so we can make new works using them. You know, Disney didn't write the story in the Lion King, right? It's an age old story. They don't write _any_ of their own stories (even Lilo and Stitch was just something they bought because they thought they could get 626 toys out of it).

The idea was that copyright and patents encouraged people to share information so that it wouldn't be lost. The entire point was to get the works into the public domain at some point. We've turned it into a rent seeking scheme. If it started out this way we'd all be paying royalties to some Nords and a few Egyptians who claimed ownership of stone tablets from 200 B.C..

in order to qualify for the "Safe Harbor" part you have to take down the "infringing" content immediately. No questions asked. Only _after_ you take it down can the person who put it up apply to have it put back up.

It makes it really easy to get stuff silenced and much harder to get it back out there; especially for quasi-legal journalistic sources like leaks.

is that this is exactly the sort of overreach of intent that people said would happen with the DMCA. There's a lot of dirt in those emails on Sony (like them coordinating with Attorneys General to attack Google). Much of that information falls under what used to be freedom of press. The DMCA screws all that. Now anything you don't want making the rounds you just copyright and an ironclad and unquestionable law shuts it down instantly. I believe the phrase is "Chilling Effect"...

it was about saving money on office space. With the economy tanking and all signs pointing to things only getting worse for workers employers can dump on them as much as their want. Don't like it? Good luck finding a new job.

I think it's safe to say the average /.er is much more likely to have access to a heat gun for fixing broken solder joints than a Kitchen over for cooking.

that there was _tons_ of proof that God exists (e.g. Miracles) right up until the invention of the camera, the jet airplane and the t.v. journalist...

TL;DR: There's a lot more to the craft than just wires and a board. This started as a short post, but turned into Light Shows 101.

I've been on the fringes of the community for a few years. If you're willing to touch a soldering gun, you can do far better than a single-board computer, though I'm sure I'm going to annoy some Slashdotters for suggesting such blasphemy.

First, consider your requirements: Lights, elements, power, control, sequencing, and sound. We'll tackle them in that order.

Lights are actually one of the tougher decisions to get started with. You have to decide between LED (brilliant intensity, saturated colors, low power, expensive) or incandescent (cheap, high power, warm glow), and what size you'll use (everything from surface-mount LEDs to full-size Edison bulbs). I know a guy who's used car headlights in a show, and there's been a few stage lights, too.

The problem with lights is the sheer number to be used. 32 strings are enough for one megatree (more on megatrees shortly). Consider that shows are measured in the thousands of individual lights, and the hundreds of channels. Mixing LED and incandescent lights is rarely a good idea, because of the severe difference in brightness. Even among the same type, different brands have different colored lights. Manufacturers also tend to cut the strings shorter every year, saving money on wire costs. What used to be a 30-foot string several years ago is now a 27-foot string. The result is that show builders will hoard hundreds of strings of lights from the same manufacturer and year, so any future element projects will have a consistent look. Communities will also organize occasional bulk purchases directly from manufacturers, ordering a whole shipping container full of lights.

The elements, though, are where creativity and construction skill really comes into play. You're effectively building a piece of modern art that usually has to survive snow, rain, wind, squirrels (who apparently love the taste of wire insulation), vandals (sadly), and both heat and cold. The elements start the show cold, but often (especially with incandescent lights) they'll have so much current running through them that by the end of the night they're warm enough to cause noticeable expansion.

There are a few standard elements, but every builder has their own technique. There are basic trees, where lights make a vaguely conical shape. With more wiring, you get megatrees, which have several steps of control, up to a single string per control channel, so you can animate spinning motions. In a smaller size, tomato cages with their legs welded together make great minitrees. A long piece of conduit, wrapped in lights (about 30 feet of lights per foot of conduit) can be bent and anchored to stakes, making arches. Chicken wire and zip ties are the perfect tools for laying out a more two-dimensional element. With a bigger budget, flamethrowers, projectors, lasers, water fountains, and robotic spotlights are all options.

With all those elements, electric power becomes a problem. LEDs make the problem much more manageable, but there's still the issue of distribution. There's a lot of extension cords involved, and possibly some very thick wires needed. Builders of big shows will often turn to buried cables and upgraded supply lines. I helped with a show that used a 100-amp line running to a buried box in the back yard, where a control box fed a set of distributor boxes through 50-foot 20-amp lines that were scattered around the area supplying the other elements.

Every outdoor circuit must be also protected by a ground fault circuit interrupter (GFCI), which will cut the power immediately if it shorts to ground. It's intended to protect a person who accidentally grounds a circuit, but with that many connectors out in the rain and snow, you can expect a GFCI to trip a few times a week.

Controlling that much power is the part that gets so much attention, but it's really one of the easiest aspects of the hobby. There are a few routes to go, from the aforementioned newbie-friendly Light-O-Rama to all-custom rigs like you describe. The best option depends on the elements and lights in use. LOR has its own proprietary system, but it can also run on the DMX protocol, which is well-established in the theatre industry. For addressable RGB LEDs, or big fields of pixels, modern stage control systems (not DMX) are better suited for the huge numbers of individual controls needed.

Personally, I like the Cat5-cable-based Lynx series, built by the fine folks at DiyLightAnimation. The community runs co-op purchases throughout the year, getting bulk rates on parts and cheap milling of the PCBs. The easiest solution is the Lynx Express, which simply controls 16 120v AC channels. Closer to what you described, though, is the Lynx Freestyle, which drives 128 channels of control to 32 Lynx SSR4 boxes, which each hold 4 solid-state relays. There are also wireless modules, motor controllers, and a variety of other accessories.

Everything's managed by a normal computer. I know there's some software out there for Linux, but I don't know how well it'd work on a Raspberry Pi. Typically, a main control line runs through a USB interface to a control PC, which doesn't need to have particularly robust hardware. There are also some devices to play back a preprogrammed sequence. All the control system really needs to do is run the sequence.

That sequence is what takes most of the time. Effectively, you're choreographing a dance for a cast of thousands, but your dancers can't move, unless you have a few motors pushing things into the path of this analogy. If a show is too flash and high-tempo, it's hard for the viewers to appreciate the elements. Too slow, and the show gets boring. Too bright, and the neighborhood can't sleep. Too dim, and the show won't be visible. While sequencing, you also have to mind where your elements are, keep a few surprises for the audience, and have a bit of rhythm, as well. Of course, you have to do all of this enough to fill a show, anywhere from a few minutes to a full evening's set.

Without a soundtrack, though, the audience won't likely get the full effect of the show. Your carefully-choreographed masterpiece will just be a bunch of blinking lights. Some builders with small shows will just run outdoor speakers, but for wider coverage a radio transmitter will allow the audience to watch from the warm comfort of their cars. The legal ramifications of broadcasting Christmas music are often not discussed. Usually, the soundtrack is run from the same computer that controls the lights, as the control software will handle maintaining synchronization.

As for the music itself, many builders go with the classics, with a modern style. Trans-Siberian Orchestra and Mannheim Steamroller make modern arrangements from traditional tunes, practically perfect for this kind of production, as a blend of traditional decoration with a high-tech flair. Other builders throw in classic rock & roll, pop hits, and anything else for a more secular show. Some builders avoid Christmas altogether, running their theatrics at Halloween, where animatronics, special effects, and costuming share the stage for a literally fantastic experience.

Building light shows is a hobby that quickly turns into an obsession. There's always that one weak part in the sequence, or that really great element idea, or that song that is just so awesome. The community is supportive and creative, and the shows can grow according to any available budget. Fueled by the Internet's ability to connect people, builders have the support of a large community, but within any city there's few enough participants that shows are still novel and unique. For those who love theatrics, there are few better pastimes.

For those who love the holiday season, the shows are also a beloved spectacle. Builders often notice regulars who return to their shows night after night, year after year. The builder I worked with once received a card from a viewer who had come to his show several times, driving 45 minutes each way, just to watch. I've stood in the middle of the show with children who are amazed by every new element and will spend hours talking about their most-favoritest parts. That's what makes all the effort worth it... that moment where you realize that your show isn't just a show any more. It's a production; the product of your hard work, and on that dark night in the middle of winter, it is the most awesome thing in town.

at least not if they keep up with the path they started with IE10 and continued on with 11. They've been pushing standards compliance because they can make way more money selling software-as-a-service (Office 365) then keeping browser competition down. Netscape's dead, buried and the built a playground on the burial site. Firefox and Chrome exist to serve ads. It's a different market now that requires different strategies, and Microsoft isn't shy about pivoting.

The guy has one year to get his first year of experience. Plenty of time. After all, that's how we all started.

Light-O-Rama is as off-the-shelf as this gets, apart from tiny trinkets only suitable for lighting a single tree.

LOR has decent-enough software for basic synchronizing. Last time I used it, it really wasn't suitable for controlling huge pixel fields, but anything simple was easy, like it's easy to go buy a tube of paint and a brush. The hard part is the art of good sequencing, and you're absolutely right about the time commitment. Every show is a custom layout, and should have a custom sequence. There are a few folks who publish their sequences for others to use, though, and with some fudging you can make them fit similarly-sized displays.

Yep.

Light-O-Rama is the go-to choice for pre-built kits for newbies (or professionals who need UL certification). The well-beaten path is to begin with LOR, learn about what's possible by joining communities like Planet Christmas, and hone your sequencing skill - not too flashy, not too dull, and just below the threshold where your neighbors formally complain. After that, once you're comfortable with the idea of running a few hundred channels and a few tens of thousands of lights (or in short, once you're addicted), you'll find it's cheaper to switch to DIY kits bought in co-ops, running DMX or newer protocols.

You'll spend time soldering the boards together and building your own cases, but by that point it's a full-time hobby. Then you sell off your old LOR kits to the next round of newbies.

On the other hand, being misunderstood does nothing to contribute to improving the education and awareness of those who misunderstand.

With a succinct message, Tyson started a discussion that spread to thousands of people. Some people misunderstood, and despite the elegance and artistic quality of his written words, that misunderstanding tarnishes his reputation in their minds, and that extends to everything he supports - most notably science and an appreciation of the beauty of the observable world without religious connection. By explaining his meaning clearly, and expressing no wish to offend, some of those people will see the mistake for themselves, and open their minds again to science.

It's not about winning or losing, or of being the stalwart champion of misdirection. It's a matter of graceful interaction with other humans.

I didn't say it wasn't a big deal. I said it isn't enough to cause noticeable disruption or bankruptcy of a government, because that's what plopez seemed so concerned about.

For what it's worth, getting the price up to 1% is also unrealistic, but it was an easy calculation to make to show that it's not a threat. Really, the $400 billion price tag is an estimate for the entire program, extending slightly past final delivery in 2037. That works out to only about $10 billion per year (not accounting for inflation), which is roughly 0.3% of a year's federal budget. That's less than the amount the government loses due to the home sale capital gains tax credit, but nobody whines about those stability-threatening home sellers, do they?

So it seems the branches have different needs, and really need three different variants of the same aircraft, so their necessary differences aren't all trying to compete. Perhaps we could have one with room for an internal cannon, one with STOVL capability, and one with folding wings and an arresting hook. I wonder where we could find such a craft?

I'm going to have to defer to the Pentagon, who clearly believe the A-10 is not what's needed for the future, rather than an armchair commander who thinks that the 1970s were good enough.

I'm not privy to the discussion behind changing deadlines, but in two decades as a software developer, I've never seen a project that was at deliverable quality prior to the main testing cycle.

As planned, though, the first software version to deliver basic air-to-air and air-to-ground capability will be Block 2B in mid-2015. Full capability won't be supported until Block 3F in mid-2017. In short, software development is a difficult problem for a plane that is significantly computer-controlled. Go figure.

The total program cost is estimated at $400 billion. Spread that out over the 18 years it's been running, and you end up with less than 1% of the federal government's annual budget. That's hardly enough to cause noticeable disruption, let alone bankruptcy.

I have a sneaking suspicion you don't actually want answers to your questions, but I'll provide them anyway.

Not really. A-10 development took 10 years, F-18 took 8, and the F-15 took 13, all measured from program start to initial production. The F-35 began its production run in 2008, 12 years after its program started. I haven't found timelines for the earlier planes' IOC milestones, but I'm under the impression that they followed similar schedules, with production running for a few years before pushing the planes out into use. Yes, the F-35's timeline is drawn out because they're trying to design three planes at once, but that was also expected from the start.

Because it's not required to work until next year, at the earliest. What's in use now would be good enough to fly and work out other problems, but it's not suitable for combat use.

Rain isn't the problem. It's actually lightning that the F-35 isn't currently allowed to fly near, because the initial production run did not have the lightning protection applied, as it would interfere with testing. That'd be another thing to be added for IOC.

Because the A-10 is an expensive one-trick pony. You call it a "Swiss Army knife", but that's really just because its one trick is very useful. The A-10 only does close air support in an area-denial situation where the most recent anti-aircraft threat was built by the Soviet Union. It takes far more training and maintenance support to operate, and that training and logistics expense is only applicable to that one aircraft.

In comparison, the bulk of the support for an F-35 is shared across the three variants, so the total cost to run the fleet is greatly reduced. A maintainer can switch variants with minimal additional training, and a single base can support any F-35 that stops by. We're also not going to be dealing with Soviet-era defenses for much longer, with China and Russia making gestures that they're willing to sell modern SAMs to anyone who opposes Western interests.

...After only 36 years, for the US. The F-4 is still in service in other countries, primarily those that don't need to worry about modern SAMs. The F-4 was originally not a multi-role fighter. It was designed as a fighter-bomber, reworked to be an interceptor, and finally upgraded to do close-air support almost a decade later.

Just well enough to get the job done. What we've learned since the Gulf War is that fighting is expensive and complicated. To support the dozens of different single-role planes, we have to mobilize thousands of support crew to ensure that we can support any kind of mission we need. A multi-role fighter, designed to meet the potential needs, will still be able to handle lesser threats. The F-35 is being built to handle anything China or Russia might produce, but it will be perfectly capable of supporting campaigns in Africa, the Middle East, or North Korea.