The Ultimate Universal Remote Control 277
TheMayor writes: "CNN.com has a story about how researchers at Maya Designs, Inc. and Carnegie-Mellon are trying to come up with a remote control that controls everything in your house. From the TV to the blender, these guys want to make an all-in-one piece to turn everything on and off. Now I wonder if I could remotely flush my toliet?"
Toilet Remote (Score:2)
Re:Toilet Remote (Score:2)
It'd be funnier (Score:2)
It would be more useful to have one that... (Score:2)
It all comes down to fear (Score:2)
It all comes down to a reluctance to fiddle with the knob everybody else touches after wiping their backsides and before washing their hands.
Of course, remote flushing does nothing to shelter you from the flush-resistant sticky bits left by the previous occupant that are persistently clinging to the edges of the bowl. And you still have to sit on the bit everybody else sits on, or develop some serious acrobatic skills.
Better just hold it in.
So now I (Score:2)
Yes, they probably can.... (Score:1)
hmm (Score:1)
Re:hmm (Score:2)
"Like the back of a volkswagon?"
No, someplace else.
Re:hmm (Score:2)
Hmm, let me guess you are either not married or you ARE the wife
Women have all the power these days.
Radio Shack used to sell something like this (Score:1)
I'm not sure if RadioShack even still sells it, but it's not really a new idea.
Re:Radio Shack used to sell something like this (Score:2)
Already been done. (Score:2, Funny)
How is this news? (Score:2)
"The prototype handheld has so far been used to control two lamps, a fan and a stereo with a five-CD changer. "
Worst slashdot story ever - and this is worthy of a CNN story???? Give me a break. Check out the mega-remotes from Philips and Marantz if you're looking for a product like this.
Re:How is this news? (Score:2)
(Nope, don't work for them. I did, once upon a time, pretend to program them for multi-$k home theater systems. They make, AFAIK, as advanced a remote control system you can find. Period. Flushing toilets via remote DTMF dialin is trivial compared to the things people do with Crestron gear on a daily basis.)
A better question: (Score:2, Offtopic)
I'm having a house built. I can't touch things until I move in, but then I can retrofit. Some of the things I see include the tile warmer (no cold feet), the mirror warmer (no fog), IR light switches (walk in and it turns on).
What else would y'all recommend? I'd rather have a smarter house than a smarter remote. Oh, and I don't want to give X-10 any of my money. The last thing I want to do is encourage their ads.
Re:A better question: (Score:2)
Re:A better question: (Score:4, Informative)
The idea is to have a 12 volts 2 coil latching-relay on each lighting circuit. Since they are latching relays (one coil to turn it on, and the other to turn it off), they can be controlled by as many momentary SPDT switches as needed; you can also have as many "master consoles" as you need which consist of two rotary dials, one to turn on and the other to turn off the light.
Some relays even offer a low-voltage "indicator" line, so the master console can have pilot lights to indicate which lights are on.
I am surprised that this system is not more widespread in fancy homes, as I remember going to a school more than 30 years ago that had it's lighting controlled by that system.
What's neat about it is that the big expensive high-votage wire (which has to be installed by a qualified electrician) only goes from the breaker panel to the light fixtures, instead of snaking through the walls to the light switches (and don't get me stated on the 3 or 4 way switches!!!). As the control is done through low-voltage, light switches can be extremely small and unobtrusive.
Of course, it goes without saying that interfacing those to a computer would be an outright breeze...
Re:A better question: (Score:2)
'clak' 'clak' 'clak.'
What was that?
The relays going into sexy mode.
Do me!
Not joking, though, the real limitation that I see is that there is no variable intensity. Most of the people who want fancy lighting systems want to have fancy scenes and modes. Also, the relay sound is annoying as heck.
Re:A better question: (Score:2)
Re:A better question: (Score:2)
Not only is this simplistic, it doesn't retrofit well, and only addresses a small portion of home control issues. I mean really, ON/OFF lighting control only is pathetic, not to mention mostly useless. It was mainly designed for commercial use to centrally control lighting with a timer system. Most large retail stores use this kind of thing.
Re:A better question: (Score:2)
What you WANT is a PWM system (Pulse Width Modulation) which is a solid-state technology that can do light dimming, motor speed control, etc. This is how electronic dimmer switches work. Some do the PWM at too low of frequency which causes lights to whine (even my aging ears can hear it.)
This "relay" type of system is a pain in the ass anyway. It requires a home-run style wiring, where all the wires go to the control box. What you want is a daisy-chained system with addressable electronic control modules at each device (such as a light.) This is how the Lonworks system works. Lonworks is a technology several generations beyond X10.
Re:A better question: (Score:2)
Re:A better question: (Score:3, Informative)
Lonworks on the other hand is VERY reliable, secure, OPEN, mature, works over many media such as RF, IR, twisted pair, power line, fiber, etc. Lonworks nodes are peers. Any node can control / communicate with any other node. Each node has a global unique ID much like an ethernet card's MAC address (except that it's longer.) The TYPES on control is virtually unlimited - it's not just "On, Off, Dim up and down." It's used in commercial and industrial environments as well as residential, so it's not going away anytime soon. Every house in Italy is being wired together with Lonworks.
So it depends on what technology you go with. You can go with a dedicated residential nitch technology, or something more universal with massive industry support. THAT will define whether you have a white elephant that becomes obsolete in a couple years or not.
I think you are overestimating the maintenance issues. Solid state electronics are quite reliable. Look at your clock radio. I've had the same one for 20 years or so. They just last forever. Node cost is something like $20, so it's similar. Your dishwasher, refrig, or furnace will probably die from a mechanical failure before electronic failure. A smart appliance could actually end up saving you money because it may be able to tell when a part is close to failure before it causes a domino type cascading failure in other parts. Not to mention that it can call your repair service for you when it DOES fail.
Large companies can take advantage of cheaper power rates at different times of the day. With a smart meter and smart home, you will be able to do so as well. We wouldn't HAVE a power issue in california if we could manage even just half our electical usage. In a situation where you have variable rates depending on the current grid load / market, a smart home investment could pay for itself in just a few years.
This is a technology I've been keeping an eye on for over 10 years. It's solid at this point.
Re:A better question: (Score:2)
Re:A better question: (Score:2)
Re:X10 (Score:2)
Damn, I just looked at that page. Some of their remotes are way cooler than mine! I want the remote fan speed and flame height! (I suppose I'd have to get new valves if I wanted remote flame height, though...)
Anyway, the better-than-convenience part is that they measure the ambient temperature right there on the remote and use that to turn the burner on/off. So if I set it to 78 degrees and put it on the table in front of the fireplace, it shuts the burners down at 78, and relights them at 75. The response time is quite slow (big mass of air, changing very slowly over time) so hysteresis is very noticable. That +0/-2 degrees easily becomes +5/-5 in the room.
But the biggest drawback is that the RF signal has no feedback, so the remote doesn't know if it was successful or not. And it doesn't keep trying even if it gets warmer. (The internal fireplace thermostat shuts it down if the firebox gets too hot, but I don't like relying on what should be a worst-case safety device.) Also, if you glance at the fireplace it may not be lit, but the remote can still be on (just too hot) so it could relight later as it cools down. So my advice would be twofold: keep fresh batteries in your remote, and CHECK TO MAKE SURE THE REMOTE IS OFF WHEN YOU'RE LEAVING.
Anyone remember the movie Orgazmo? (Score:2)
Why not make current Universal Remotes work first? (Score:2)
A: Was universal
or
B: Did not take a universally large amount of time to setup.
I am a Nerd, I have an IQ of 156, I throw computer boxes together with reckless abandon, I have done tech support in my sleep, but the damn universal remote control still is not all that 'universal'. (and even those that are end up depreciated the second the latest wave of new devices come out. . .
Number pad
Play/Stop/FF/RW/Pause/Eject/Power
Volume up and Volume down
Channel up and Channel Down.
Everything else after that is rather extraneous. . . .
And quite frankly I should not need a 30 button remote for just my DVD player. This is why I only view DVDs on my computer, faaar easier, don't have to switch around audio and video inputs until hell freezes over, then select the proper audio decompression scheme, then select the proper surround sound scheme, and THEN sit down and 'enjoy' the movie, and then have the honor of switching all that shit BACK to watch regular TV.
No thank you. . . . I can pop a DVD in my computer's drive and it starts playing, and when it is done I take it out, close the program, and I am done. End.
Doing all of that in the first list above would require a 'universal remote' with more keys on it then my keyboard (all of the various device's special buttons and such) either that or a control scheme that changed its own layout for each device mode that was switched to (which would almost be even worse since memorizing key presses and locations would become a ton harder with a constantly shifting pad depending on which 'mode' it was in).
Quite frankly I think that I'll stick with just pairing the remotes up together with rubber bands. Harder to lose that way, and a ton less complicated.
Re:Why not make current Universal Remotes work fir (Score:4, Funny)
[...]
This is why I only view DVDs on my computer, faaar easier, don't have to switch around audio and video inputs until hell freezes over, then select the proper audio decompression scheme, then select the proper surround sound scheme, and THEN sit down and 'enjoy' the movie, and then have the honor of switching all that shit BACK to watch regular TV.
Here is my question: Since you're so smart, why is it such a difficult task for you to use a console DVD player? I mean, it's not that hard really. 5 to 10 seconds tops, insert DVD, push play, that's it. I simply can't see how you would prefer sitting hunched over your computer to watch a DVD than using a TV.
Re:Why not make current Universal Remotes work fir (Score:2)
Insert DVD;
pick up remote #1, set video input to CD (closest label to DVD that the remote has on it)
Pick up remote #2, set audio input to LaserDisc (closet thing remote has to DVD on it), set audio output format to 5.1 surround.
Still using remote #2 turn up volume on receiver, because even my DVD player at max still puts out barely a whisper at what makes the output from my cable box boom.
Pick up remote three, press play, goto settings, select audio out method (there are three of them, different DVDs apparently use different types, beats the crud outa me, rather irritating), turn of subtitles (apex
When DONE with video;
pick up remote #1, set video input back to VCR (since cable is routed through VCR and all, digital cable, yummies, RF connectors. . . . bleh), pick up remote #2, set sound mode back to faux 5.1 (copying front speakers to rear speakers), set audio input back to VCR, rush to turn down master volume because it is way to loud.
Now, please do compare this to:
Put DVD in drive;
Sit back and enjoy on my 36" computer monitor (E-bay rocks) with 4.1 speaker setup (ok ok it is not 5.1 but it works!).
Re:Why not make current Universal Remotes work fir (Score:2)
Most receivers made within the last few years have video switching built-in; hence the elimination of step #1.
Pick up remote three, press play, goto settings, select audio out method (there are three of them, different DVDs apparently use different types, beats the crud outa me, rather irritating), turn of subtitles (apex
Uhh, no. Set it to output SPDIF digital @ 5.1. Analog output DVDs will output over the RCA cables, the 5.1 over the digital coax. A decent receiver will let you hook up both at the same time, therefore routing the proper signal over the proper cable, and the receiver switches to digital only when there is a digital signal.
For the subtitles (yeah that's an Apex/Daewoo bug) go into the configuration menu, set subtitles to "OFF" and they will be off by default now.
I suggest you sell the 36" monitor and go buy yourself a nice $200 receiver that does all the above mentioned and more.
Re:Why not make current Universal Remotes work fir (Score:2)
That's what I thought till I went to Best Buy:
6 foot digital coax - $13 [bestbuy.com]. I actually remember paying $8 or $9 at the store but that was a while ago. Sure beats Circuit City, where the mofo tried to sell me a $40 digital cable. Ha!
Re:Why not make current Universal Remotes work fir (Score:2)
6 foot digital coax - $13 [bestbuy.com]. I actually remember paying $8 or $9 at the store but that was a while ago. Sure beats Circuit City, where the mofo tried to sell me a $40 digital cable. Ha!
You've been had. Digital coax cable is just regular 75 ohm cable with RCA jacks (though the tolerances are so wide you could also use a rusy coathanger).
This happens to be the same spec as for composite video. Chanses are that you have a pile of these lying around as they tend to come bundled with just about any piece of AV equipment. If not you should be able to pick them up for $2-6.
Opticals are less commonly bundled, but should be possible to find for around $6-8.
Re:Why not make current Universal Remotes work fir (Score:2)
Re:Why not make current Universal Remotes work fir (Score:2)
And on BACK of BOX there should also be three connectors labeled "Audio Out (L)," "Audio Out (R)," and "Video Out," which, you might guess, would go into that video capable receiver.
Re:Why not make current Universal Remotes work fir (Score:2)
Now who the fuck ever said the damn player was bought under MY advice?
Two words: Apex AD-703 (ok technically a company name and a model number)
My god, you actually use one of those garbage "simulated surround sound" modes?
No, I use the "copy front speakers to rear speakers" mode because it is rather pointless to have half of the speakers dead nearly all of the time.
Leave it at Dolby Digital (which, again, it'll default to) and be done with it.
Because if that is done nothing can be heard on half the discs inserted while the other half work just fine.
Oh and the setting is line out mode, raw or PCM. Now having to change that based upon which movie is being watched is NOT exactly something that you can expect your average consumer to get by doing, and hell I don't like doing it either and I grew up dinking around with electronics. Royal pain in the arse.
Replace it.
For those of us who are NOT rolling in cash, any A/V purchase is a minimum of a 5 to 6 year investment, get burned it's awhile before anything can be replaced. (heck, one of my TVs still has knobs on it and separate VHS and UHF selectors. ^_^ TV works grand though, it is lasting a lot longer then newer made ones)
Smarty pants has a seriously dated receiver, and should realize that he's comparing using an outdated stereo setup with a modern computer system.
Oh fuck it man, I could shove a cheap ass DVD-ROM drive in my freaking 266mhz Pentium II (yes it could manage DVDs, it can manage MPEG4's just fine, bleh) running Windows98 (or hell Windows 95 even), with whatever bleeming sound card I want shoved in there (kick ass consumer sound cards have been down to well below $100 for quite some time now, like, err, a few years) that supports decoding whatever it is that I want, and have no touch DVD playing.
Or, I could play it on a stand alone DVD player that takes more button presses then installing a halfway modern OS.
Oh and none of the A/V kit is more then 3 or 4 years old, VS the 266mhz which was bought some wheres around 97 or so.
Hell I checked out on getting a receivers for my computer recently, pleeeck. For the cost of the LOWEST END receiver I would end up paying more then I would for a half ass decent PC sound setup. Sure the audiophiles may crinch, but they can fuck off, I ain't paying more for a receiver for my computer then I did for my computer as a whole. (that and nobody sells receivers without all that digital decoder crap in it, fuck man, if I got XXXghz behind the hood why the hell would I want to pay for an external decoder too? Especially since the newer sound cards do the same thing, I just wanted a freakin box of plugs to run the speakers from).
So in summary:
My total PC setup cost, around $1100 or so.
36" monitor (got a secondary one for graphics work of course, heh. Need a decent refresh rate after all. Matrox G400 rocks.
For about that same price, the A/V setup is 5 chessy ass speakers, a sub with such a huge fucking drop in it that you can pretty much hear in drumming along, and one of those RCA televisions that was named the worst TV Ever.
The TV is that one with the faulty tuner that had the class action lawsuit against it. This particular TV apparently was made 'just after' the faulty ones stopped being produced, but for whatever reason. . . . bleh, got it fixed, but still not nice, and since it does not have separate RF or S-Video tuners on it, cannot plug items into both at once, and since the DVD player cannot pass signals through it (the remote does not have an off button, thus pretty much fucking it all up to hell as that damn Apex blue screen always shows on whatever line it is outputting to, unless I want to run up and down to turn it on and off all the time, nooo thank you!), well,
as I said.
Put disc in drive.
Close drive.
Watch movie
When done take disc out of drive and close program.
My argument was that with a sufficiently powered computer that users need not worry about how shit goes together, you throw enough power at a problem and IT WILL BE SOLVED (well, as long as your programmers and UI designers have SOME brains in them, heh, sucky UI and everything else pretty much goes down the tube as far as the entire usability thing goes.
Hell, the user WILL NOT have to be able to worry about WTF plugs into WTF in WTF order, all shit WILL go in its properly colored holes and IT WILL WORK. With that much power to spare the user needs not worry about the receiver not being able to auto switch inputs, or not being able to properly decode whatever audio format is in use.
After a certain point, shit just starts working.
And quite frankly given another few years I have little doubt that for people willing to put the time in initial setup (and save on long term usability), that setting up a PC in the family room that does everything it is asked to automatically will be far easier then fucking around with at least 3 or 4 different 'set top boxes' all with different remotes and interfaces that all may or may not play together well all using a wide variety of interconnect standards (you know, I do not think that a SINGLE device in the entire A/V setup here actually uses the same damn wires to connect to another device as any other device uses to connect, except for maybe some parts of the audio setup but even then there is the 4 wire connections, the 2 wire connections, and the RF connections, bleck!)
Quite frankly I am just wishing for the days back of a single wiring connecting all. Why the hell didn't somebody make some LOW COST single video/audio wire that supports at least 4 speaker surround sound? Hell even make it analog, not like I have any wires right now that is digital any ways, (and those bleeming optical wires cost so much, yeesh!) a good single high quality analog wire would be a blessing.
Just daisy chain it all together like it used to be, nice and simple to setup. None of this extended star topology crud.
Oh, and for reference's sake, I DID NOT PURCHASE ANY OF THE A/V KIT MENTIONED ABOVE
Nor was I even asked about it, bleh. Well I was technically asked, but my advice "not to buy the cheapest receiver that you can find just because it has the words Pro Logic written on it" was not followed.
Re:Why not make current Universal Remotes work fir (Score:2)
This may come as a surprise to you, but many people have bigger, better computer screens than televisions. People in dorms often use their 19" moniters as their TVs by using a tv capture card. My goal is to get a projector screen for my computer so that my entire wall can become my computer screen. That would be great for TV, DVDs, and Counter Strike! And yes, my computer screen is nice and big, higher resolution than my TV, and in front of a couch. I don't feel 'hunched over' when watching it at all.
Re:Why not make current Universal Remotes work fir (Score:2)
Re:Why not make current Universal Remotes work fir (Score:2)
A: Was universal
Not seen any ir based remote my pronto can't handle yet.
B: Did not take a universally large amount of time to setup.
That depends on what you mean by large. A pronto is configured on a computer so that speds things up a great deal.
And quite frankly I should not need a 30 button remote for just my DVD player. This is why I only view DVDs on my computer, faaar easier, don't have to switch around audio and video inputs until hell freezes over, then select the proper audio decompression scheme, then select the proper surround sound scheme, and THEN sit down and 'enjoy' the movie, and then have the honor of switching all that shit BACK to watch regular TV.
Or do is I do: have a big button that says DVD on the remote, which when pressed selects correct input on the TV and amp, then reconfigures the remote display for DVD playback control. My amp is five years old, but even that is able to correctly autoselect decoding, what kind of archaic hardware have you been using?
No thank you. . . . I can pop a DVD in my computer's drive and it starts playing, and when it is done I take it out, close the program, and I am done. End.
Funny.. After several hours of configuring DVD playback software on a PC I found that the playback software wasn't able not to reformat anamorphic material. Since the videoencoder was unable to sync to 16:9 square pixel modes (internal videoencoders in gfx cards does not have component outputs, which I require). End result was that the PC based system was unable to output 16:9 anamorphic pictures, resulting in significant image degradation.
And don't even get e started on the general unreliability and unfriendlyness on PC surround sound systems. Most of the time, it seems they assume you want some strange effects applied, or they refuse to decode at all. In contrast in my regular DVD setup i just have a regulat 75 ohm cable from the digital out of the DVD to the DVD s/pdif input of the amp, the rest just works.
oh man (Score:2)
- the toilet flushes
- the blender is on 'liquify'
- the vcr is recording over your tape
- the garage door is open and security off
- the disposal is on
- the dishwasher is on
- the room lights strobe left to right
that's wrong. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:that's wrong. (Score:2)
Re:that's wrong. (Score:2)
toilet designs I've seen.
The ideal geek remote control on a shoestring. (Score:2, Interesting)
**Turn all your remote controls into a huge remote keyboard!**
All you have to do is get a short piece of plywood or balsa wood and velcro the remotes to each, placed tightly together. The end product will be more than a remote control, it will be an audio/video command console!
What are they doing? (Score:2)
Are they talking about universal remote controls? The Philips Pronto TSU2000 [remotecentral.com] and VAR derivatives, like the Yamaha RAV-2000 [remotecentral.com] and Marantz RC5000i [remotecentral.com] are not "in research" products - they are current universal remotes with a user defined interface. If you had a Microwave that accepted IR controls, these would work with it, and quite nicely so. If they are interested in bringing a universal remote to the market, they have a tough act to follow.
Or are they researching controlling everything in the normal house? Like using Bluetooth [bluetooth.com] wireless technology, or using JNDI [sun.com] as a naming and control mechanism? (Well, they used X-10, but that's besides the point) If that is their focus, I wish them luck in bringing the industry into a situation where they both care and cooperate with standards.
They seem to be doing everything with RF (not IR) wireless technology, but that is both uncommon and unsupported on current and legacy systems. I don't know how they plan on supporting, in a cost effective way, IR and wireless in a single remote, as well as all the wireless devices you would have to deploy around the house to justify the cost of the remote. Perhaps in a market of sufficient scale this would be viable.
Re:What are they doing? (Score:2)
Super-Remote Control Defined. (Score:4, Insightful)
So, what if you had a setup where you could call the company, their support staff'd ask for your model numbers, and they'd program it remotely!
Oh, and can you imagine, on this remote control, a big, back-lit display so that you could see what !@# button to push to turn the !@#!@ thing down?
So, what you have is a device that:
1) Can communicate with the parent company,
2) Has alot of buttons,
3) A small CPU in it,
4) A large backlit screen.
Sounds an awful lot like a cell phone, eh?
No, really! Just put an I/R LED at the end of your cell phone, it'd make an EXCELLENT UNIVERSAL REMOTE.
Re:Super-Remote Control Defined. (Score:4, Funny)
Re: an I/R LED at the end of your cell phone (Score:2)
So far I haven't seen any "remote control" software available for download. I guess they skipped over such important things, and spent their time on lesser ideas like wireless IP, a browser, email, and so on.
Maybe they'll turn into remote controls next year. When they do, I don't think I'll get the software, though.
Re: an I/R LED at the end of your cell phone (Score:2)
kinda neat software, although whipping out my Palm to change channels always seemed more awkward than just using the original remote.
Re: an I/R LED at the end of your cell phone (Score:2, Informative)
OmniRemote [pacificneotek.com] is the first one to come to mind, but it's not the only one out there...
ConnectedTV integrates a tv guide with the remote (Score:2, Interesting)
"Touch Tuning" with ConnectedTV is like speed dialing with the remote: you can forget all those channel numbers, and easily operate ConnectedTV with one hand. ConnectedTV features "pie menus [piemenu.com]," which enable you to quickly and reliably select several different commands from one button by stroking in different directions.
ConnectedTV is indispensable if you have hundreds of digital cable or satellite channels, because you can filter out the channels and shows you don't like, and mark your favorites so they're easy to find whenever they're on.
-info@Connected.TV [mailto]
Re:Super-Remote Control Defined. (Score:2)
Learning, backlit, programmable out the wazoo, controls 10 devices, and did I mention learning?
I've not had a single issue since I bought the thing. It kicks butt, and if you dig around I'm sure you'll find a good deal on it.
It replaces up to 10 remotes. And it does it right. Every single button learnable. I love my mx-500..
Re:Super-Remote Control Defined. (Score:2)
Actually, there are 3 features that help here.
First, it's a regular universal, meaning 90% of everything *just* *works*. The time you spend is in customizing and re-keying. The only item I had to actually setup myself was the TiVo (horrible oversite).
Second, it has a 6 month retention without the batteries.
Third, you can set 2 mx-500's next to each other and type "transfer". It transfers everything.
Just get one, you'll never regret it.
PDA? (Score:3, Insightful)
Using ConnectedTV pie menus with with one hand (Score:2, Informative)
ConnectedTV [connected.tv] for the Palm is a universal remote control integrated with a personalized television guide, that's designed to be easily used with one hand.
Like Mozilla and The Sims, it features "pie menus [piemenu.com]", which enable you to easily and reliably select several different functions from each button, without using (and losing) the stylus. Pie menus make ConnectedTV more powerful per square inch than physical remotes that only support one function per button.
The buttons are big enough to easily select with your finger, and have useful functions in different directions. For example, stroking left or right scrolls to the previous or next page. You can stroke up on the name of a show to find out more about it, or stroke down to watch it, and ConnectedTV sends the numbers to change the channel, without you having to know or press any digits.
"Touch Tuning" with ConnectedTV is like speed dialing for the remote control. It also functions as a hot list and spam filter, so you can easily mark and find your favorite shows, while hiding shows you don't like. It's much better than the slowly scrolling on-screen guide, because it doesn't block the tv screen, you can take it anywhere with up to two weeks of guide, and use it at your own pace.
-info@Connected.TV [mailto]
hell with the ipaq (Score:2)
Much better than walking around trying to punch little buttons on the iPaq. Of course I want all the voice recognition to work just fine with the cd player turned up to 11.
Re:hell with the ipaq (Score:2)
Oh yeah, dreams of using blender from another room (Score:2)
Secondly, there are many items that would never be in need of remote control as many have many manual operations to do before actually use them.
Areas that I find valid are.
1. Lighting
2. Heating/Cooling
3. Changing temperature of hot water heater
4. Garage doors.
5. Perhaps windows that open/close automatically?
6. Ovens for preheat.
7. Coffee makers, setup in advance, but we have timers for this.
8. Gas Fireplaces
9. Perhaps, being able to remotely shut off the gas in the house or water would be a safety benefit.
10. Alarm clocks, won't have to go back upstairs to turn it off, after all you got so used to the snooze button you forgot it actually has an off switch.
11. Turning off ringers on the phones.
12. Forcing the anwsering machine to pickup.
13. Remote start of television recording.
14. Music and/or Tv (background noise)
But not the majority of kitchen appliances
Re:Oh yeah, dreams of using blender from another r (Score:2)
Actually, don't laugh-It works! Prior to our last move, my wife and I allowed our two cats to jump on, sleep on, kneed on, and otherwise abuse our livingroom furniture, but one of the first things we did when we moved was to replace the old furniture with new furniture. As hard as it was to do, this necessitated making the new furniture a "no go" zone for the cats, both of whom had gotten very use to the idea that it was their domain (the reason, btw, is because I have not, and will not, get my cats declawed, however they damage upholstery just by moving around as they insist upon using their claws for added stability). Quickly they learned that any transgressions in our presence would lead to a rapid shushing, and they stopped, but I knew by tell tail crinkles on the surface that I'd carefully smoothed as a test that they'd ventured on the forbidden land during the night, and when we were away. Anyways, I set up one of the X10 infrared sensors on the edge of the couch (the "Hawkeye II", I believe
Good Remotes Out Now... (Score:2)
These remotes have great macro routines. One button and it changes the channel and handles all the background work. Well worth the money. Even controls my Rio Receiver.
The GUI is completely customizable with many sample configs and device setups already at www.remotecentral.com. The good part of that is you can set it up how you use it, not just throw buttons on the screen. I don't use the 50 buttons on my receiver remote, so why deal with them?
Recursion issue (Score:2)
Ally McBeal (Score:2)
John already did that on Ally McBeal...
Everything? (Score:2)
Too-Many-Cooks-In-The-Kitchen Law: At some point, it actually becomes more efficient to have multiple remotes.
Better technology is already available for sale. (Score:3, Informative)
The Philips Pronto [philips.com] is the most popular of the fully programmable universal remote. You can control thousands of devices with the Pronto, including X10 modules to control lamps, fans, and other appliances.
It has a PC application to set set the GUI for controlling all the devices. It comes pre-programmed for many devices, and just about any other can be downloaded from various internet sites or manufacturers.
The GUI to program it has a bit of a learning curve. If they wanted to make that process even easier, they could have saved a lot of effort by just making a better config GUI, rather than re-inventing the hardware.
Another option, if you really want a PDA as your remote is the Nevo [remotecentral.com] software for the new iPaq, which includes a more powerful IR transmitter.
Re:Better technology is already available for sale (Score:3, Informative)
The omniremote module also can optionally come with a blue LED for use as a flashlight. It's pretty damn cool stuff. I have one, and if my visor screen weren't cracked I'd use it nonstop.
"Exist" is not the point, Re:Better technology is (Score:2)
The point is that one should not have to "program" the remote. From a human interface standpoint it's insufficient to say "the learning curve is a bit high...". There should be no learning curve, not when it's a device for the masses. That's what the revolution is about... it's not about designing the hardware, it's about designing the interface.
"Maya and Carnegie Mellon claim people using their Personal Universal Controller, or PUC, could operate a stereo twice as fast and with half the errors that are made in running it manually -- without taking days to learn how."
For the record, I work for MayaViz, the sister company of Maya Design. (We share office space, though we work on different things).
Re:"Exist" is not the point, Re:Better technology (Score:2)
Re:Better technology is already available for sale (Score:2)
Does it handles remotes with two alternating code sets? I recently replaced a DVD player and TV that busted within weeks of eachother, and when I programmed the universal remote for the replacements I found that if I hit the same button twice in a row (or hit one button followed by certain others), the second button would be ignored.
After a little experimentation I discovered that the devices had two sets of codes (call them A and B). When the remote is using the A set, and you hit a button, it sends the code from the A set, then switches itself to the B set. When you hit the button from the B set, and hit a button, it switches itselft to the A set. The devices will not recognise two consecutive codes from the same code set.
The devices were from different manufacturers too, so I'm guessing this is something that is becoming relatively common.
Done before... by me, four years ago. (Score:2)
I see, people don't remember this [denver.co.us] and this [denver.co.us] (or this [denver.co.us] if you use MSIE or Lynx, or PDA-based browser)?
Second camera is gone for now (until I'll place it in another room) but both camera and controls are working perfectly after years of being in use, and relocation from California to Colorado.
I use this a lot from a regular computer, or PDA, with a web browser and all kinds of wireless setups, including 802.11b, and this thing was up and running for more than four years.
Yawn.... (Score:2)
These guys design these things, but they never look at the facts. For the most part, we are a nation of people whose VCRs (unless they can set themselves) are blinking "12:00," and who are usually shocked to learn that the right mouse button doesn't do the same stuff as the left button.
Any remote powerful enough to control everything in the house will be expensive, and so complex that the people in the target demographic will never learn how to operate all but the most basic of functions. Did they ever write down the business plan? I doubt it, because it's something like this:
1) Market expensive, complex device to cheap, dumb/lazy users.
2) ???
3) Profit!
The people who want to automate their homes are already doing it, and they're rolling their own solutions by using a bunch of low-cost components together in a clever way because they enjoy the tinkering it takes to achieve the end result. They're not just going to buy some pricey gewgaw to do it for them-- where's the fun in that?
As for me, I've had a Mac running my house via X-10 with great success for years. In addition to remotes, I can send commands via IM, and I've got a good bit done on a web interface. I'm always adding to and improving my system, and it works wonderfully.
Leave the home automation stuff to the DIY geeks, and the filthy rich who can afford to pay someone else to customize a system for their homes. One-size-fits-all home automation solutions will never cut it, especially when they cost a few hundred bucks like this one does.
~Philly
The ultimate universal control... (Score:2)
real toilet remote control (Score:2, Informative)
Universal AA batteries too? (Score:2)
"Now where in the hell did I put that damn thing... I've got a Nova to light off at three!"
*A tech from Maya Designs fiddles with Universal Remote's features, sucking Earth into a black hole.*
"Sigh. I'm gonna have to start all over again now. In the Beginning..."
The one remote control I'd *really* like to see (Score:3, Funny)
High intesity (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The one remote control I'd *really* like to see (Score:2, Interesting)
Little did he know it was due to the infrared laser guiding the hellfire into his window...
Mayan remotes (Score:2)
Crestron panels (Score:3, Informative)
Manifest Destiny, errr pass the remote pleeez (Score:3, Funny)
I'm not a Luddite but... (Score:2)
This is as far as technology has taken us? Bidding Bon Voyage to a turd using a remote? You're making me happy that my dog and I use the same tree to take a whizz.
A truly ultimate remote control (Score:2)
Lord of the Remotes... (Score:2)
One remote to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.
Hell, I'd be satisfied with the one remote to find 'em.
Been Done (Score:2)
I've got a radio shack remote that transmits RF to an IR transmitting base, so I can turn lights off from the back yard if I wanna see stars better, or kill the WIGGLES on the TV after my daughter has stopped watching them.
M@
Let's think this through... (Score:2)
Oh, wait...
Timothy is 'The Biscuit' (Score:2)
"Now I wonder if I could remotely flush my toliet?" "
I always secretly suspected timothy was really the biscuit from Ally McBeal. Now we have our proof!
Toilet & Little Boys (massively OT) (Score:2)
We had my wife's eight year old nephew sleep over on Friday and Saturday nights. The heck with remote flushing - I'd like a toilet that automatically puts down the freakin' lid!
Already there? (Score:2)
Misterhouse (Score:2)
Get it Net connected (Score:2)
Phillip.
Re:huhuhuh (Score:2, Funny)
Re:huhuhuh (Score:2, Funny)
Re:This is what Java was supposed to be... (Score:2)
Re:The Ultimate Universal Remote Control (Score:2)
Interesting to figure out what this thingie will do if you are watching TV and it's programming to switch TV from the programs you don't like! Advertisement avoider!
Re:X10? (Score:2, Funny)
It turns out that this so-called x10.com is very dangerous after all. X10.com will re-write your hard drive. Not only that, it will scramble any disks that are even close to your computer. It will recalibrate your refrigerator's coolness setting so all your ice cream goes melty. It will demagnetize the strips on all your credit cards, screw up the tracking on your television and use subspace field harmonics to scratch any CDs you try to play.
It will give your ex-girlfriend your new phone number. It will mix Kool-aid into your fishtank. It will drink all your beer and leave dirty socks on the coffee table when company comes over. It will put a dead kitten in the back pocket of your good suit pants and hide your car keys when you are late for work.
X10.com will make you fall in love with a penguin. It will give you nightmares about circus midgets. It will pour sugar in your gas tank and shave off both your eyebrows
while dating your girlfriend behind your back and billing the dinner and hotel room to your Discover card.
It will seduce your grandmother. It does not matter if she is dead, such is the power of x10.com, it reaches out beyond the grave to sully those things we hold most dear.
It moves your car randomly around parking lots so you can't find it. It will kick your dog. It will leave libidinous messages on your boss's voice mail in your voice! It is insidious and subtle. It is dangerous and terrifying to behold. It is also a rather interesting shade of mauve.
X10.com will give you Dutch Elm disease. It will leave the toilet seat up. It will make a batch of Methamphetamine in your bathtub and then leave bacon cooking on the stove
while it goes out to chase gradeschoolers with your new snowblower. For the sake of your grandmother and the youth of the nation, X10.com must be AVOIDED at all costs!
Re:huh? (Score:2)
"Done! Euh... where did I leave the remote?"
(searches through other rooms, finally finding it in the kitchen where somebody needed it for using the blender)
"Thank you, now flush!
(slaps remote control in hands, maybe a loosy contact somewhere)
"flush!"
(slaps remote control harder until you hear the sound of a remote falling into the water of the toilet)
"Euh... How did this so called 'manual' setting of the toilet work again?"
(toilet flushes)
Yay! XML! :-\ (Score:2)
While the base idea is sane, I don't really see much of a point of doing that -- user interface for single appliance can be just kept on the appliance with some simple definition, but people would most likely use multi-device or scriptable user interfaces that combine them by controls' names.
Including a scripting language into protocol seems to be pointless -- scripting should be done in some central place that definitely knows all scripts that are running because information about active scripts is just as important as information about devices' state.
IMNSHO devices' interfaces must be very, very simple, or devices will get way too expensive, and user interface's definition in the protocol should be just a little more complex, or it will be a portability hell. Everything beyond those things should not be within this system, it just should be aware that there are scripts written in something else, that can see states and process requests.
Re:I notice it's running WinCE Pocket PC Edition (Score:2, Informative)
Anyway, the important facet of the system is the XML specification [cmu.edu] and protocol [cmu.edu], which could be implemented on any platform. We'd love to do a cellphone...
Re:Power failures (Score:2)