The Lounge is rated PG. If you're about to post something you wouldn't want your
kid sister to read then don't post it. No flame wars, no abusive conduct, no programming
questions and please don't post ads.
Very trivially - by running conductors from a control assembly to the LEDs. It wouldn't take a large wire, and a bundle of very tiny wires would handle a large number of LEDs per string. Address decoding would be handled in a controller located at the ac mains connection. The demultiplexing could be 1-of-n or possibly m-of-n for more simultaneous activations, all of which can be done very easily.
At this point it sounds like you've changed your design from one microcontroller per bulb to putting each bulb on a separate power loop. Replacing a 2/3 strand cable with an N strand (N= bulb count) will result in an unwieldy cable and just shift where the excess cost is.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
I did find a lot of information on doing that with Arduino. There are some lights that have the 1-wire-per-LED feature, and just connecting one or more of those to an Arduino board would work quite nicely.
Sorta Off Topic, but my favorite website for electronic stuff has to be All Electronics[^]
Yup, it's a cool site! I think something along the lines of an Arduino would work nicely, using it to address a demultiplexer, or even a crosspoint switch configuration to pulse individual LEDs. I don't know what currents modern LEDs require, but even at the 20 mA level the originals consumed, each LED would be adequately served by a #28 to #32 conductor, and 50 of these would bundle into a very convenient cable size for stringing in trees.
Roger, I looked into this a while back as a project for my Arduino. It's basically cost that stopped me. I wanted to create programmable/controllable LED lightboxes (1000+ leds) for video and stage lighting in which each LED could be color programmed.
My own lack of capital prevented me, maybe kickstarter?
That would be ambitious, certainly. But costs are going down, and it's only a matter of time before your idea will be affordable, I think. Some of the color-programmable solutions mentioned in this thread take the approach of allowing 8-bit color values to each LED, with each having its own controller chip. Another approach is to use a group of 3 LEDs - R-G-B - and apply varying pulse widths to each in order to create different colors. Persistence in human optical perception makes a number of shortcuts possible.
Start out small - maybe a couple hundred cells - and build your idea from there. My first digital alarm clock was built from TTL flip-flops and discrete LEDs because I couldn't afford fancy clock ICs that cost an arm and a leg. In the end, mine turned out to be much cooler, because the display was straight binary, not the mundane, boring decimal digits everyone has now. Heck, I think mine was even more effective, simply because it took mental effort just to decode what time it was when the thing fired off in the morning.
I thought of this a couple of xmases ago - but don't have the skillz required
I wanted to have the individually addressable lights connected up - you then throw them over trees or your house or whatever. then, using a usb camera pointed at the whole set up, software switches each light on and off individually so it knows where each light is as a 2d map from that viewpoint. (you could repeat from several viewpoints I guess).
so then you could program pictures, messages, patterns etc. to display across the whole area, without ever having to worry about positioning individual lights in the 'right' place.
So, as we all know, the nurse who was involved in the Duchess of Cambridge prank call died last week. And now there's a witch hunt in place from the UK press for the 2 DJs who played the prank. I've listened to the call, and it wasn't a bad one - certainly nothing that should have caused the kerfuffle that it did.
So, I want to say publicly that the DJs have my support. They do not deserve the ordeal that they are being put through.
*pre-emptive celebratory nipple tassle jiggle* - Sean Ewington
i found their interview less than convincing - their responses practiced and manufactured (and personally i think they lacked authentic personality). Clearly these two have been busy this weekend.
On the other hand we have the fallout from the levison inquiry - so theres a rampant amount of british press calling the kettle black at the moment.
and lets not forget - we all like a good old fashioned witch hunt whipped up by the tabloids.
we'll see what happens next i suppose.
To paraphrase Fred Dagg - the views expressed in this post are bloody good ones.
I think that the nurse had a lot more problems / issues that led to this than one call from the DJs
Lobster Thermidor aux crevettes with a Mornay sauce, served in a Provençale manner with shallots and aubergines, garnished with truffle pate, brandy and a fried egg on top and Spam - Monty Python Spam Sketch
Given the number of these that have been done over the last few years and the furore and upset they have caused, I think they were pretty irresponsible, and so was the station management. They knew nothing about this nurse and lied to her in order to get information that they knew was not supposed to be made public.
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
They do not deserve the ordeal that they are being put through.
I tend to agree, they are being humiliated almost as much.
One of these days I'm going to think of a really clever signature.
I haven't heard it myself, but from what I understand (which may be incorrect), the thing which distressed the nurse was that she publicly revealed personal information about some royal official, not the prank call itself.
Like Simon said, however, it was the nurse who had issues.
I haven't heard it myself, but from what I understand (which may be incorrect),
the thing which distressed the nurse was that she publicly revealed personal
information about some royal official, not the prank call itself.
That's not correct. She transferred the call to the duty nurse who then revealed private medical info.
Indeed. In that case, I wouldn't place any blame on the DJ's. I wouldn't have according to my previous understanding either, but this really makes it plainly obvious that they just happened to call a suicidal woman (i.e., they didn't drive her to be suicidal).
I have to agree. What if she hadn't killed herself, but had been fired (or struck off if that's possible for a nurse) for breaking patient confidentiality. There wouldn't be the same media screams, but the affects on her and her family would still be terrible.
Prank calls are bullying, and nothing more.
If you get an email telling you that you can catch Swine Flu from tinned pork then just delete it. It's Spam.
What if she hadn't killed herself, but had been fired
Well if she wasn't doing her job, that makes sense. For example, if she neglected to confirm the identity of the individuals calling, then in any situation she did that would be grounds for being fired.
On the other hand, any prank calls should be made to be anonymous (e.g., names bleeped out). A call such as this where the hospital is known is not a good setup, as the person being pranked can be publicly identified.
Don't forget the overlooked fact and that she was a nurse. When Mrs. Wifey worked for the NHS she often remarked that nurses were the bottom-feeders in the NHS and that management were very quick to pass the blame onto nursing staff as they did many times on the wards she worked on.
I believe the management at the hospital that nurse worked at have refuted any suggestion she was facing disciplinary action. Now, that might be true of a private hospital, I don't know, but it's more than possible the hospital is lying. Maybe that nurse had other issues in her life as well but she deserved better than what those two pricks in Sydney did to her. Maybe they're not responsible one iota and maybe what they did was the final catalyst. The radio station has probably made some decent money selling the rights of the interview which'll compensate them for a weekend's loss of revenue not advertising on-air.
I agree to an extent that the DJs don't deserve the ordeal they're going through but it was their doing and they take responsibility for it. It's a total mindf**k for sure but maybe it'll teach them to keep their mouths shut. Maybe if they spent more time laughing with people than they do laughing at them they'd be better for it.
"I do not have to forgive my enemies, I have had them all shot." — Ramón Maria Narváez (1800-68).
"I don't need to shoot my enemies, I don't have any." - Me (2012).
It's being mooted over here that it is to do with her Bangalore roots. Apparently when the Royal family visit there it is such a big occasion that is talked about for years after. In the article I read they were suggesting that she would have felt she had let down the Royal Family and embarrassed her own Family. The article(which I can't link to as it's in The Times which is subscription only) puts this case across a lot more convincely than I have here, but you will have more of an idea if this is BS or not?
I think also to be unknown one day and then to find yourself on the front page of every Newspaper nationally and a large number internationally the next day for something that was humiliating must have been hard for her to take and at that point she saw as the only way out. If she had waited a few days when it had all calmed down, she would have seen things differently.
You obviously have a strange sense of humour, but that's up to you. Not everyone agrees that this "prank" was funny - and the key thing is did the person on whom the prank was played did not find it funny.
The rules for these sort of calls - in the UK and in OZ - are that having carried out your amusing prank, you should ask the victim if they found it funny, and are they happy to have it broadcast. Now there are plenty of examples where this process has been followed and everyone (?) has had a good laugh.
My gripe with the distraught DJs is they didn't even consider following the rules, or give any thought to the views of the victim(s) - I'm leaving to one side the gross dereliction of duty by their employer.
So you carry on supporting them. I wonder if they will ever carry out a prank again without following the rules - isn't that in itself an admission of their guilt?
You did not say that it was funny, but you did say that it was not a bad one. Sole point of a "prank" call is to amuse - therefore it follows that the "not bad one" was "not too unfunny" - geddit?
You must have some very strange conversations if the other party can't draw conclusions from what you say. You should have a field day with this reply!
therefore it follows that the "not bad one" was "not too unfunny"
No it doesn't. Unless you have as warped a value system as you appear to have.
Not a bad one in this case means that the intent did not appear to be to cause distress. Geddit?
As for your assertions that the DJs were derelict, I take it you haven't actually been following the story in the reputable press. It looks like your response was based off the knee jerk reactions of the likes of the Daily Mail. The call was vetted by the lawyers for the media company, and they were the ones who agreed to the call being played. If you listen to the call, it's plainly apparent that it's complete rubbish - how anyone could believe it was the royal family is beyond me, but that's a different matter. I feel sorry for the nurse, but I don't believe that the DJs should be excoriated over this, and the witch hunt that's going on with the gutter press is disgraceful.
You should have a field day with this. Oh, and you can abuse vote this reply as well.
*pre-emptive celebratory nipple tassle jiggle* - Sean Ewington
Agreed that they don't deserve this, but if we were all rational about this then how would the media justify their witch hunt of the week?
That said, I don't agree that they should have done this particular prank - if it's phoning up someone and having a stupid conversation or generally winding them up, that's fair game. But to have a conversation which could cost someone their job, then publicly broadcast it seems a bit low.
I agree that the "prank" doesn't seem to be "bad" enough to cause a suicide let alone the attention it received before the suicide. Honestly... why does ANYONE give a rats ass about "monarchs" in this day and age?
My problem with "pranks" of this nature is that by design they publicly make unsuspecting, innocent people look like fools. That's not humour in my opinion.
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. ~ George Washington
The thing about prank calls, is that you know nothing about your victim, nothing about what else they have going on, nothing about their state of mind. This is because you don't care about them, they are selected at random and you don't think about anything that will happen after you hang up.
I don't wish to excuse the British press from anything. I don't think anyone should seek to excuse the Australians either.
Prank calls are the lowest form of comedy; lazy, selfish, and designed to get laughs by humiliating the victim and encouraging others to laugh at them.
Also, for the same reason let's not persecute the two presenters. The station pre-recorded the prank and managers and lawyers passed it for transmission. If everyone involved learns lessons from this at least there'll be something good comes from it. Sadly, I don't have much faith in the press or radio DJs in general to learn anything.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
So, as we all know, the nurse who was involved in the Duchess of Cambridge prank
call died last week. And now there's a witch hunt in place from the UK press for
the 2 DJs who played the prank. I've listened to the call, and it wasn't a bad
one - certainly nothing that should have caused the kerfuffle that it did.
Misrepresentation is often criminal.
Death or injury which occurs during criminal activity, even when not directly caused by the activity, often impacts the prosecution of the first.
Exactly, look up "thin-skull" cases to find the relevant laws: a helpful page[^]
To all those who are defending the pranksters consider that they did not think their prank was inappropriate so why should they be defended from the backlash? If they can't take abuse, they shouldn't dish it out! (IMHO prank = abuse) I think they deserve all the negative attention they brought upon themselves. Through their deliberate actions they caused the death of a human being!
- Life in the fast lane is only fun if you live in a country with no speed limits.
- Of all the things I have lost, it is my mind that I miss the most.
- I vaguely remember having a good memory...