[Kyle] decided to build the above LED clock for his church. Though it may look impressive enough, it is also hiding loads of features. [Kyle] wanted to make the clock as easy to control as possible, so rather than use buttons or dials to control what is being displayed, he used Twitter. The clock is connected to the internet through a Linksys WRT54GL. The router was hacked so not only does it supply the connection to Twitter, it also parses all of the replies the clock’s feed gets. The clock responds to commands to turn it on or off, run a countdown before service, display the number of viewers on the church’s live stream, and display a sequence of numbers. The time never needs to be set, as it is synched from the internet. The circuit for actually driving the display is based off a PIC, but it was changed to run off an Arduino.
funny how most of the comments are not even relevant to the hack
>See this >page for more details:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
Tell you what… I haven’t insulted your intelligence by quoting the bible, so don’t insult my intelligence by quoting “wikipedia.”
But, since you think *you* are a scientist, why don’t you quantify for me what you think the numerical odds are that the universe would turn out the way it is, given that all things are random.
>Not magically, but scientifically. There are >clearly defined laws and guidelines…
I love that! Since when do random events result in “laws and guidelines?” Laws and guidelines are generated by *intelligence.* They don’t emerge when you throw a fistful of crap against a wall.
>Also, as far as the earth, moon, and sun being >correctly positions, please refer to the page on >the anthropic principle.
Blah blah blah.
>“Then, molecules randomly assembled themselves >to form living structures that scientists, after >a 100 years of study, still cannot reproduce.”
>This is absurd. What molecules can’t scientists >reproduce? Name one.
In your zest to impress us, you’ve demonstrated that you don’t read very carefully. I said that the thing that scientists cannot reproduce are *living things.* The best they can do is modify living things, or combine parts of living things. They cannot create them from scratch. When and if they ever do, this will not undermine the argument for intelligent design, it underscores it. In other words, how is it that advanced technology is required to reproduce an effect that you claim was caused by nothing more than the flip of a coin?
>Not everything has to have an “evolutionary” >benefit. Evolved traits only come into play in a >critical way when they they determine the >lifespan/number of offspring or the creature in >question. Maybe the ability to ponder “god” is >actually an evolutionary DETRIMENT, since when >too many humans ponder “god” differently they >end up mass-murdering each other over >conflicting beliefs.
I see. I suppose in your mind this trait must have arisen from a gamma ray that disrupted some DNA somewhere and created a mutation. Man, are you reaching.
“The *data* shows evidence of refined design.”
>Prove it.
Easy. Let’s conduct an experiment. Each of us will receive 10 tons of earth with minerals in it. I will take my 10 tons, and through intelligent design, refine the minerals, cast, extrude, forge and machine parts, and then assemble a working pocket watch. You, on the other hand, will observe your pile of dirt sit as it undergoes “random” natural processes.
I hope you are honest enough to admit that the universe will be a cold, dark, dead place, in which every star has burned it self out, long before enough time has passed for your dirt to have spontaneously assembled itself into a watch– or anything else for that matter.
“You are correct that there are *large* numbers of otherwise rational people who are buying into utter bullshit, but it’s not the people you think.”
>Die in a fire.
Funny. You connect belief in god with mass-murder, and then you, an enlightened non-believer, wish me death. Obviously I touched a nerve.
The funny thing is that, of the two of us, *you* are the religious one. You are the one who has invested yourself in a faith in theories that are short on answers, and full of holes. On the other hand, I’m willing to look at explanations that match the data, even if it offends my (or other peoples’) secular sensibilities.
>However, thanks for advertising the fact that >you’re unfit to be a scientist. You might be >able to design some widget, but a scientist you >are not.
I don’t think you know what a scientist is. The hallmark of a *real* scientist is the ability to be *objective,* and to fit the theory to the data, not the other way around. Given your obviously rigid belief system, and your desire to see people who disagree with you “die in a fire,” I submit that it is *you* who is unfit to be a scientist. You are incapable of viewing the world from any vantage point but your own.
Do some research on pons and fleischmann. these people were objective enough to report an observed physical effect, even though it did not fit in with accepted models. the two were, pardon the phrase, “crucified” for doing so by people with your attitude. Emerging research is beginning to show that they were correct. I wonder how many of the pompous experts that assailed them have the character to apologize.
@chris-
>I’ve always put it this way to religous fanatics >– Sure god (or whatever surpreme being(s) you >believe in) may have created us, evolution is HOW >we were created.
I don’t think I would disagree with you.
I would make this point, however. “evolution” is not “a” thing or “a” theory. It is a collection of theories.
Some parts are well established and beyond dispute. This is because they can be observed and/or replicated in the laboratory. I can *prove* the principles associated with natural selection, or example, using some bacterial cultures and some watered-down antibiotics. If you don’t believe in natural selection, you’re not being objective.
however, another part of evolution… trans-species evolution for example, is much more theoretical. No one has over observed one species turning into another.
In fact, experiments of this nature have been conducted on fruit flies to try to demonstrate this, by applying the mututation-effects of radiation. They’ve dosed, zapped, and bred millions of fruit flies. They’ve produced flies with too many wings, no head, missing legs, double bodies, strange hairs or weird colors, but not once have they ever produced a different species of fly… let alone a lizard, a rat, or a chimp.
In the absence of better evidence, it is prudent to take this aspect of evolution with a grain of salt.
There seems to be a lot of hate for twitter interfaces. Knobs and buttons? The thing is on a balcony, and the arduino was out of I/O in my design. Twitter is the easiest thing for non-techie people to use.
@mike it does use an ntp server, I’m not using a RTC so the timing is not 100%, it requires daily syncing.
@cantido GPIO on the wrt, now that would be tight. I didn’t think about that. I needed the router instead of a shield because I needed the ability to connect to my vpn, and be a little more reliable. The church doesn’t control the network there so it needs to be a dumb dhcp client and phone home.
@therian I was going to do IR, but the thing is people always lose remotes. If I had more IO and time I would have done both IR and twitter
This is a TROLL HACK you guys. Hack-a-day community is trolled.
It was an interesting project, but still, serious overkill, all you need is a cheap open-wrt router and an avr with a rtc (yes, I’m a PIC hater). No need for Arduino and $80 Linksys.