by simply
>> parking in the front driveway and hacking in. It is INCREDIBLY
>> easy to hack.
>>    
>
> True, but it's also incredibly easy to make very secure. Buy the right
> router and wrap VPN around the wireless connection (all the software
> support is in Windows), as secure as you'd like.
>
> TTYL
>
>  
I agree. But police employees are not capable of doing that with any
degree of reliability.
The possible consequences far outway the possibility of immeasurable
damage. Imagine
reporters having complete access to secret surveillance image files
through hacking. Boggles
the mind.

Don't get me wrong, I love gadgets. But unforeseen things go wrong....
constantly.

--Bob

2006\05\24@191332 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Wed, 2006-05-24 at 14:42 -0700, Bob Axtell wrote:
> I agree. But police employees are not capable of doing that with any
> degree of reliability.

Of course they can. VPN is VERY popular these days, presenting a login
screen is something ANY computer user is used to.

Of course, their IT department needs to set up the computer, but that's
done anyways.

> The possible consequences far outway the possibility of immeasurable
> damage. Imagine
> reporters having complete access to secret surveillance image files
> through hacking. Boggles
> the mind.

Since it's clearly a very illegal activity it's unlikely any respectable
news organization would do something like that much.

That said, wrapping a VPN around the connection would pretty much
eliminate that problem.

Ignoring all this, that sort of information has been stolen for decades
through other means, adding wireless to the mix wouldn't have much
effect.

TTYL

2006\05\24@195400 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
Herbert Graf wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-05-24 at 14:42 -0700, Bob Axtell wrote:
>  
>> I agree. But police employees are not capable of doing that with any
>> degree of reliability.
>>    
>
> Of course they can. VPN is VERY popular these days, presenting a login
> screen is something ANY computer user is used to.
>
> Of course, their IT department needs to set up the computer, but that's
> done anyways.
>  
Yes, they CAN do it. Apparently you have never worked with a government
agency before. Believe
me, Murphy was overly optimistic.
{Quote hidden}

Of course its illegal. But here in the states- these days- reporters win
Pulitzer prizes for exposing the
nation's highest secrets, and nobody in the liberal media goes to jail.
Its a different world. Surreal,
strange. Trust me, they would take it and run with it.

The Constitution says "legal tender will be gold and silver coin". It
has never been repealed,
yet not one penny of US currency is backed by gold or silver in any
form, coin or bullion.

> That said, wrapping a VPN around the connection would pretty much
> eliminate that problem.
>
> Ignoring all this, that sort of information has been stolen for decades
> through other means, adding wireless to the mix wouldn't have much
> effect.
>  
Yes, and there is almost always a trail. Stealing wireless signals at
the source leaves no trail
whatever.

--Bob
> TTYL
>
>  

2006\05\25@042539 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>Look at this:
>
> http://www.enocean.de
>
>nice little parts, low power, and they are build for facility-management !

Not only that, but the last picture on the transceiver page shows their
block connected to an ICD2 !!!

2006\05\25@111327 by Vasile Surducan

face picon face
On 5/24/06, alan smith <EraseMEmicro_eng2spamEraseMEyahoo.com> wrote:
> OK...I wasnt sure if you were doing a chip level solution, or off the shelf (latter obviously and easier).
>
> Olin Lathrop <@spam@olin_piclist@spam@spamspam_OUTembedinc.com> wrote:  alan smith wrote:
> > Whats your estimated hardware costs for the WiFi portion?
>
> I don't know since it has never been broken out. The parts we are using
> that are only for WiFi are pretty much just the compact flash connector and
> the compact flash WiFi card.

Yes, but this means the RF project belongs to someone else, you have
no control on that side and you depend from those RF design, BER, SNR,
etc, etc, etc.
As long you've change the RF part you must made changes in your
project too, including firmeare because there are many differences in
RF desighns even the connector is the same.
And again I don't think you're able to use the entire bandwith
(54Mbps) that 802.11 a/g recommend.


greetings,
Vasile


>
>
> ******************************************************************
> Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, (978) 742-9014. #1 PIC
> consultant in 2004 program year. http://www.embedinc.com/products
> -

2006\05\25@122040 by Maarten Hofman

face picon face
>
> And again I don't think you're able to use the entire bandwith
> (54Mbps) that 802.11 a/g recommend.


I never knew that 802.11a/g recommended a certain bandwidth usage... I
always thought that this was up to the person. You mean I will have to keep
sending data/receiving data with my laptop continuously, or I am not within
recommendations of the standard? As far as I know, 802.11a rarely manages to
get 54 Mbps anyway, it peaks more around 20-30.

But maybe you meant that since the PICmicro can't provide 54 Mbps, the
system wouldn't be able to transmit at that speed either. However, the
configuration as described, with the WiFi system on an SD card, should
easily be able to send the data at any speed (also 54 Mbps). There might
just be a larger gap between the packets if a PICmicro is providing the
data, and the PICmicro might have to drop some packets if it is sent a
continuous data stream at that speed.

Greetings,
Maarten Hofman.

2006\05\25@122209 by olin piclist

face picon face
Vasile Surducan wrote:
>> I don't know since it has never been broken out. The parts we are using
>> that are only for WiFi are pretty much just the compact flash
>> connector and
>> the compact flash WiFi card.
>
> Yes, but this means the RF project belongs to someone else,

Exactly!  Getting all those details right and properly certified by
regulatory agencies is a *major* job.  The volumes of compact flash Wifi
cards are high enough that you can get them for a very reasonable markup
over production cost.  You really really don't want to try designing your
own just to have WiFi connectivity in a bigger product.

> you have
> no control on that side and you depend from those RF design, BER, SNR,
> etc, etc, etc.

Right.  Someone else has already invented the wheel, designed a product
around it, dealt with the wheel police, and is producing them in volume at a
good price.  Since my end product just uses wheels to get a bigger job done,
it would be really silly to try and design and produce my own.

> As long you've change the RF part you must made changes in your
> project too, including firmeare because there are many differences in
> RF desighns even the connector is the same.

I'm not quite sure what you are saying, but we are working with CF cards
that all use the same popular chipset.

> And again I don't think you're able to use the entire bandwith
> (54Mbps) that 802.11 a/g recommend.

No, and I don't want to.  The overall datarate of this product is something
a PIC can handle.  The reason for WiFi is easier and cheaper installation.


******************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, (978) 742-9014.  #1 PIC
consultant in 2004 program year.  http://www.embedinc.com/products

2006\05\27@034049 by Vasile Surducan

face picon face
On 5/25/06, Olin Lathrop <spamBeGoneolin_piclistspamKILLspamembedinc.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

Intercept the RF with an atenna. Connect the antenna with a spectrum analyzer
(a real one not those made by PCMCIA WIFI card + a software program).
Change the CF WIMAX card and see what you'll see.
It's the same CF card, the same 802.11 standard and the way of flowing packs
are completely different, the SNR (or SFDR) is different, the EVM is
different and the efect you may see is just one: this CF works, the
other CF works too but
slowly, and closer to the router...

Vasile


{Quote hidden}

> -

2006\05\27@034658 by Vasile Surducan

face picon face
On 5/27/06, Vasile Surducan <.....piclist9spam_OUTspamgmail.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

WIFI (not yet WIMAX)

and see what you'll see.
{Quote hidden}


'[OT]: HAI & list moderation (was: RE: [OT]:: Depre'
2007\01\27@002942 by Vitaliy
flavicon
face
James Newtons Massmind wrote:
> Show me any religion that stops with those and does not mention a super
> natural being, force or power.

Lisa Simpson's religion?

> More specifically, show me a religion that
> does not include something that is "un-knowable" and a requirement that
> you
> throw logic to the winds and accept this super-natural thing as fact
> without
> proof.

I am a believer, but I do not accept the concept of "blind faith." I dont
subscribe to the statement that you must "throw logic to the winds" when it
comes to faith. As Russell has pointed out, certain religions make much more
sense than our current understanding of reality.

> I don't know HAI, so I can't say, but teachings and facilitators don't
> strike me as religious and neither do the stated goals. Now, if it turns
> out
> that as you get into it, the teachings and facilitators start asking you
> to
> accept things that make no sense based on their word alone, then I would
> about face so fast it would make your neck snap. But that's just me.

According to Dave, HAI intentionally maintains a level of secrecy,
supposedly to keep the newcomers from making "safer" choices. Also according
to Dave, he and his wife attended the Level 1 workshop in the nude, and
talks about "intimately touching another man" during the "magic weekend."
Does this make sense to you?

The premise is, "when you get there, you'll understand." I bet Russell can
argue the same thing about a personal relationship with... err... to quote
another Simpson, "a Jewish carpenter who lived 2000 years ago."

>> And doesn't
>> Christian Science that you have recently mentioned, have
>> different "levels", too?
>
> As does the military, the government, the Masons and most families. I
> don't
> see how that relates.

My point is, levels are an attribute of many of the world's religions, and
we are trying to establish whether HAI is a religion or not. Of course, I
meant to say "Church of Scientology", not "Christian Science." I understand
what you're saying, though -- having different "levels" does not necessarily
mean an organization should be classified as a "religion." Rather, IMHO,
it's definted by a set of attributes (none of them 100% essential). For
example, your narrow definition of religion does not cover all belief
systems and worldviews that are referred to as "religions."

Masons believe in a Supreme Being, by the way (which makes them a religion
by your definition).

HOWEVER, that's not what I was arguing at all. Call it whatever you want, I
was just asking Dave to explain how HAI is different from a religion, as far
as this list is concerned. HAI has its own dogmas (ideology, whatever you
call it) which he feels free to (and you let him to) express here. Would you
let a Buddhist talk about the Four Noble Truths, or the Noble Eightfold
Path?

> As a list owner, I get to set the rules and define the words.

Yes, this is what it boils down to.

> The forbidden
> here is discussion of what can not be known. Things that will not reveal
> themselves to confirmable tests and studies.

Can you prove your love for your wife? Or subject it to confirmable tests
and studies?

> That includes systems that are
> so complex that they can not be fully understood, such as extreme
> political
> issues, ethical questions and moral guidelines. Primarily, things that can
> not be known, and that people fervently claim to know are not good
> subjects
> for discussion in any forum. And by banning them here, we have created a
> place where most conversations are peaceful and informative.

See above for information regarding who gets to set the rules and define
what can and cannot be known.

>> It seems a bit strange that James condones and even actively
>> participates in discussions of this kind. In my opinion, we
>> should stick to the rules (no politics, no religion), or, per
>> Dave's own suggestion, give the [WOT] tag an official status.
>
> You are welcome to become an admin, learn the ropes, and then run the list
> as you see fit.

This is an invitation for me to admit that I do not posess the skills
required to administer the list (nor the time to do it), and to acknowledge
your indispensability (both statements are true).

I appreciate your committment and the sacrifices you make (really), and I
think you are doing a great job (seriously). I would definitely prefer that
you keep the job.

However, I also think that sometimes you are being inconsistent in your
application of the rules, and I reserve the right to voice my opinion
regarding this subject, as well as others, including (but not limited to)
polyamory, homosexuality, poligamy, and mahogany. What you do with that
opinion is up to you.

Of course, I realize there may be a price to pay for my dissent (would not
be the first, or hopefully, the last time), but I feel like a coward when I
go against my convictions, and I don't like the feeling. What's the worst
thing that can happen, anyway? :)

> I've been doing it more than long enough.

As with any job, relationship, or hobby, you must be getting more out than
you're putting in. And if all of a sudden you decide you've had enough, it
would be because the equation changed, certainly not because of one (or a
handful of) dissenting person(s).

My very best regards,

Vitaliy

2007\01\27@012302 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 1/27/07, Vitaliy <TakeThisOuTspamKILLspamspamspammaksimov.org> wrote:
> James Newtons Massmind wrote:
> > As a list owner, I get to set the rules and define the words.
>
> Yes, this is what it boils down to.

So we have to agree that there is no democracy process here even
though the following rules set by Jame the God of the PIClist is
very ambiguous. I believe the rules are set in such a way so that
he can explain it in his favor.

> > The forbidden
> > here is discussion of what can not be known. Things that will not reveal
> > themselves to confirmable tests and studies.

It is very hard to define "can not be known". That is very subjective. To a
free thinker like me, any supernature things are non-existent and it is
"known" to me. To one firmly belive in certain religion, the God they
believe is known to them.

>
> However, I also think that sometimes you are being inconsistent in your
> application of the rules, and I reserve the right to voice my opinion
> regarding this subject, as well as others, including (but not limited to)
> polyamory, homosexuality, poligamy, and mahogany. What you do with that
> opinion is up to you.
>

The truth is that James is a human being and a human being can not
be always consistent.

So the best approach is to ignore those topics and let people indulged in the
[WOT] topics continue their topics. Sometime they do become interesting
even though one may not agree with what they say.

2007\01\27@014344 by David VanHorn

picon face
>
> According to Dave, HAI intentionally maintains a level of secrecy,
> supposedly to keep the newcomers from making "safer" choices.


I probably need to illuminate this a bit.
Let's say you're starting an exercise.  You would typically be asked to pick
a partner, and given some sort of guidance on what sort of partner, like
"same sex", "opposite sex", "someone you wouldn't normally choose", or
something like that..  At this point, you don't know what the exercise will
be.  The point of this part of it is to get you past the fear of approaching
people in this context.



> Also according
> to Dave, he and his wife attended the Level 1 workshop in the nude, and
> talks about "intimately touching another man" during the "magic weekend."
> Does this make sense to you?


Well.. the nudity was an enormous fear issue for me prior to that, not to
the point that it was interfering with daily life, but it was probably
something you could call a phobia.  It's gone now.




>
> My point is, levels are an attribute of many of the world's religions,


So are candles and music.   Levels in HAI aren't like levels anywhere else I
know.
So say you're like me and have done L1, L2, and L3. I might do L4 next, or
I might repeat L1 because I think that it would help me through something I
realized needed working on.
The only reason the levels are there at all, is that you need the things you
learned in level 1 to have level 2 work well, and so on.  Levels 5,6,7 can
be done in any order.

Level 1 teaches some introductory concepts, like "No means NO" and the
basics of being intimate with another person, the difference between love,
sex, and intimacy, and so on.
Also covered are the basics of sexual anatomy (you'd be surprised what
adults don't know sometimes!) and an overview of sexual health. Another
important concept introduced here is "being at choice", knowing that you DO
have the option to say yes, or no, in a given situation.

Level 2 is about loving yourself. Accepting who you are, and not being so
intensely self-critical as we all seem to normally be.  More also of the
same things that were covered in level 1

Level 3 is about being "at choice". You are given opportunities to
experiment with this, and some illustrations of how easy it is to fool
yourself into the idea that you don't have any choice in a given situation,
or that something is an option when it really isn't.

The rest, well I haven't been there yet.




> HOWEVER, that's not what I was arguing at all. Call it whatever you want,
> I
> was just asking Dave to explain how HAI is different from a religion, as
> far
> as this list is concerned.


I feel like I'm trying to explain color to a blind man.  :)
HAI does NOT profess belief in any supreme being, nor does it ask you to
reject any such belief. It's simply got nothing to do with it.


> HAI has its own dogmas (ideology, whatever you call it) which he feels
> free to (and you let him to) express here. Would you let a Buddhist talk
> about the Four Noble Truths, or the Noble Eightfold Path?


HAI has dogma?  Hmm.. Not that I've seen.  There's no "bible", no books or
tapes or anything like that. The closest thing is a newsletter.  There is no
deity in HAI, no heaven, no hell.  Argh..


To pull a quote from their site:
*What are some overall benefits of the workshop?*

  - In a caring, supportive and safe environment, discover the
  ingredients for happy, healthy, loving, intimate relationships. Shed your
  fears, judgments and disempowering beliefs that keep you separate from
  others.
  - Where did you learn about love, intimacy and sexuality? What we
  often don't realize is that our very ideas about these topics may prevent us
  from fully expressing and receiving love. The workshop provides an
  opportunity to examine this.
  - Participants are profoundly moved by the depth of emotional openness
  that repeatedly occurs throughout the course of a weekend. Imagine if you
  can, a group of people being completely honest and real with each other.


Ok, where's the religion?



> Can you prove your love for your wife? Or subject it to confirmable tests
> and studies?


Heinlein's definition of love, when the happiness of another is essential to
your own.
I can't prove my compersion either, but it's there.  (essentially the
opposite of jealousy)



> And by banning them here, we have created a
> > place where most conversations are peaceful and informative.


Well, so far, this one seems peaceful and informative, though I admit I'm
not doing as good a job as I should be.

Vitaly, I seem to really SUCK at explaining HAI to people, so I'm going to
suggest that you contact someone from HAI through their web site, and ask
them to explain it.  I'm not pushing you away, I just don't seem to have the
skills to explain it properly. Mea Culpa.

2007\01\27@043822 by Rich

picon face
Who said the list has to be democratic?  My company is not a democracy.  If
it was it would collapse in a minute.  Democracy is a form of government it
does not apply to everything.  My family is not a democracy.  If my three
kids vote against my wife and I we decide, not them.
{Original Message removed}

2007\01\27@065101 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 1/27/07, Rich <.....rgrazia1spamRemoveMErochester.rr.com> wrote:
> Who said the list has to be democratic?  My company is not a democracy.  If
> it was it would collapse in a minute.  Democracy is a form of government it
> does not apply to everything.  My family is not a democracy.  If my three
> kids vote against my wife and I we decide, not them.

Yes I agree that it does not need to be democratic. I just state that this
is a truth for PIClist and other moderated forum.

2007\01\27@070341 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> So we have to agree that there is no democracy process here

I vote too keep it that way :)

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu


2007\01\27@072905 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> So we have to agree that there is no democracy process here

> I vote too keep it that way :)

No need, I'm already happy to let things remain as they are.


       Russell
                         I think, therefore you are.
                        Don't make me regret it.

_______________________________
(I've wanted to use that sig line for years).

2007\01\27@091458 by Matthew Miller

flavicon
face
On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 10:28:30PM -0700, Vitaliy wrote:
> James Newtons Massmind wrote:
>
> > The forbidden
> > here is discussion of what can not be known. Things that will not reveal
> > themselves to confirmable tests and studies.
>
> Can you prove your love for your wife? Or subject it to confirmable tests
> and studies?

I can't speak for James, but the above is a poor argument. I'm not married,
but if I were I could provide evidence that I love my wife. A concerned tone
of voice, a soft touch, a smile, doing things for/with my wife, are all real
evidence that when added up show that I love my wife. Love can certainly be
evidenced and supported by tests and studies.

Take care.    Matthew

--
In the name of the bee
And of the butterfly
And of the breeze, amen
    -- Emily Dickinson

2007\01\27@095628 by Peter P.

picon face
HAI - Hardware Accelerator Interface ?!

can someone please explain the acronym ?

thanks,
Peter P.

2007\01\27@101136 by David VanHorn

picon face
On 1/27/07, Peter P. <RemoveMEplpeter2006spamspamBeGoneyahoo.com> wrote:
>
> HAI - Hardware Accelerator Interface ?!


That at least, I can handle.   Human Awareness Institute.
http://www.hai.org

2007\01\27@102735 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
David VanHorn wrote:

>> HOWEVER, that's not what I was arguing at all. Call it whatever you
>> want, I was just asking Dave to explain how HAI is different from a
>> religion, as far as this list is concerned.
>
> I feel like I'm trying to explain color to a blind man.  :) HAI does NOT
> profess belief in any supreme being, nor does it ask you to reject any
> such belief. It's simply got nothing to do with it.

I think it really depends a lot -- more on the individual than on the
"thing" itself.

There are some religious people who explain their religion with an attitude
like "this is what makes me feel good, whole, happy, [your preferred
positive adjective], it may or may not work for you, here's what you can do
if you want to try it sometime" -- which is quite similar to how Dave
describes HAI.

OTOH, there possibly are people who would describe HAI or something like it
with the same or a similar fervor that religious fanatics can show: "This
is the way to save you and the world; if you don't do it this way, you're
doomed. And since I need a world where things work /this/ way, if you don't
do it this way, you're harming me and are my enemy." Or something the like.

I think it's pretty difficult to define what a "supreme being" is -- as
James's own message (the one about the AA experience) shows. Russell has
quite nicely (albeit way not comprehensively) explained what's difficult
about "knowable".

I think there's probably no infallible definition of "religion" or
"unknowable". Therefore interpretation is needed occasionally, as to how to
apply these rules to a certain case. As in all good dictatorships, James
makes both the rules and interprets them when necessary. (And, also as in
all good dictatorships, he does so with the common good in mind.)

Gerhard

2007\01\27@105627 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> > The forbidden
>> > here is discussion of what can not be known. Things that will not
>> > reveal
>> > themselves to confirmable tests and studies.

>> Can you prove your love for your wife? Or subject it to confirmable
>> tests
>> and studies?

> I can't speak for James, but the above is a poor argument. I'm not
> married,
> but if I were I could provide evidence that I love my wife. A
> concerned tone
> of voice, a soft touch, a smile, doing things for/with my wife, are
> all real
> evidence that when added up show that I love my wife. Love can
> certainly be
> evidenced and supported by tests and studies.

I think that's not doing James' attempt at justification of his stance
(which of course he doesn't have to justify as within this context he
is 'god') any favours :-) Lets' see if the logic works as I think it
does ...

James proscribes talking about aspects of religion where it involves
discussing that which cannot be known.

Someone proposes that loving ones wife involves an equal degree of
unprovability to discussing religious unknowables.

You argue that love of a wife can be demonstrated by behaviour, tests,
studies, personal attitude etc.

Logical conclusion is that aspects of "religion" which are similar to
aspects of "loving one's wife"  are essentially
knowable/provable/testable and so are fare games for discussion.
Sounds good to me :-)

I give you a new commandment (it's really the same old commandment
that you've always had) - that you love each other as much as and in
the same way as I have loved you. By *THIS* will everyone know that
you are genuinely part of my team - if you have love for each other!
(bzzt ...)

Here's the measure, here's the ultimate test of love - that a person
lays down their life for their friends. (bzzzt ...)

You ask me what the greatest thing you should do is? OK, it's this -
you should love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your
soul and all your strength and all your mind and (bzz .) NO! - wait a
mo - I've not finished  - you asked for one, but I'll give you two, as
they are so completely entwined that they are inspirable - *AND* You
should love your neighbour as yourself. Ok. Take it away ... (bzzzt
...).

OK. Man at the back. OK- additional question. Who is your neighbour?
OK - I'll tell you a story. There was this guy who REALLY hated
Lebanese. Utterly despised them. Couldn't stand being near them. This
guy had to go on a business trip. The most direct route went, you
guessed it, straight through Lebanon. Do you think he went that way?
No way Jose! He took the long path to avoid those Lebanese scum. Went
by the back route through a more seedy and road-less-travelled
district. Well, you guessed it. He got set on by donkey-jackers who
mugged him, beat the stuffing out of him, ripped off all his gear and
left him looking fit to die. After a while a televangelist came along
the same road. He saw this guy lying there but pretended like he
didn't and went on by. A while later this big time preacher came by.
He saw this guy lying there as well. Did he stop. Hookey Walker!. He
actually changed over to the wrong side of the road and drove by so he
wouldn't get blood on his donkey's sidewalls. Wasn't looking good for
this guy. And then, enter stage left, you guessed it. Roll of drums,
bright lights. It was a (all together now) Lebanese business man. Oh
no. Oh yes. Now this guy didn't have too much say in the matter as he
was about dead. The Lebanese guy scraped him up and took him off to
the nearest repair facility. Back then hospitals were a bit hard to
come by but the local hotellery served the bill and the Lebanese guy
left him there. paid the bill way in advance and told the manager that
he'd pay any extra costs next time he came through if what he'd given
him wasn't enough. So, think about it - it really shouldn't take too
much thought. Who was this man's neighbour?.  (bzzt ...) Oh, and by
the way, look at which way the neighbour relationship works there -
it's added a twist to the question. OK. (bzzt ...)

Of such discussable things may be a key part of the core  of one or
more of the major religions. The reality, effects, dedication, tone of
voice, softness of "touch" - in far broader ways than just a physical
one, smiles and what drives them, doing things for/with and more are,
some may argue,  all real evidence that when added up show genuine
love that can certainly be evidenced and supported by tests and
studies. Others would disagree. And do.

No doubt this is all really subterfuge to introduce nasty arcane
material contained in the above adjurations and metaphors. That
certainly seems to be what many tell me.  Quite what complaints people
have with " ...and your neighbour as yourself" and "a new commandment
..." and ... I never manage to understand. They usually seem to go
"Yes!. But ..." and run off on some other straw man tangent. You get
used to it after a while.




           Russell. (bzzzt ...)





2007\01\27@111853 by David VanHorn

picon face
>
>
> OTOH, there possibly are people who would describe HAI or something like
> it
> with the same or a similar fervor that religious fanatics can show: "This
> is the way to save you and the world; if you don't do it this way, you're
> doomed. And since I need a world where things work /this/ way, if you
> don't
> do it this way, you're harming me and are my enemy." Or something the
> like.


While someone COULD describe it like this, this is a very un-HAI attitude.
:)
I think the only person who might be definable as an enemy within HAI, would
be someone who cannot respect your choices, ie a rapist or something like
that.  And I know Peter Rengel at least would argue against that.

Check amazon for his books. These are independent of HAI, written/published
by him, but they do give the essential flavor of HAI.

Some quotes from "Living Life in Love"

"Acceptance is feeling love in your heart for the police officer who is
writing you a speeding ticket."

"Religions create labels such as Jewish or Christian or Hindu, making paths
appear different. The holy mountain favors no one. The same Truth is
revealed to each as love's universal secrets unfold. If we stop believing in
these labels and start listening with out hearts, then we can join together
as one."  (Note, speaking ABOUT religion does not create a religion!)

"When the human race decides to stop racing, love can take the lead and then
everyone wins."

2007\01\27@131237 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
David VanHorn wrote:

[snip]
>> HOWEVER, that's not what I was arguing at all. Call it whatever you want,
>> I
>> was just asking Dave to explain how HAI is different from a religion, as
>> far
>> as this list is concerned.
>
>
> I feel like I'm trying to explain color to a blind man.  :)
> HAI does NOT profess belief in any supreme being, nor does it ask you to
> reject any such belief. It's simply got nothing to do with it.

And I feel like I'm talking to the deaf. :)

Buddhists do not believe in any of the things you listed. Show me how your
belief system is different from Buddhism.

> HAI has dogma?  Hmm.. Not that I've seen.  There's no "bible", no books or
> tapes or anything like that. The closest thing is a newsletter.  There is
> no
> deity in HAI, no heaven, no hell.  Argh..

Are you telling me HAI does not have any core principles? Don't call them
dogmas, if you don't like the word. Call them "values", "philosophy",
"worldview."

>> Can you prove your love for your wife? Or subject it to confirmable tests
>> and studies?
>
>
> Heinlein's definition of love, when the happiness of another is essential
> to
> your own.
> I can't prove my compersion either, but it's there.  (essentially the
> opposite of jealousy)

The point is, you can't study love directly, you can only study its
effects. The same way Christians say they can learn about God by studying
the world around them. See Russell's response for a more long-winded
explanation. :)

[snip]
> Vitaly, I seem to really SUCK at explaining HAI to people, so I'm going to
> suggest that you contact someone from HAI through their web site, and ask
> them to explain it.  I'm not pushing you away, I just don't seem to have
> the
> skills to explain it properly. Mea Culpa.

It's funny -- I got essentially the same response from some Christians that
believe in the concept of "blind faith" (that I don't subscribe to), when I
pressed them to justify their beliefs in things that I feel have no basis in
anything. "I can't explain it, but you can talk to my pastor [read this
book/go to this website/listen to this tape]".

If you are basing your life on a set of principles that you hold to be true,
and essential to your sense of self-identity, you should at least be able to
explain them rationally.

Best regards,

Vitaliy

2007\01\27@131525 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
Rich wrote:
> Who said the list has to be democratic?  My company is not a democracy.
> If
> it was it would collapse in a minute.  Democracy is a form of government
> it
> does not apply to everything.  My family is not a democracy.  If my three
> kids vote against my wife and I we decide, not them.

Absolutely. But don't you feel in certain situations that you are wrong, and
your kids have a point? Aren't you doing your best to be a good and fair
parent?

Best regards,

Vitaliy

2007\01\27@140016 by dvanhorn

picon face
if you use a broad enough definition of religion then i suppose you
could call it a religion.    but you are casting the net far too wide
imho.  there is no worship in hai.  hai is about relationships between
people.

On 1/27/07, Vitaliy <spamBeGonespam@spam@spamspam_OUTmaksimov.org> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2007\01\27@150209 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
dvanhorn@microbrix.com wrote:
> if you use a broad enough definition of religion then i suppose you
> could call it a religion.    but you are casting the net far too wide
> imho.  there is no worship in hai.  hai is about relationships between
> people.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I'd like to point out that
Buddhists do not worship, either. If you follow your narrow definition of
religion, then Buddhism is not a religion.

Again, I have no problem with the "no religion, no politics" rule, as long
as it's applied _consistently_.

Vitaliy

'[OT]: HAI & list moderation (was: RE: [OT]::=?utf-'
2007\01\27@161707 by Peter P.

picon face
> Again, I have no problem with the "no religion, no politics" rule, as long
> as it's applied _consistently_.

Well, Dave defined it as 'no religion' so it's ok ... yet two of the largest
threads on the Piclist this week were about two non-religion wannabes (Vista and
this one, or rather its parent which had a more medical theme - the first time I
saw the subject of the parent thread I thought I opened the wrong list folder,
having chosen one with a medical theme ?! - anyway some things just need to be
discussed *once* imho).

Peter P.


'[OT]: HAI & list moderation (was: RE: [OT]::Depres'
2007\01\27@184328 by James Newtons Massmind

face picon face
> > if you use a broad enough definition of religion then i suppose you
> > could call it a religion.    but you are casting the net
> far too wide
> > imho.  there is no worship in hai.  hai is about
> relationships between
> > people.
>
> At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I'd like to
> point out that Buddhists do not worship, either. If you
> follow your narrow definition of religion, then Buddhism is
> not a religion.

Some will be horrified to learn that from what I have seen of it, I don't
classify Buddhism as a religion.

Having said that, I would REALLY rather not see it discussed here. Mostly
because I fear the rage of all the other/real religions.

I'm also starting to think that love isn't a great topic for conversation.
Although it is quantifiable in many ways, we humans seem to romanticize it
to a point beyond logic (not surprising huh?) and make it into something
that is next to unknowable.

Trying to understand love and how to make it work in positive ways is a
laudable goal, but not one that is likely to be accomplished on this list.
Those who want more on HAI or AA or Buddhism or Cannabis or what the heck
ever have lots of ways of finding it on the internet.

The original post that started this thread was news, and valuable news for a
group like ours. If anyone sees something new that is probably of interest,
please do post it.

Also, learning that we are a VERY diverse group with all sorts of different
lifestyles, experiences, and sometimes common problems was a good thing over
all. If someone wants to tell us how they have been pulling off the trick of
living upside down for the last several years or how they managed to
accomplish something unusual or interesting with solid results, I suppose it
won't kill us to hear about it.

But we really should try to keep the OT chatter to a dull roar if at all
possible.

Lets talk about something more on topic; like how to give robot emotions,
("Does my Asimo love me as much as I love him?"), Why MS will own the world
in 50 years ("Lord Emperor Gates, the benevolent"), or What is better: C or
C++ ("Objects! We don't need no stink'n objects!")

Ok, that last bit was sarcasm in case you didn't catch it.

---
James Newton: PICList webmaster/Admin
TakeThisOuTjamesnewtonspamspampiclist.com  1-619-652-0593 phone
http://www.piclist.com/member/JMN-EFP-786
PIC/PICList FAQ: http://www.piclist.com


2007\01\27@204242 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 1/28/07, James Newtons Massmind <jamesnewtonEraseMEspammassmind.org> wrote:
>
> Lets talk about something more on topic; like how to give robot emotions,
> ("Does my Asimo love me as much as I love him?"), Why MS will own the world
> in 50 years ("Lord Emperor Gates, the benevolent"), or What is better: C or
> C++ ("Objects! We don't need no stink'n objects!")
>
> Ok, that last bit was sarcasm in case you didn't catch it.
>

To me they are really much more on topic and enlighten me much more
than a discussion on "Love".

2007\01\27@204705 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 1/28/07, Xiaofan Chen <RemoveMExiaofancEraseMEspamspam_OUTgmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/28/07, James Newtons Massmind <@spam@jamesnewtonRemoveMEspamEraseMEmassmind.org> wrote:
> >
> > Lets talk about something more on topic; like how to give robot emotions,
> > ("Does my Asimo love me as much as I love him?"), Why MS will own the world
> > in 50 years ("Lord Emperor Gates, the benevolent"), or What is better: C or
> > C++ ("Objects! We don't need no stink'n objects!")
> >
> > Ok, that last bit was sarcasm in case you didn't catch it.
> >
>
> To me they are really much more on topic and enlighten me much more
> than a discussion on "Love".
>

But Russel's English does really enlighten me what is the real English...

'[OT]: HAI & list moderation (was: RE: [OT]:: Depre'
2007\01\27@212200 by Matthew Miller

flavicon
face
Hi Russell,

On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 04:56:21AM +1300, Russell McMahon wrote:

> I think that's not doing James' attempt at justification of his stance
> (which of course he doesn't have to justify as within this context he
> is 'god') any favours :-) Lets' see if the logic works as I think it
> does ...

I'm sorry that you read so much into my post. I was only replying to that
small part of Vitality's post, and I've not read any of the prior posts that
started this thread.

Take care.        Matthew

--
"Any proposition advanced without evidence can be dismissed without
evidence." -- Sam Harris

'[OT]: HAI & list moderation (was: RE: [OT]::Depres'
2007\01\28@071654 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face

On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 15:43:23 -0800, James Newtons Massmind wrote:
>...
> If someone wants to tell us how they have been pulling off the trick of
> living upside down for the last several years...

James, I really don't think Russell needs encouragment to post here!  :-)))

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


'[OT]: HAI & list moderation (was: RE: [OT]:: Depre'
2007\01\28@072653 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Vitaliy,

On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 11:13:49 -0700, Vitaliy wrote:

{Quote hidden}

That makes it a benign dictatorship, not a democracy!  

IMHO, of course...

I discovered as a kid that "being right" doesn't always (often?) do any good - proving my father wrong in an argument was a Bad Thing!

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


'[OT]: HAI & list moderation (was: RE: [OT]::Depres'
2007\01\28@093323 by Dennis Crawley

picon face
Howard Winter wrote:
>> Absolutely. But don't you feel in certain situations that you are
>> wrong, and your kids have a point? Aren't you doing your best to
>> be a good and fair parent?
>
> That makes it a benign dictatorship, not a democracy!
>
> IMHO, of course...
>
> I discovered as a kid that "being right" doesn't always (often?)
> do any good - proving my father wrong in an argument was a Bad
> Thing!
> Howard Winter
> St.Albans, England

oh yeah!, my father hit me just once time, staterd in 1968 and ended up in
80's :)


2007\01\28@235941 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> Again, I have no problem with the "no religion, no politics" rule,
>> as long
>> as it's applied _consistently_.

On the "no illogicals, no unknowables", Aristotle has something to say
:-)
QM puts any of us who would seek to deal rationally with our
surroundings pretty firmly into one of his two classes these days.

______


"Some hold that, owing to the necessity of knowing the primary
premises, there is no scientific knowledge. Others think there is, but
that all truths are demonstrable. Neither doctrine is either true or a
necessary deduction from the premises. The first school, assuming that
there is no way of knowing other than by demonstration, maintain that
an infinite regress is involved, on the ground that if behind the
prior stands no primary, we could not know the posterior through the
prior (wherein they are right, for one cannot traverse an infinite
series): if on the other hand-they say-the series terminates and there
are primary premises, yet these are unknowable because incapable of
demonstration, which according to them is the only form of knowledge.
And since thus one cannot know the primary premises, knowledge of the
conclusions which follow from them is not pure scientific knowledge
nor properly knowing at all, but rests on the mere supposition that
the premises are true. The other party agree with them as regards
knowing, holding that it is only possible by demonstration, but they
see no difficulty in holding that all truths are demonstrated, on the
ground that demonstration may be circular and reciprocal.

Our own doctrine is that not all knowledge is demonstrative: on the
contrary, knowledge of the immediate premises is independent of
demonstration. (The necessity of this is obvious; for since we must
know the prior premises from which the demonstration is drawn, and
since the regress must end in immediate truths, those truths must be
indemonstrable.) Such, then, is our doctrine, and in addition we
maintain that besides scientific knowledge there is its originative
source which enables us to recognize the definitions."

               Aristotle, Posterior Analytics (Book 1, Part 3)



           Russell


____________

Found the above in passing while seeking a good definition of
"infinite regress" for a friend (Why keep a Wiki and bark yourself?)

Courtesy of the, as usually, excellent Wikipedia

       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress


'[OT]:[WOT]:: HAI & list moderation (was: RE:[OT]:'
2007\01\29@075150 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I'd like to
>> point out that Buddhists do not worship, either. If you
>> follow your narrow definition of religion, then Buddhism is
>> not a religion.

> Some will be horrified to learn that from what I have seen of it, I
> don't
> classify Buddhism as a religion.

> Having said that, I would REALLY rather not see it discussed here.
> Mostly
> because I fear the rage of all the other/real religions.

Rage ?
:-).

I don't see HAI as a religion by any normally accepted meaning of the
term.

I also, from what I understand about Buddhism over time, do not see it
as having a god (or a God). But, arguably, it would see itself as a
religion / it's adherents would see it as a religion. It may not be
seeking to lead people to god but it is seeking to lead people and
there is a right and wrong way to go (and easy and hard ways depending
on how fast you want to go / how many iterations you ant it to take
and how much rigour you wish to apply) and it does deal with having
something which keeps on coming back as you until it gets it right.
Sounds awfully like a religion, even without a god.

I think Buddhism *may* demonstrate that you can have a religion
without having a god as others understand the term.

Whether that means you can also have a god without having a religion I
don't know :-)

Some Christians like to say that they are not religious and don't
believe in religion and that what they seek is to avoid all the
formalism, straitjacketing, rules sets and the like of "religions" and
instead to (just :-) ) have a deeper personal relationship with God. I
understand their point and I even agree with its principle BUT I think
it is far far easier to say than to achieve and for anyone outside
looking in the differences would not always be evident (alas). "Use
the force, Luke" (properly translated) is indeed what it's about for a
Christian but "be a hypocrite, march in step, learn and regurgitate by
rote, annoy everyone who doesn't belong" is the trap and the
temptation.




       Russell

2007\01\29@090536 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Russell McMahon wrote:

>> Some will be horrified to learn that from what I have seen of it, I
>> don't classify Buddhism as a religion.

> I don't see HAI as a religion by any normally accepted meaning of the
> term.

Random House Webster's:

re-li-gion (ri lij'uhn)  n.
                 1.  a set of beliefs concerning the cause,
                      nature, and purpose of the universe,
                      esp. when considered as the creation of
                      a superhuman agency or agencies, usu.
                      involving devotional and ritual
                      observances, and often containing a
                      moral code for the conduct of human
                      affairs.
                 2.  a specific fundamental set of beliefs and
                      practices generally agreed upon by a
                      number of persons or sects: the
                      Christian religion.

Or <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion>:

"In the larger sense, religion is a communal system for the coherence of
belief -- typically focused on a system of thought, unseen being, person,
or object, that is considered to be supernatural, sacred, divine, or of the
highest truth."


"A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon
by a number of persons" sounds a lot like what science is -- and so does "a
communal system for the coherence of belief -- typically focused on a
system of thought [...] that is considered to be [...] of the highest
truth."

They also say that "there are many definitions of religion, and most have
struggled to avoid an overly sharp definition on the one hand, and
meaningless generalities on the other."

Which (the absence of a clear, generally agreed-upon definition) means that
a case-by-case interpretation may be necessary as to what constitutes a
religion in the given context :)

Gerhard

2007\01\29@095214 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
I agree with Websters 1.
I disagree generally with Websters 2
Wikipedia OK

I think the divine aspect is largely the make/break criteria.
Buddhism has that even without a god per se.
HAI doesn't.
Scientology has if you are the IRS :-)

Genuine science is religion free. Science as it is practiced is often
godless-religion, but it's not meant to be eg unfounded and
unsupportable beliefs are held, opposing "truths" are denied, status
quo is accorded reverence against question and opposition. What starts
as "the following best fits the model so far" ends up as "while we
call it a theory it's entirely obvious that this model IS how reality
works and suggestions to the contrary are mischievous and will not be
entertained". Note that just stating this will raise hackles. I am NOT
fitting the complaint to any given theory but one will come naturally
to mind for many (and for me) and, while my criticism is entirely
deserved and appropriate, it will be seen as an unnacceptable attack,
as it must for my contention to be correct :-)

A brilliant non current example is the battle that Plate Tectonics had
to be born over 3 or 4 decades, and the completeness with which it
swept away the old theory once it became accepted. The old theory was
"as obviously correct" then as PT is now, but nowadays you would find
nobody on earth to support it. PT is so obviously correct and so
obviously a good model of how the earth's surface works that to call
it a theory would be considered absurd, and to suggest that older
theories may still be in part correct would be met with derision.

To borrow a phrase, 'The price of freedom is eternal vigilance'. It
applies more than one may appreciate.


   Russell


'[OT]:[WOT]:: HAI & list moderation (was: RE:[OT]::'
2007\01\29@101359 by Mike Hord

picon face
> I think Buddhism *may* demonstrate that you can have a religion
> without having a god as others understand the term.
>
> Whether that means you can also have a god without having a religion I
> don't know :-)

Sagan's take on Buddhism is that their position seems to be that their
god is so great he doesn't even need to exist.

Mike H.

'[OT]: HAI & list moderation (was: RE: [OT]::Depres'
2007\01\29@134427 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
Howard Winter wrote:
>> Absolutely. But don't you feel in certain situations that you are wrong,
>> and
>> your kids have a point? Aren't you doing your best to be a good and fair
>> parent?
>
> That makes it a benign dictatorship, not a democracy!
>
> IMHO, of course...

We're in agreement here. :)

> I discovered as a kid that "being right" doesn't always (often?) do any
> good - proving my father wrong in an argument was a Bad Thing!

I think your father's position was fundamentally wrong. :)

Best regards,

Vitaliy

'[OT]:[WOT]:: HAI & list moderation'
2007\01\29@155218 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Russell McMahon wrote:

> Wikipedia OK

> I think the divine aspect is largely the make/break criteria.

Wikipedia doesn't include this, necessarily:

"A communal system for the coherence of belief -- typically focused on a
system of thought [...] that is considered to be [...] of the highest
truth."

No divine aspect in this phrase.

Besides, defining "religion" with "divine" just shifts the problem to
"divine". There's a point where you have to show colors :)  


> Genuine science is religion free.

That's recursive, as long as we're still discussing whether the definition
of religion includes science. And adds another distinction that needs to be
defined: "genuine" science.

Science is the belief in that there is a way to describe how the world
works and that what is called the scientific method leads to an
approximation to the truth about how the world works. No? Should fit the
above.

Gerhard

'[OT]:[WOT]:: HAI & list moderation (was:RE:[OT]::D'
2007\01\29@193045 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
If you can't be bothered reading all this, do look at the last
paragraph and look at the site mentioned. Knowing that this sort of
thing happens to utterly mainstream scientific 'theories' is utterly
essential to those who wish to remain objective.


> Sagan's take on Buddhism is that their position seems to be that
> their
> god is so great he doesn't even need to exist.

:-)

Sagan's take on most things religious was to set up straw men (that
the proponents would never recognise as their own) and then destroy
the straw man to prove his point. Dawkins does similar but far more
crudely and with no real pretence at believing he really thinks he is
doing justice to the genuine position (even though he may even believe
that he is).

In investigating or arguing against any system that involves
interpretation or opinion, and this applies every bit as much to
scientific theories in all disciplines as to religion, one MUST
address the actual belief or model or statement that one wishes to
investigate or rebut or criticise or falsify or whatever. This seldom
happens.

The old adage "A man convinced against his will has the same opinion
still" is every bit as applicable now as in days gone by. One must win
both the heart and mind of one's "opponent" if one wishes to have them
join your camp. If the object is simply to crush or ridicule then
making up your own version of what they believe and ridiculing that
may work well enough :-)

In some cases the system under investigation (be it religious belief
or scientific theory which has transmogrified itself into hard fact)
explicitly does not permit of 'unbelievers' ever having enough
knowledge to critique it - if you don't believe it you obviously don't
know enough for your opinion to be of value. In such cases one can
only walk quietly away, or take the effort to enter into the inner
sanctum and see if you are in fact transformed. But you can never
'disprove' such adequately from the outside. I am personally aware of
one religion [[ :-) ]] where this tends to be the case - you can
approach and enter with all faculties in use and "arrive" without
feeling that  you have abandoned rationality or logical thought
processes. But those standing without and looking in may quite
justifiably cry 'foul' and not see things your way. The only answer in
such cases is to invite them to also walk the path with mind wide open
and all thoughts blazing until they too are subsumed :-).

If the 'thing' one is then willingly enslaved to is a solely fact
based theory with explicitly no metaphysical content you can be
certain that time will make your position increasingly ridiculous to
those without as new discoveries reveal new aspects of 'reality'.

If you have never seen a major scientific (or other) world view /
absolute fact / belief system utterly torn down and rejected by ALL,
then  you may have difficulty in believing how 'wrong' a "purely fact
based and totally obvious to all" system can latterly be seen to be.

The "discovery" of Plate Tectonics and its rocky path from
lunatic-fringe-cult-belief to utter-scientific-orthodoxy is a superb
example of this.

It's early erudite proponent, Alfred Wegener,  said:

                                       "Scientists still do not
appear to understand sufficiently that all earth sciences must
contribute evidence toward unveiling the state of our planet in
earlier times, and that the truth of the matter can only be reached by
combing all this evidence. . . It is only by combing the information
furnished by all the earth sciences that we can hope to determine
'truth' here, that is to say, to find the picture that sets out all
the known facts in the best arrangement and that therefore has the
highest degree of probability. Further, we have to be prepared always
for the possibility that each new discovery, no matter what science
furnishes it, may modify the conclusions we draw."
                           Alfred Wegener. The Origins of Continents
and Oceans (4th edition)

           Despite this an opponent, Dr. Rollin T. Chamberlin of the
University of Chicago said, "Wegener's hypothesis in general is of the
footloose type, in that it takes considerable liberty with our globe,
and is less bound by restrictions or tied down by awkward, ugly facts
than most of its rival theories."

All remaining modern sympathisers with Chamberlin's position are
probably also members of the flat earth society :-).

Wegener died in 1930 (while returning from a Greenland scientific
rescue mission) with his theory still derided and rejected by the
scientific community. It was not until the work of others such as
Holmes, Hess and Deitz over the next few decades culminated in the
relatively sudden acceptance of PT in the 1960's.

If ***YOU*** have a pet scientific theory that is obviously correct,
obviously a fact even though you call it a theory, manifestly the only
way things could have happened, clearly supported by all evidence and
logic [and the home of apple pie and motherhood] then read the
following and perhaps look around for a little more on how hard it was
[ 6 decades] to shift mainstream scientific opinion from it's prior
and now wholly abandoned position:
Good brief overview.

       http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/geology/techist.html



       Russell

2007\01\29@225126 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
Russell McMahon wrote:
>>> At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I'd like to
>>> point out that Buddhists do not worship, either. If you
>>> follow your narrow definition of religion, then Buddhism is
>>> not a religion.
>>>      
>
>  
>> Some will be horrified to learn that from what I have seen of it, I
>> don't
>> classify Buddhism as a religion.
>>    
<snips>

I am glad I went out of town this weekend...

--Bob

2007\01\30@034702 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
I could respond that we share your joy :-), or that it was fortunate
Karma, or ... but I won't.

I respond only to note that, while I have written much of late, I
wrote NONE of the following, even though it has my name prepended  :-)


               Russell


{Quote hidden}

2007\01\30@041826 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
I enjoy reading your posts, Russell. I just was surprised by the content...

--Bob

Russell McMahon wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2007\01\30@042002 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> I respond only to note that, while I have written much of late, I
> wrote NONE of the following, even though it has my name prepended  :-)

I too sometimes (often?) see posts that seem to quote me with text I
never wrote. Could everyone please be a bit carefull when replying,
especially when you leave the name of the poster you reply to intact
(which is in most cases not needed, you reply to the text, not to the
person).

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu


2007\01\30@052012 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> I respond only to note that, while I have written much of late, I
>> wrote NONE of the following, even though it has my name prepended
>> :-)

> I too sometimes (often?) see posts that seem to quote me with text I
> never wrote.

Some of my best stuff is written by someone else :-)


       R

2007\01\30@060604 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Wouter van Ooijen wrote:

>> I respond only to note that, while I have written much of late, I
>> wrote NONE of the following, even though it has my name prepended  :-)
>
> I too sometimes (often?) see posts that seem to quote me with text I
> never wrote.

Just for the record (since you say "too"), I don't think Russell was
actually quoted with text he never wrote. For me, it was obvious that Bob
responded to a message from Russell, but only quoting the start of the
whole message, snipping the rest -- and the start didn't contain anything
by Russell. There was no single '>' quote level besides two empty lines
(which would have been the text that Russell wrote and which was clearly
"snipped").

Gerhard

2007\01\31@161806 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> I think the divine aspect is largely the make/break criteria [[in
>> what is or isn't a religion]].

> Wikipedia doesn't include this, necessarily:

> "A communal system for the coherence of belief -- typically focused
> on a
> system of thought [...] that is considered to be [...] of the
> highest
> truth."
>
> No divine aspect in this phrase.
>
> Besides, defining "religion" with "divine" just shifts the problem
> to
> "divine". There's a point where you have to show colors :)


As often, I don't think we disagree greatly (B,IMBW) - just have to
hammer out the words used :-).
"... of the highest truth." can, to me, ONLY mean "divine". Tnis is a
point that an atheist may dsisagree on (even though they would be
incorrect to do so :-) ). They would only agree if they acknowledged
that without a divine source / external reference there cannot be a
"highest truth" in the moral sense. [There can be 'highest truths' in
the hard sciences observational sense - eg "things tend to fall
towards the planet centre".]. Many great (and not so great :-) 0
atheists acknowledge the total lack of  foundation for "highest
truths" without an external reference = divine. Some (eg James) insist
to the end  that you can have meaning, "truth" etc without any
external "divine" reference. While we speak the same language and use
the same logic system we are not able to rationally able to convey our
points of view to the other party thus far at least :-).

>> Genuine science is religion free.

> That's recursive, as long as we're still discussing whether the
> definition
> of religion includes science. And adds another distinction that
> needs to be
> defined: "genuine" science.

I was being sloppy for the sake of brevity.
What I was trying to convey was the "fact" that
AS:
       science claims to deal only with the measurable and testable
and claims to shun that which is based solely on opinion, desire or
belief
THEN:
       this stance should be carried through to all aspects of its
practice if it is to be consistent.

I was alluding to the 'fact' that many scientific positions are built
on house-of-cards belief systems which are not testable or provabel
and are opinion based but that the proponents seek to criticise just
such aspects of other systems such as religious beliefs. "Science" as
we know it generally now must be both irreligious in its practice AND
have no opinion, fair or foul about matters which it is not qualified
to deal with. Many 'scientists' forget or do not know this and think
that the concept "deals only with testable measurable things" means
"only testable measurable things exist or have merit. The latter
perpsective may (or may not) be true BUT science is unable to deal
with it.

> Science is the belief in that there is a way to describe how the
> world
> works and that what is called the scientific method leads to an
> approximation to the truth about how the world works. No? Should fit
> the
> above.

No :-).
As above.
Science is a system of attempting to describe the describable. It does
not, at core, claim that the indescribable exists or does not or is
valid or not. Just as the Copengagen view of Quantum Mechanics not
only does not seek to know what happens between a triggering event and
when its wave functioin collapses to deliver a probabilistic outcome,
but INSISTS that the question has no meaning to it.  So Science
must/should INSIST that it has no opinion on that which it's rules do
not cover. But the temptation is for it to try and expand into the
"gaps". Or for its proponents to insist that gaps not only do not but
cannot exist. This leads to fully self fulfilling positions - if
nothing is inexplicable then anything inexplicable represents an error
in the use of the tools or in the data gathered. .  It is not
science's place to be concerned that if you allow the metaphysical the
slightest foorhold then you will be buried in charlatans, swamis,
gurus, televangelists and worse (if indeed there can be anything worse
than a televangelist*). It may be lamentable that such is the case BUT
as soon as people start abusing the system because they do not like
what happens outside it you are on the path to the scientifice
equivalent of rendition/abu graib/ suspension of habeus corpus and the
like - ie as soon as you seek to fight the enemy with the enemy's
illegal tools you start to become like the enemy yourself. This is NOT
meant to be a backdoor descent into political sniping but an apt
metaphor that most who have waded through this far will appreciate
well enough. Just as attempts to protect democracy start to founder
when you use anti-democratic means to defned it, so too science starts
to lose its way when it descends to non scientific means to defend
itself against the non-scientific. To be just a tiny bit specific, too
specific being dangerous :-), IF your major model makes lots of common
sense but is NOT fully testable / falsifiable but it does produce good
predictions quite often, if you pretend that it is in fact fully and
rigorously falsifiable and yell loudly and wave your hands when people
suggest otherwise, then sooner or later the emperor will find he has
no clothes on. IF your system deals with vast periods of time, and you
cannot test certain aspects with certainty without a time machine, you
can either admit the unavoidable problem which is no fault of yours or
your theory or model, or you can pretend it doesn't exist. The day you
do the latter you queue to join the dinosaurs. As alas all too many
scientists have done. Hence, the corollary of  my "Genuine science is
religion free" - "Science which contains aspects of religious
methodology within itself is not genuine science". Which dosn't make
it wrong per se - just not science.




       Russell



.


'[OT]:[WOT]:: HAI & list moderation'
2007\02\01@105818 by Gerhard Fiedler
picon face
Russell McMahon wrote:

> As often, I don't think we disagree greatly (B,IMBW) - just have to
> hammer out the words used :-).

Maybe... but maybe there are some minor but nevertheless deep
disagreements.


> "... of the highest truth." can, to me, ONLY mean "divine".

Not to me. If there is no "divine" (we have still not determined what this
is), the highest truth is whatever truth can be achieved without the (in
this case non-existing) divine. OTOH, if there is a "divine" -- who does
know whether there are not several layers of "divine", like "more or less
divine"? Like the gods of the gods? If you take the argument that because
we exist proves that there must be something that created us and our world,
you can apply this to the world of our creator(s) just as well. If they
exist, there must be something that created them and their world (that is,
if the first "because we exist" is true). Or not -- but because it's their
world, we have no way of knowing.

In any case, "highest" doesn't say how "high", just "higher" than anything
else (in this context, known at this point in time and space). As long as
we don't have the complete formula of the universe, we only have local
maxima... (and you know that the location of maxima can depend on the
coordinate system, too :)


> They would only agree if they acknowledged that without a divine source /
> external reference there cannot be a "highest truth" in the moral sense.

Once you start linking a "highest truth" we can know (especially in a moral
sense) with the "divine" (as it is understood by humans, not by "divine"
beings), you're at a slippery slope that already lead to crusades, the
inquisition, jihads and the like. If you use the "divine" as a summary
expression for everything beyond our understanding, then you can't use it
to define anything we can understand. The moment we do, it is not divine
anymore.


> [There can be 'highest truths' in the hard sciences observational sense -
> eg "things tend to fall towards the planet centre".].

I did not write about morals, I wrote about science. So it seems we have an
agreement here :)

> Many great (and not so great :-) 0 atheists acknowledge the total lack of
>  foundation for "highest truths" without an external reference = divine.

Aren't you confusing "highest" with "absolute"? "Highest" is a relative and
temporary expression (it's only highest until something higher comes around
or is found), and therefore probably contrary to what you possibly may mean
with "divine". (Even though this may also be relative and temporary -- see
above :)


{Quote hidden}

I don't agree fully. Science does, foremost, deal with simplifications and
generalizations. You know what I mean... U is only (R * I) if you say "more
or less, within certain, not quite specified limits" instead of "is equal".

There is a belief behind that these simplifications do make sense, that
they lead to /something/. They convey power, for now, but that doesn't mean
much. The same has been said of any number of other beliefs, including many
religions, over time. We now mostly don't agree with these anymore.


{Quote hidden}

I agree with you on this, but I was completely disregarding these as
pseudo-science (in this context). I was talking about the "pure" scientific
dogma -- which we seem to agree upon. I just think that it is basically a
belief system, like many others (including religions).


>> Science is the belief in that there is a way to describe how the world
>> works and that what is called the scientific method leads to an
>> approximation to the truth about how the world works. No? Should fit
>> the above.
>
> No :-).
> As above.

Really "no"?

> Science is a system of attempting to describe the describable.

And a belief in that there is something that is describable in this form,
by this method.

> It does not, at core, claim that the indescribable exists or does not or
> is valid or not.

Agreed. I wasn't talking about what science doesn't handle, I was talking
about what it does propose to handle. And that, in the end, it starts out
from a dogma, like any other belief system (including religions).

> Hence, the corollary of  my "Genuine science is religion free" - "Science
> which contains aspects of religious methodology within itself is not
> genuine science".

I would rephrase this then, something like "When you act contrary to the
original dogma, you are outside of the dogma's domain" or so, which is
applicable to both science and religion. But this doesn't mean that not
both science and religion could be belief systems, and in that, be similar:
no absolute truths in either, and can be quite dangerous (at least for
others) if one assumes so.

My point was, in essence, about the exact difference between science and
religion, not in the details of their respective beliefs, but in the fact
(or my opinion) that both are belief systems based on (by definition
unprovable) dogmas. I don't see any, in this respect.

Gerhard


'[SX] Draft posted of Practical SX/B Parts I & II'
2007\07\19@175404 by slindsayn/a
flavicon
face
In SX Microcontrollers, SX/B Compiler and SX-Key Tool, slindsay wrote:

Hello Folks,

Sorry for the delay, I've had some really sticky font-embedding difficulties that took a few days to diagnose and work around.


I have attached the working draft of Jon Williams' upcoming book Practical SX/B, Parts I & II, 118 pages. Part III is still being written.  The pdf page is 8.5x11, but the print area is formatted for the 7.5x8.5 book size.


As this is the recently-reformatted working draft, there will be typos and formatting glitches lurking in there.  Please direct techical questions to the author on this forum; general typos, formatting errata, and problems printing the document can be reported to me at editor@parallax.com.


Enjoy!


Stephanie Lindsay
Editor, Parallax Inc.

---------- End of Message ----------

You can view the post on-line at:
http://forums.parallax.com/forums/default.aspx?f=7&p=1&m=203072
Need assistance? Send an email to the Forum Administrator at forumadmin@parallax.com
The Parallax Forums are powered by dotNetBB Forums, copyright 2002-2007 (http://www.dotNetBB.com)

2007\07\19@204357 by jugglern/a

flavicon
face
In SX Microcontrollers, SX/B Compiler and SX-Key Tool, juggler wrote:

Awesome! Thanks Jon!!   :yeah:  It's Christmas in July. :)
---------- End of Message ----------

You can view the post on-line at:
http://forums.parallax.com/forums/default.aspx?f=7&p=1&m=203072#m203093
Need assistance? Send an email to the Forum Administrator at forumadmin@parallax.com
The Parallax Forums are powered by dotNetBB Forums, copyright 2002-2007 (http://www.dotNetBB.com)

2007\07\20@031505 by Professorwizn/a

flavicon
face
In SX Microcontrollers, SX/B Compiler and SX-Key Tool, Professorwiz wrote:

:p   :p   :p  
Thanks so much!!!

:p   :p   :p
---------- End of Message ----------

You can view the post on-line at:
http://forums.parallax.com/forums/default.aspx?f=7&p=1&m=203072#m203133
Need assistance? Send an email to the Forum Administrator at forumadmin@parallax.com
The Parallax Forums are powered by dotNetBB Forums, copyright 2002-2007 (http://www.dotNetBB.com)

2007\07\20@093837 by CCraign/a

flavicon
face
In SX Microcontrollers, SX/B Compiler and SX-Key Tool, CCraig wrote:

Thanks Jon, Great Job!

Don't know if to post here: page 48, Blink6.SXB, the text doesn't match the code. In the program, VAR code = 3. In the text, it says VAR code is set to ZERO. Thus, the program does run. You fixed the program to have no bugs.

Now, IF you are having problems writing buggy code. I can help :)
I have lots of experience, just ask anyone.

Again, Great Job,
Chris
---------- End of Message ----------

You can view the post on-line at:
http://forums.parallax.com/forums/default.aspx?f=7&p=1&m=203072#m203176
Need assistance? Send an email to the Forum Administrator at forumadmin@parallax.com
The Parallax Forums are powered by dotNetBB Forums, copyright 2002-2007 (http://www.dotNetBB.com)

2007\07\20@100207 by JonnyMacn/a

flavicon
face
In SX Microcontrollers, SX/B Compiler and SX-Key Tool, JonnyMac wrote:

Thanks, I'll have a look -- we have a lot of reviewing to do but didn't want to make you wait too long as I'm working on the projects section.

---------- End of Message ----------

You can view the post on-line at:
http://forums.parallax.com/forums/default.aspx?f=7&p=1&m=203072#m203184
Need assistance? Send an email to the Forum Administrator at forumadmin@parallax.com
The Parallax Forums are powered by dotNetBB Forums, copyright 2002-2007 (http://www.dotNetBB.com)

2007\07\20@112254 by tsaavikn/a

flavicon
face
In SX Microcontrollers, SX/B Compiler and SX-Key Tool, tsaavik wrote:

LOL @ (No assembly required!)
Sorry, I love bad puns :D
---------- End of Message ----------

You can view the post on-line at:
http://forums.parallax.com/forums/default.aspx?f=7&p=1&m=203072#m203202
Need assistance? Send an email to the Forum Administrator at forumadmin@parallax.com
The Parallax Forums are powered by dotNetBB Forums, copyright 2002-2007 (http://www.dotNetBB.com)

2007\07\20@115545 by JonnyMacn/a

flavicon
face
In SX Microcontrollers, SX/B Compiler and SX-Key Tool, JonnyMac wrote:

Glad you enjoyed that -- though there are advanced projects that show how to integrate assembly (e.g., ISR driven serial comms); I do keep that to a minimum, though; the idea is just writing clean, effective, SX/B code and letting the compiler do the hard work for us.

---------- End of Message ----------

You can view the post on-line at:
http://forums.parallax.com/forums/default.aspx?f=7&p=1&m=203072#m203209
Need assistance? Send an email to the Forum Administrator at forumadmin@parallax.com
The Parallax Forums are powered by dotNetBB Forums, copyright 2002-2007 (http://www.dotNetBB.com)

2007\07\28@103143 by johncouturen/a

flavicon
face
In SX Microcontrollers, SX/B Compiler and SX-Key Tool, johncouture wrote:

Jon, just read your book in the last week.  Great job!  
When referencing it in my class it is possible to jump to a specific page in the manual similar to HTML bookmarks?  In other words, if I refer to "Chapter 3" in your book with a hyperlink, is it possible to have it go right to that chapter?

---------- End of Message ----------

You can view the post on-line at:
http://forums.parallax.com/forums/default.aspx?f=7&p=1&m=203072#m204842
Need assistance? Send an email to the Forum Administrator at forumadmin@parallax.com
The Parallax Forums are powered by dotNetBB Forums, copyright 2002-2007 (http://www.dotNetBB.com)

2007\07\29@125048 by johncouturen/a

flavicon
face
In SX Microcontrollers, SX/B Compiler and SX-Key Tool, johncouture wrote:

Jon,
Kool book, I'm adapting my course to follow it.  Thanks again!

Typos I noticed in the book:

1) sequence of topics in Table of Contents does not match book.
2) pg 1-30 ok
3) pg 31 shows Sec 4, LED blinker program but header at top of page shows sec 7 Multiple LEDs
4) Sec 7 header goes on until you actually hit sec 8 (pg 58)
And of course a couple of suggestions:
a) Include your "The Elements of SX/B Style" as an appendix b) Another suggested appendix might be a page of links that has links to all of the various books (i.e. see below) AND in big BOLD letters a link to a page showing that this appendix is updated as needed online (format the online page so that it can be printed and inserted in place of the appendix page).

Link Appendix / Page:
(Jon, I have these as HTML link if you want to save time)
SX/B Online Help
Beginning Assembler for the SX
Electrical Engineering Tutorial
Elements of SX/B Style
Williams, A. (2004). "Exploring the SX Microcontroller with Assembly and Basic Programming, Version 3.0", Rocklin, CA:Parallax
Applied Sensors, ver 1.3, 2003, Parallax
SX Programming FAQ, ver 2.0
"SX-Key Development System, Version 2.0". (2003). Rocklin,CA:Parallax
SX Users Manual ver 3.1
SX28 Datasheet
SX Quick Reference Card, 2007, G. Daubach
Practical SX/B, 2007, J. Williams, Draft ed.
Programming the SX Microcontroller, 2003, G. Daubach, $29.95 (link to store)
Best of SX Threads by Capt Quirk
Latest Version of SX/B
FAQ
SX Forum
SXList
SX Sim
List of NV articles highlighting the SX
---------- End of Message ----------

You can view the post on-line at:
http://forums.parallax.com/forums/default.aspx?f=7&p=1&m=203072#m205026
Need assistance? Send an email to the Forum Administrator at forumadmin@parallax.com
The Parallax Forums are powered by dotNetBB Forums, copyright 2002-2007 (http://www.dotNetBB.com)

2007\07\29@134258 by kvwoodn/a

flavicon
face
In SX Microcontrollers, SX/B Compiler and SX-Key Tool, kvwood wrote:

>>> 2) pg 1-30 ok
You missed one on page 10!

I already sent an email to Stephanie, so I'll leave it as a puzzle...

---------- End of Message ----------

You can view the post on-line at:
http://forums.parallax.com/forums/default.aspx?f=7&p=1&m=203072#m205034
Need assistance? Send an email to the Forum Administrator at forumadmin@parallax.com
The Parallax Forums are powered by dotNetBB Forums, copyright 2002-2007 (http://www.dotNetBB.com)

2007\07\29@203432 by kgraceyn/a

flavicon
face
In SX Microcontrollers, SX/B Compiler and SX-Key Tool, kgracey wrote:

John, Kevin, T'Saavik, Craig and others:

We really appreciate your input. You are helping us present the material the best way possible and speeding up the process through your contributions.

I can hardly wait for the projects [hint hint JonnyMac!]. Based on what he has provided so far and what I know about the projects, Jon has some good stuff on the way.

Ken Gracey
Parallax, Inc.

---------- End of Message ----------

You can view the post on-line at:
http://forums.parallax.com/forums/default.aspx?f=7&p=1&m=203072#m205083
Need assistance? Send an email to the Forum Administrator at forumadmin@parallax.com
The Parallax Forums are powered by dotNetBB Forums, copyright 2002-2007 (http://www.dotNetBB.com)

2007\07\30@062245 by JonnyMacn/a

flavicon
face
In SX Microcontrollers, SX/B Compiler and SX-Key Tool, JonnyMac wrote:

Thanks for all the feedback, guys -- most of you know it's hard to see individual trees when standing in the middle of the forest.

---------- End of Message ----------

You can view the post on-line at:
http://forums.parallax.com/forums/default.aspx?f=7&p=1&m=203072#m205142
Need assistance? Send an email to the Forum Administrator at forumadmin@parallax.com
The Parallax Forums are powered by dotNetBB Forums, copyright 2002-2007 (http://www.dotNetBB.com)


'[SX] Draft posted of Practical SX/B Parts I & II'
2007\08\09@110354 by Professorwizn/a
flavicon
face
In SX Microcontrollers, SX/B Compiler and SX-Key Tool, Professorwiz wrote:

P48, error, I think it might just be a wording error, if he states nothing different happens that would be correct instead of nothing would happen.

---------- End of Message ----------

You can view the post on-line at:
http://forums.parallax.com/forums/default.aspx?f=7&p=1&m=203072#m207513
Need assistance? Send an email to the Forum Administrator at forumadmin@parallax.com
The Parallax Forums are powered by dotNetBB Forums, copyright 2002-2007 (http://www.dotNetBB.com)


'[SX] Draft posted of Practical SX/B Parts I & II'
2007\10\17@084006 by Professorwizn/a
flavicon
face
In SX Microcontrollers, SX/B Compiler and SX-Key Tool, Professorwiz wrote:

Any updates?

---------- End of Message ----------

You can view the post on-line at:
http://forums.parallax.com/forums/default.aspx?f=7&p=1&m=203072#m224648
Need assistance? Send an email to the Forum Administrator at forumadmin@parallax.com
The Parallax Forums are powered by dotNetBB Forums, copyright 2002-2007 (http://www.dotNetBB.com)

2007\10\17@084529 by JonnyMacn/a

flavicon
face
In SX Microcontrollers, SX/B Compiler and SX-Key Tool, JonnyMac wrote:

We're getting close -- please be patient; this is the most difficult project I've ever taken on.

---------- End of Message ----------

You can view the post on-line at:
http://forums.parallax.com/forums/default.aspx?f=7&p=1&m=203072#m224650
Need assistance? Send an email to the Forum Administrator at forumadmin@parallax.com
The Parallax Forums are powered by dotNetBB Forums, copyright 2002-2007 (http://www.dotNetBB.com)


'[SX] Draft posted of Practical SX/B Parts I & II'
2008\01\22@093147 by c-isaacn/a
flavicon
face
In SX Microcontrollers, SX/B Compiler and SX-Key Tool, c-isaac wrote:

I just finished reading this....again.  Great book!  Any updates?

---------- End of Message ----------

You can view the post on-line at:
http://forums.parallax.com/forums/default.aspx?f=7&p=1&m=203072#m244892
Need assistance? Send an email to the Forum Administrator at forumadmin@parallax.com
The Parallax Forums are powered by dotNetBB Forums, copyright 2002-2008 (http://www.dotNetBB.com)

2008\01\22@135941 by JonnyMacn/a

flavicon
face
In SX Microcontrollers, SX/B Compiler and SX-Key Tool, JonnyMac wrote:

I'm working hard -- it has grown beyond "No Assembly Required" and has some neat stuff in it (like Charlie-plexing, X-10 input, DMX, etc.).  The fact is that writing the book forced me to become a better programmer and I'm going to share what I've learned with you.  Thanks for your patience.

---------- End of Message ----------

You can view the post on-line at:
http://forums.parallax.com/forums/default.aspx?f=7&p=1&m=203072#m244950
Need assistance? Send an email to the Forum Administrator at forumadmin@parallax.com
The Parallax Forums are powered by dotNetBB Forums, copyright 2002-2008 (http://www.dotNetBB.com)

2008\01\22@143412 by steve_bn/a

flavicon
face
In SX Microcontrollers, SX/B Compiler and SX-Key Tool, steve_b wrote:

I hate to be a pest....any timeline?!

---------- End of Message ----------

You can view the post on-line at:
http://forums.parallax.com/forums/default.aspx?f=7&p=1&m=203072#m244959
Need assistance? Send an email to the Forum Administrator at forumadmin@parallax.com
The Parallax Forums are powered by dotNetBB Forums, copyright 2002-2008 (http://www.dotNetBB.com)

2008\01\22@152042 by JonnyMacn/a

flavicon
face
In SX Microcontrollers, SX/B Compiler and SX-Key Tool, JonnyMac wrote:

Nope, but that shouldn't stop you from playing and experimenting -- which is part of the reason we've taken so long: as I worked with the SX every day (personally and professionally) I learned more things and it just seems that they should be in the book.

---------- End of Message ----------

You can view the post on-line at:
http://forums.parallax.com/forums/default.aspx?f=7&p=1&m=203072#m244971
Need assistance? Send an email to the Forum Administrator at forumadmin@parallax.com
The Parallax Forums are powered by dotNetBB Forums, copyright 2002-2008 (http://www.dotNetBB.com)


'[SX] Draft posted of Practical SX/B Parts I & II'
2008\04\30@034601 by Professorwizn/a
flavicon
face
In SX Microcontrollers, SX/B Compiler and SX-Key Tool, Professorwiz wrote:

Any further developments on the book?

---------- End of Message ----------

You can view the post on-line at:
http://forums.parallax.com/forums/default.aspx?f=7&p=1&m=203072#m266387
Need assistance? Send an email to the Forum Administrator at forumadmin@parallax.com
The Parallax Forums are powered by dotNetBB Forums, copyright 2002-2008 (http://www.dotNetBB.com)


'[PIC] bit bang SPI & Re: 18F4550/3 2550/3 - SDO mu'
2008\05\14@125926 by Wojciech Zabolotny
flavicon
picon face
Yes, I need USB to allow reading of the recorded data by the PC.
In fact the full-speed USB is awfully slow for reading 1GB of data, but
anyway it may be more convenient, than repeated removing of the SD/MMC card
and puting it back (at least the user should have a choice).
The device must be as cheap as possible, and built from the easily available
(in EU, specifically in Poland) parts (therefore I wouldn't like to use
PIC32).

Maybe I'll stick at PIC18F4550 or 18F4553, implementing the bit banged SPI.
SPI is called synchronously when transmitting the data, so it is relatively
easy. I only have to assess the amount of cycles needed to transmit the
single byte.
I haved found the 40 instructions output only implementation:
http://www.piclist.org/techref/postbot.asp?by=time&id=piclist/2004/03/03/105839a

My best in/out implementation is 64 instruction long (8 instructions for
a single bit):

; set the clock line to 'L'
 bcf  clk_port, clk_pin,0
; move the highest bit to the carry, and 0 to the lowest bit
 addwf WREG,0,0
; set the data line to carry
 bcf   sdo_port,sdo_pin,0
 btfsc STATUS,0,0
 bsf   sdo_port,sdo_pin,0
; read the input pin
 btfsc sdi_port, sdi_pin,0
; set the bit 0 in WREG to SDI
 bsf  WREG,0,0
; set the clock line to 'H'
 bsf  clk_port, clk_pin, 0

When repeated 8 times (using "copy&paste" technique) this routine transmits
the byte located in the WREG, and replaces it with the byte received from
the SPI in 64 instructions.

Does anybody know how to improve it?

---

Regards,
Wojtek


'[SX] Draft posted of Practical SX/B Parts I & II'
2008\07\18@093934 by Professorwizn/a
flavicon
face
In SX Microcontrollers, SX/B Compiler and SX-Key Tool, Professorwiz wrote:

It's coming up on the 1 year anniversery of the first 2 sections.  Any updates on when (if) well see the 3rd?

---------- End of Message ----------

You can view the post on-line at:
http://forums.parallax.com/forums/default.aspx?f=7&p=1&m=203072#m280071
Need assistance? Send an email to the Forum Administrator at forumadmin@parallax.com
The Parallax Forums are powered by dotNetBB Forums, copyright 2002-2008 (http://www.dotNetBB.com)

2008\07\18@103439 by JonnyMacn/a

flavicon
face
In SX Microcontrollers, SX/B Compiler and SX-Key Tool, JonnyMac wrote:

You will.  Question is... will you actually put it to use?  There is a goldmine of information in these forums provided by guys like Bean, PJV, et al -- that mostly gets ignored by those that are constantly asking questions.  Frankly, I don't get it....

---------- End of Message ----------

You can view the post on-line at:
http://forums.parallax.com/forums/default.aspx?f=7&p=1&m=203072#m280076
Need assistance? Send an email to the Forum Administrator at forumadmin@parallax.com
The Parallax Forums are powered by dotNetBB Forums, copyright 2002-2008 (http://www.dotNetBB.com)

2008\07\18@105551 by JonnyMacn/a

flavicon
face
In SX Microcontrollers, SX/B Compiler and SX-Key Tool, JonnyMac wrote:

The fault mine: I have two jobs (engineer [EFX-TEK])/tech writer and actor/screenwriter) and this book has been more challenging that I could have ever imagined; if it was easy it would be done and I would have collected a check a long time ago.  The other issue we faced was a moving target (1.5 -> 2.0).  Ken and Terry and I met a little over a month ago, decided to update everything in the book to 2.0, locked the 2.0 feature set, and are moving forward.  We're closing in on the end but I won't predict a date that will probably just make you unhappy.  There's still editing and formatting to finish and printing a bound book is a lot of work in and of itself.

Yes, a lot of time has passed... but, really, what have you done to teach yourself?  In the book I say very plainly that experience is a better teacher than I am.  I know SX/B because I experiment with it every day -- the book is the result of my experiments and learning from great forum gurus like Bean, PJB, PJMonty, et al.  Pick up the compiler and code, man! ;)  Don't wait for a book to have a really great time with the SX.

---------- End of Message ----------

You can view the post on-line at:
http://forums.parallax.com/forums/default.aspx?f=7&p=1&m=203072#m280080
Need assistance? Send an email to the Forum Administrator at forumadmin@parallax.com
The Parallax Forums are powered by dotNetBB Forums, copyright 2002-2008 (http://www.dotNetBB.com)

2008\07\18@110931 by Professorwizn/a

flavicon
face
In SX Microcontrollers, SX/B Compiler and SX-Key Tool, Professorwiz wrote:

JonnyMac,
I do understand where your coming from.  I work in a very busy machine shop (yep still some around,, and in Michigan too.)
The thing about having a book is that while experience can be a better teacher, by being prepared and reading on the subject you can make your time more effective while trying to learn new things.  There is no way I can spend more than a couple hours a week playing with the SX so I look for every advantage I can.

I appriciate your efforts in this. Thanks again for a great primer!

Russ
---------- End of Message ----------

You can view the post on-line at:
http://forums.parallax.com/forums/default.aspx?f=7&p=1&m=203072#m280086
Need assistance? Send an email to the Forum Administrator at forumadmin@parallax.com
The Parallax Forums are powered by dotNetBB Forums, copyright 2002-2008 (http://www.dotNetBB.com)

2008\07\18@133617 by Rsadeikan/a

flavicon
face
In SX Microcontrollers, SX/B Compiler and SX-Key Tool, Rsadeika wrote:

I thought their were two people that would be involved in writting books, whatever happened to the second person, and the book?

---------- End of Message ----------

You can view the post on-line at:
http://forums.parallax.com/forums/default.aspx?f=7&p=1&m=203072#m280115
Need assistance? Send an email to the Forum Administrator at forumadmin@parallax.com
The Parallax Forums are powered by dotNetBB Forums, copyright 2002-2008 (http://www.dotNetBB.com)

2008\07\18@153422 by tsaavikn/a

flavicon
face
In SX Microcontrollers, SX/B Compiler and SX-Key Tool, tsaavik wrote:

Patiently and eagerly awaiting the release :D
Ever since July 1st came up, I've been sitting on my hands trying not to ask if its out yet!

Just to let you know, we are still enthused to get it.

---------- End of Message ----------

You can view the post on-line at:
http://forums.parallax.com/forums/default.aspx?f=7&p=1&m=203072#m280131
Need assistance? Send an email to the Forum Administrator at forumadmin@parallax.com
The Parallax Forums are powered by dotNetBB Forums, copyright 2002-2008 (http://www.dotNetBB.com)

2008\07\18@172358 by JonnyMacn/a

flavicon
face
In SX Microcontrollers, SX/B Compiler and SX-Key Tool, JonnyMac wrote:

That July date you saw was a typo -- in the meeting mentioned above Terry and I agreed it would take longer than that to finish 2.0 (done) and associated testing -- we feel good about that, too, but little things come up as beta testers really put the new compiler through its paces.

---------- End of Message ----------

You can view the post on-line at:
http://forums.parallax.com/forums/default.aspx?f=7&p=1&m=203072#m280153
Need assistance? Send an email to the Forum Administrator at forumadmin@parallax.com
The Parallax Forums are powered by dotNetBB Forums, copyright 2002-2008 (http://www.dotNetBB.com)

2008\07\18@175855 by beann/a

flavicon
face
In SX Microcontrollers, SX/B Compiler and SX-Key Tool, bean wrote:

And I want to thank all the Beta testers for finding the bug and for their suggestions.
I'm sure the book will be worth the wait.

Bean.

---------- End of Message ----------

You can view the post on-line at:
http://forums.parallax.com/forums/default.aspx?f=7&p=1&m=203072#m280154
Need assistance? Send an email to the Forum Administrator at forumadmin@parallax.com
The Parallax Forums are powered by dotNetBB Forums, copyright 2002-2008 (http://www.dotNetBB.com)


'[SX] Draft posted of Practical SX/B Parts I & II'
2008\08\04@070637 by John Bondn/a
flavicon
face
In SX Microcontrollers, SX/B Compiler and SX-Key Tool, John Bond wrote:

I really appreciate your ability to teach us programming skills and many hours of my experience is unlikely to equal 10 minutes reading your clear explanation.

You do yourself and the other forum members a great disservice by suggesting we can learn better just programming. From time to time, I take some utility you or Bean or PJV or PJMonty or Günther etc. have written and tried to recreate the program. When I have the program working, I compare my code with yours, counting the assembled instructions.  You guys always (without exception!) beats me, often producing code half the size.

Some people come naturally to a skill while others battle a bit. The best way we lesser souls can learn is to study and then emulate your good work. (Consider us the golfers of the electronics world with handicaps of over 50 while you people are the Tiger Woods, BJ Singh or Ernie Else)
We are all aware that producing the code then writing about it takes you time but I can spend days debugging something I've written and if you multiply that by the hundreds (thousands) of your fans, you get some small idea of your impact. (You must be the only actor with thousands of fans, all nerds who seldom go to the movies and very few of them have seen any of your screen performances)
I am eagerly waiting for both Bean's new software and your book.

---------- End of Message ----------

You can view the post on-line at:
http://forums.parallax.com/forums/default.aspx?f=7&p=2&m=203072#m283215
Need assistance? Send an email to the Forum Administrator at forumadmin@parallax.com
The Parallax Forums are powered by dotNetBB Forums, copyright 2002-2008 (http://www.dotNetBB.com)


'[SX] Draft posted of Practical SX/B Parts I & II'
2008\12\28@171343 by Professorwizn/a
flavicon
face
In SX Microcontrollers, SX/B Compiler and SX-Key Tool, Professorwiz wrote:

Any updates?  I can't wait to see the cool stuff you guys come up with1
---------- End of Message ----------

You can view the post on-line at:
http://forums.parallax.com/forums/default.aspx?f=7&p=2&m=203072#m316000
Need assistance? Send an email to the Forum Administrator at forumadmin@parallax.com
The Parallax Forums are powered by dotNetBB Forums, copyright 2002-2008 (http://www.dotNetBB.com)


'[OT]:: WiFi & Mobile-phone Security'
2014\05\03@040552 by RussellMc
face picon face
     BCCs: People with IT departments (VMP, KM, ...) may wish to send them
the link in 2. below
               In many cases applies to out-of office use by staff so
possibly under the RADAR.

This post is perhaps near the edge of being suitable for public consumption..
It seemed worth posting AND / AS the main link is available in 2 jumps from
a current Hackaday article.

Summary: Vulnerability of and how to break security on mobile phones with
WiFi operating, and to a lesser extent, WiFi in general.Detailed
instructions given and links to all tools.  Level of effectiveness seems
liable to be high for relevant phones.

A good but incomplete "cure" is to disable WiFi or automatic logon and/or
automatic new network acquisition when mobile.  How likely it is that such
an attack will be experienced is TBD.

Note: I have personally experienced one almost certain spoof access point
hacking attack while transiting Hong Kong airport some years ago. My gmail
password was changed but I was able to reclaim the account very shortly
afterwards using Google's provided recovery system. In that case the
attacker probably simply emulated the free airport WiFi service.
___________

How its done:

1. The vulnerability of a mobile phone set to automatically access
available WiFi access points is both noted and demonstrated. The obvious in
retrospect point is that if a phone broadcasts a list of "I'm looking for
scess point xxx" messages (as is apparently the norm) then a rogue access
point can respond as if it had the genuine SSID - and yer off ...
..Depending on the relationship you established with other computers on the
related real network you could open your system up almost completely. The
1st step is the link accessed via hackaday.


http://hyperionbristol.co.uk/hardware-open-source-nsa-technology-airborne-wifi/

Says:

... What a lot of people don't realise is that their
iPhone/Blackberry/Android/whatever phone has WiFi on by default. When a
wireless client (aka Phone) is on, it is constantly asking everyone within
range if they are one of a list of networks it 'remembers'. Why does this
matter? It's trivial to create a rogue access point that pretends to be
every network that anyone asks for. The wireless client will then connect
to it, no questions asked, and allow it to inject malicious content into
browsing sessions, sniff passwords, etc. For an example of this attack
scenario, see Here<resources.infosecinstitute.com/raising-a-rogue-access-point/>
..

That leads to the "white" hat page ...

2.  Doing it.

In 1. above "here" is 'Raising a Rogue Access
Point<resources.infosecinstitute.com/raising-a-rogue-access-point/>
'

       http://resources.infosecinstitute.com/raising-a-rogue-access-point/

which provides extremely well documented step by step how-to-do-it
instructions.
The writer takes great care to emphasise the educational / white hat /
vet=your company natureof his post, but, 'The hacker may protest too much,
methinks'.

The above especially was the link that I wondered about posting.
And, for sure, 0 or more people with bad intent will stumble across this
post and make bad use of it. *BUT* the Hackaday post will go to far more
'bad-guys' that a PICList archived post ever will - so I think there is
liab;le to be a substantial net gain in posting this here.



Identified access points in a street. Food for thought.


http://hyperionbristol.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/wardrive.png


3. The above said - InfoSecInstitute DO seem real and whitishhatted.

Some excellent resources:

                   http://resources.infosecinstitute.com/

They say:

About InfoSec Institute

InfoSec Institute was founded in 1998 by an expert team of information
security instructors. Their goal was to build a business by offering the
best possible training experience for students. We felt that by providing
the best possible hands on training, the most practical for today's
demanding workplace requirements, that the business would grow by leaps and
bounds. This original assumption proved true.


InfoSec Institute has trained over 15,000 individuals on everything from
industry standard certifications as the CISSP to highly technical
customized Windows Kernel Reverse Engineering courses.

Unlike other training companies that have been founded by non-technical
business persons, InfoSec Institute deeply understands the needs of today's
IT professionals and is best positioned to offer world class training. Our
wide range of security specific classes helps a diverse group of customers
get the training they need and deserve.


Recent posts:



  - Web Application Penetration Testing Using Open Source Tools, Part 1:
  Application Security<resources.infosecinstitute.com/web-application-penetration-testing-using-open-source-tools-part-1-application-security/>
  - Public Key Cryptography and PuTTYgen - Program for Generating Private
  and Public Keys<resources.infosecinstitute.com/public-key-cryptography-puttygen-program-generating-private-public-keys/>
  - *Cloud-Based File Sharing Websites: A Data Security Disaster Waiting
  to Happen?*<resources.infosecinstitute.com/cloud-based-file-sharing-websites-data-security-disaster-waiting-happen/>
  - iOS Application Security Part 34 - Tracing Method calls using
Logify<resources.infosecinstitute.com/ios-application-security-part-34-tracing-method-calls-using-logify/>
  - Windows Registry
Forensics<resources.infosecinstitute.com/windows-registry-forensics/>
  - Fool the Network Hunters
(Hackers)<resources.infosecinstitute.com/fool-network-hunters-hackers/>
  - Real Time CSRF
Exploitation<resources.infosecinstitute.com/real-time-csrf-exploitation/>
  - Android Hacking and Security, Part 4: Exploiting Unintended Data
  Leakage (Side Channel Data
Leakage)<resources.infosecinstitute.com/android-hacking-security-part-4-exploiting-unintended-data-leakage-side-channel-data-leakage/>
  - Securing IIS Server
Checklists<resources.infosecinstitute.com/securing-iis-server-checklists-2/>
  - H@cking Implantable Medical
Devices<resources.infosecinstitute.com/hcking-implantable-medical-devices/>
-- http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.

2014\05\03@043919 by James Cameron

flavicon
face
Yes, an active scan for a known wireless network SSID can be a probe
request with an information element (IE) describing the SSID.

The access point is then expected to respond with a probe response.

Thus personal devices may effectively advertise the networks they are
interested in, whenever their wireless is on.  That knowledge can be
used for evil.

An active scan without an SSID IE is more secure, but consumes more
air time because every access point must respond.

A passive scan is even more secure, and costs no air time, but;

- relies on beacons sent by the access point; and some are configured
 not to send them or to send them so infrequently that the time
 required to scan grows,

- will more easily miss beacons if the area is dense with access
 points.

In the context of One Laptop per Child, when you power up a whole
classroom of laptops, with each one doing active scans every few
seconds, on each channel, the whole 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz range, the air
is thick with packets, but luckily not the known SSIDs.  We got it
right.

If you are not sure if your device does this, use Wireshark and a
wireless adapter configured for monitor mode.  Here's a procedure I
give out at OLPC, and while it is Linux specific the same concepts
apply to other operating systems, with different commands.

--

RF packet monitoring.

You will need both a Linux system with a wireless adapter that can be
configured for monitor mode, such as an Atheros chipset.  Neither the
libertas nor mwifiex drivers in OLPC OS can be configured for monitor
mode.

It also helps greatly if the access point is not secured, so that
analysis can look into the data packets.

a.  use ntpdate to synchronise the clock, so that the captured data is
   synchronised with any other data captured,

   sudo ntpdate pool.ntp.org

b.  stop Network Manager if present, and bring down the network
   interface,

   service NetworkManager stop
   ifconfig wlan0 down

c.  configure the interface for monitoring, and bring it up,

   iwconfig wlan0 mode monitor && ifconfig wlan0 up

d.  configure for the channel to be monitored,

   iwconfig wlan0 channel 1

e.  prepare the network of access points and clients for the test,

f.  begin recording packets,

   tcpdump -i wlan0 -n -s 0 -w test-1.tcpdump

g.  perform the test, reproduce the problem at hand,

h.  stop recording packets, using Control/C,

Keep the packet recording, give it a useful file name, write notes
about the test configuration.  The recording can be compressed,
mailed, and opened with Wireshark.

-- James Cameron
http://quozl.linux.org.au/
-- http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.

2014\05\03@204637 by Christopher Head

flavicon
face



On May 3, 2014 1:05:10 AM PDT, RussellMc <EraseMEapptechnzspam@spam@gmail.com> wrote:
>Note: I have personally experienced one almost certain spoof access
>point
>hacking attack while transiting Hong Kong airport some years ago. My
>gmail
>password was changed but I was able to reclaim the account very shortly
>afterwards using Google's provided recovery system. In that case the
>attacker probably simply emulated the free airport WiFi service.

In theory, this should be a non-event. You don't want to give the fake access point your gmail password, but honestly, you shouldn't want to give the Hong Kong airport authority or the neighbourhood coffee shop your gmail password either. Secure communication should be END TO END, meaning your phone verifies it is talking to Google regardless of what lies between. If TLS is implemented properly, if all the design flaws in the protocol are closed, if all software requires TLS and properly verifies certificates, and if there are no rogue certification authorities, then the security level of the WiFi link and the authenticity of its owner are irrelevant.

In practice, of course, YMMV. Defense in depth exists for a reason, and there are an awful lot of “if”s in the last sentence of the above paragraph. If you use WiFi in odd places, a decent VPN may be a wise investment.
--
Christopher Head
Sent from my phone; if you need a digital signature, ask for a resend.

--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2014\05\04@001707 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face

On 3 May 2014 17:46, Christopher Head <@spam@cheadspam_OUTspam.....chead.ca> wrote:

> In theory, this should be a non-event. You don't want to give the fake
> access point your gmail password, but honestly, you shouldn't want to give
> the Hong Kong airport authority or the neighbourhood coffee shop your gmail
> password either.
>

I think you misunderstood that blog. You do not give your password
intentionally to anyone. What is happening though is that you think you are
using a secure connection (through 3G/4G/LTE for example), but instead,
your smartphone is automatically connects to a Rogue AccessPoint which is
fully controlled and monitored by an attacker.

Rogue AccessPoint is unfortunately happening and is known in the computer
security industry for years. What is happening is that the AP is pretending
to be a known and trusted one. For example you go to McDonalds and use
their AP. Once you set up their wifi, next time your device will
automatically connect to it (default behaviour at least). One day the
attacker also stays in that place and sets up another access point with the
same name (same SSID). Your device might chose to connect to his AP instead
of the one you set up, simply because signal seems to be better. From that
point you use a non secure connection to the rest of the world and
everything you do will be tracked and analyzed by the bad actor...

In the scene behind the attacker has his own DNS services and everything
else needed do mitigate the attack. For example from the point your phone
choose the rogue AP, every time when you use DNS service, aka try to
resolve the address to "http://www.facebook.com", the rogue DNS service gives back
his IP address instead of the original. So when the browser gets the HTML
page, the page is generated from his server, not from the original Facebook
one. It looks and feels exactly the same as it was the original Facebook.
You think you are in the right place so you type the password, and he
records it... That simple -- and that is one of the reasons why most social
networking media urges the two-factor authentication instead or merely
relying on a single password (that way there is a chance to rule out the
usage of stolen passwords).

Other attack vectors also could be done. For example there is one called
man-in-the-middle attack. When you try to access to facebook.com, the
attacker initiates the connection instead just forwarding your request.
That's why he will get the secured SSL connection to Facebook, not you.
Then he uses a fake CA certificate towards you, therefore he unscrambles
packages from each side and scrambles with the other certificate before
forwarding. This way he will get the cleartext content, he can alter it as
he wish and it still looks like coming from the right place. You still
think you have a secured line to the server because you have the SSL
connection, so you think you are fine. And guess what, the attacker knows
everything you do on Facebook, not only your password, but listens and
interacts with everything you do. That is scary, he can post messages upon
you, change your security / privacy settings and everything else they
want... This is sometimes used in a more advanced attack like against
online banks.


> In practice, of course, YMMV. Defense in depth exists for a reason, and
> there are an awful lot of “if”s in the last sentence of the above
> paragraph. If you use WiFi in odd places, a decent VPN may be a wise
> investment.
>

Exactly, security is about who and what you trust. If you have a trusted
server and a trusted connection to it, then it is better to use. I would
not trust though on paid VPN services (those you pay $20 for a year).

Tamas




{Quote hidden}

--
int main() { char *a,*s,*q; printf(s="int main() { char *a,*s,*q;
printf(s=%s%s%s, q=%s%s%s%s,s,q,q,a=%s%s%s%s,q,q,q,a,a,q); }",
q="\"",s,q,q,a="\\",q,q,q,a,a,q); }
--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2014\05\05@012845 by Christopher Head

flavicon
face
part 1 7290 bytes content-type:text/plain; charset="utf-8" (decoded base64)

On Sat, 3 May 2014 21:17:06 -0700
Tamas Rudnai <spamBeGonetamas.rudnaiEraseMEspamgmail.com> wrote:

> On 3 May 2014 17:46, Christopher Head <cheadspamBeGonespamchead.ca> wrote:
>
> > In theory, this should be a non-event. You don't want to give the
> > fake access point your gmail password, but honestly, you shouldn't
> > want to give the Hong Kong airport authority or the neighbourhood
> > coffee shop your gmail password either.
> >
>
> I think you misunderstood that blog. You do not give your password
> intentionally to anyone. What is happening though is that you think
> you are using a secure connection (through 3G/4G/LTE for example),
> but instead, your smartphone is automatically connects to a Rogue
> AccessPoint which is fully controlled and monitored by an attacker.

I think we may be debating at kind of cross purposes—I don’t think I
misunderstood the attack, rather I disagree that it’s all that
interesting.

My point is: why do you trust Joe’s Café’s staff more than that guy
with a black hat sitting in the corner with a laptop? Either it’s
possible for the operator of whatever Wifi network you’re connected to
to obtain (somehow) your GMail password, or it isn’t. If it is
possible, then it doesn’t matter whether you connect to Joe’s Café or
Mr. Black Hat, whichever you connect to could be stealing your
password. If it isn’t possible, then it also doesn’t matter which one
you connect to, because neither one can do any harm.

This matters in the specific case of a home or corporate network where
you trust all machines on the network and therefore rely on the network
itself being closed as a form of authentication. This is not the case
when you’re at a coffee shop.

> Rogue AccessPoint is unfortunately happening and is known in the
> computer security industry for years. What is happening is that the
> AP is pretending to be a known and trusted one. For example you go to
> McDonalds and use their AP. Once you set up their wifi, next time
> your device will automatically connect to it (default behaviour at
> least). One day the attacker also stays in that place and sets up
> another access point with the same name (same SSID). Your device
> might chose to connect to his AP instead of the one you set up,
> simply because signal seems to be better. From that point you use a
> non secure connection to the rest of the world and everything you do
> will be tracked and analyzed by the bad actor...

I completely understand this. My point is, you’re trusting lots of
people you shouldn’t—that non-secure connection to the rest of the
world should never have happened in the first place.

> In the scene behind the attacker has his own DNS services and
> everything else needed do mitigate the attack. For example from the
> point your phone choose the rogue AP, every time when you use DNS
> service, aka try to resolve the address to "http://www.facebook.com", the
> rogue DNS service gives back his IP address instead of the original.
> So when the browser gets the HTML page, the page is generated from
> his server, not from the original Facebook one. It looks and feels
> exactly the same as it was the original Facebook. You think you are
> in the right place so you type the password, and he records it...
> That simple -- and that is one of the reasons why most social
> networking media urges the two-factor authentication instead or
> merely relying on a single password (that way there is a chance to
> rule out the usage of stolen passwords).

This is precisely what Moxie Marlinspike’s famous SSLStrip does. It’s
useless if you get to Facebook by typing “https://facebook.com/” in
your address bar, or by bookmarking the same, which is what everyone
*should* be doing. SSLStrip works by removing the redirect from
insecure to secure, so that the victim continues to use an insecure
connection when they ought to be using a secure connection, thus making
their continued activities available to the attacker. If you start out
on a secure connection from your first request, there is no window for
the attacker to modify the page to remove the security in the first
place. Unfortunately some websites are not designed in a manner
amenable to doing this, but most are.

> Other attack vectors also could be done. For example there is one
> called man-in-the-middle attack. When you try to access to
> facebook.com, the attacker initiates the connection instead just
> forwarding your request. That's why he will get the secured SSL
> connection to Facebook, not you. Then he uses a fake CA certificate
> towards you, therefore he unscrambles packages from each side and
> scrambles with the other certificate before forwarding.

Of course, if the attacker has compromised a recognized certification
authority, then you’re screwed (if he hasn’t, and just presents some
other certificate, you will get a warning in your browser, and if you
accept it, that’s your fault). That’s an unfortunate fact of TLS these
days, but one we don’t really have a good solution for. Defense in
depth by getting the right AP *can* help, but even if you’re connected
to Joe’s Café (the real one!), there are plenty of other avenues for an
attacker to mount such attacks—Joe’s Café is probably designed to be
easy for customers to use, so they probably don’t have strong Wifi-layer
encryption, so Mr. Black Hat can probably see your cleartext packets
going by and mount a DNS poisoning attack against you. If CAs did their
jobs properly you wouldn’t care because DNS was never meant to be
trusted in the first place (hence why certificate contain hostnames and
not IP addresses); unfortunately, they don’t always, thus defense in
depth.

There are plenty of other avenues, of course, to mount a network-layer
MITM. Mr. Black Hat could install a physical wiretap behind your house,
or if he works for a large company, just start announcing random insane
routes by BGP and wait for half the planet to send him all its traffic,
then claim it was an accident when discovered—the outward symptoms of
this have happened plenty of times before, and we on the outside have
no way of knowing whether any such occurrence was *really* an accident.

I’m not saying rogue access points don’t exist. I’m saying that, if
you’re worried about rogue APs, you probably shouldn’t be using coffee
shop/airport/any other public Wifi at all in the first place, because
even in the absence of a rogue AP, the same risks exist. You probably
also shouldn’t be using cellular data to access those services either,
because people know how to make fake cell towers or break the
network-layer crypto between phone and tower, so even without a Wifi
AP, and even if you’re associated with your provider’s tower, an
attacker could probably *still* mount an MITM.

> Exactly, security is about who and what you trust. If you have a
> trusted server and a trusted connection to it, then it is better to
> use. I would not trust though on paid VPN services (those you pay $20
> for a year).

At least I’d trust a $20/year VPN service more than Joe’s Café.
--
Christopher Head

part 2 197 bytes content-type:text/plain; name="ATT00001.txt"
(decoded base64)

--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2014\05\05@093752 by RussellMc

face picon face
On 5 May 2014 17:28, Christopher Head <RemoveMEchead@spam@spamspamBeGonechead.ca> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

That's only one of the attacks that the Rogue Access Point can mount.
IF you radiate SSL requests for access points that you can automatically
connect to then the Rogue access point can respond and you connect
automatically. Here you are not trusting a coffee shop but are eg trusting
what appears to be your home network.  A bonus for the RAP is that you send
it the WEP key or whatever when you log in and it happily records it. If
the RAP system can work out who you are and, from this, where you live, the
operator now has logon access to your home system.
A suitably clever RAP system could listen to your laptop and your home LAN,
disconnect you so that you attempt to reconnect, mount a DOS attack on your
home access point (one of the "services" in the provided toolkits) so your
access point is unavailable and then accept your reconnect.
Yes?

          Russell
-- http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.

2014\05\05@120917 by Vitaliy M

picon face

1. Chris makes a great point: if you use encrypted connection for gmail, you won't compromise your gmail password.

2. If you use WPA2 on your home network (as any sane person should, nowadays), a rogue AP can't successfully spoof it.

3. IMO, if you use WEP, you deserve to be hacked.

Sent from my phone

On May 5, 2014, at 6:37, RussellMc <.....apptechnzSTOPspamspam@spam@gmail.com> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2014\05\05@124855 by John J. McDonough

flavicon
face
On Mon, 2014-05-05 at 09:09 -0700, Vitaliy M wrote:
> 1. Chris makes a great point: if you use encrypted connection for gmail, you won't compromise your gmail password.
>
> 2. If you use WPA2 on your home network (as any sane person should, nowadays), a rogue AP can't successfully spoof it.
>
> 3. IMO, if you use WEP, you deserve to be hacked.

The latest 2600 had a pretty good article on hacking WiFi.  WPA2 is
hackable, but it is way more difficult than WEP.  Pretty much any script
kiddie can hack WEP.

BTW, 2600 is worth following.  It's a small rag and only comes out
quarterly so it doesn't take a lot of effort. Most of the articles are
very poorly written, and many are nothing more than bragging.  But it
does give you a lot of insight into your vulnerability surface.

--McD


-- http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.

2014\05\05@134012 by Christopher Head

flavicon
face



On May 5, 2014 9:09:13 AM PDT, Vitaliy M <vitaliy.maksspam_OUTspam@spam@gmail.com> wrote:
>1. Chris makes a great point: if you use encrypted connection for
>gmail, you won't compromise your gmail password.

Let’s not go overboard here. TLS isn’t perfect—very good, but not perfect—as rogue and weak root-approved certification authorities do exist and improperly issued, properly signed certificates have been seen in the wild. I still trust it a whole lot more than a coffee shop; that having been said, defense in depth—I use WPA2-CCMP on my home network, *and* I always set my bookmarks to have “https” as the scheme to defeat an SSLStrip-style attack. If I were using coffee shop WiFi instead, I would certainly visit Facebook, but probably not my bank, for many reasons not limited to network security, such as shoulder surfing.
--
Christopher Head
Sent from my phone; if you need a digital signature, ask for a resend.

--
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2014 , 2015 only
- Today
- New search...