Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 10th Jul 2012 01:24 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 526409
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Laurence,
Thank you for clarifying, however I already know what your talking about. Please quit being so patronising and insisting that I am the one missing the point. I am the OP of the thread, we're covering a variety of approaches for DIY tracking - you're obviously welcome to criticise whatever you like and better yet come up with your own ideas.
Edit: Maybe I'm being too abrasive, but I don't like being spoken down to and it feels like that's what you are doing.
Edited 2012-07-11 16:52 UTC
RE[8]: I built one too!
by Laurence on Wed 11th Jul 2012 22:20
in reply to "RE[7]: I built one too!"
Laurence,
Thank you for clarifying, however I already know what your talking about. Please quit being so patronising and insisting that I am the one missing the point. I am the OP of the thread, we're covering a variety of approaches for DIY tracking - you're obviously welcome to criticise whatever you like and better yet come up with your own ideas.
Edit: Maybe I'm being too abrasive, but I don't like being spoken down to and it feels like that's what you are doing.
Thank you for clarifying, however I already know what your talking about. Please quit being so patronising and insisting that I am the one missing the point. I am the OP of the thread, we're covering a variety of approaches for DIY tracking - you're obviously welcome to criticise whatever you like and better yet come up with your own ideas.
Edit: Maybe I'm being too abrasive, but I don't like being spoken down to and it feels like that's what you are doing.
You may have been the OP of this thread, but you were not the guy i was responding too. Thus whatever context you opened with was irrelevant.
As I said before, it's not the criticise from you that I objected about (I welcome such comments), it's the fact that you were completely missing the points I was making (as we've now established).
As I said before your ideas are interesting, they're just not related to anything I had posted.
Anyhow, we're not straying right off topic now so I'm going to shut up





Member since:
2007-03-26
you have completely missed the point because we're talking about this being a possible alternative for embedded systems. Thus everything you've posted is completely irrelevant:
Firstly, if the mic picks up the frequencies you need, then it's not silly at all. If it doesn't, then you'll need something more specialised, but as a hobby project it makes plenty of sense to start out with off the shelf equipment when possible.
Engineering smart phones are not "hobby projects". So nothing you've said here bares any relevance to anything I was discussing earlier.
Therefore, IF wind is anticipated (ie outdoors), then it must be compensated or it will affect the accuracy of the system.
I repeat: the mic would be inside the casing. You simply wouldn't want nor need to use the general purpose mic for this. Thus, unless the phone itself has it's own internal weather patterns, then wind speed is not an issue what-so-ever. Period.
Neolander is talking about detecting taps on against a board, but I'm talking about tracking a stylus in 2d/3d space using emitors and microphones.
Exactly, you've missed the point of what we're discussing. What you're chatting about is completely irrelevant to anything which I was discussing earlier.
Fair enough this idea has scope beyond what I'm specifically chatting about (I never disputed that - in fact I've actually stated this already), however don't tell me that my points were wrong when you're quite clearly chatting about a whole other topic than I am.
So please, if you want to disagree with me (and you're more than welcome to
Edited 2012-07-11 15:53 UTC