Consulting our handy-dandy ASCII table, we can see that the character for line feed is 10 (0x0A in hex) and carriage return is 13 (0x0D in hex). The importance of these two characters cannot be stressed enough. When working in a terminal window you'll often need to be aware of which of these two characters, if not both, are being used to emulate the enter key. Some devices only need one character or the other to know that a command has been sent. More importantly, when working with microcontrollers, be aware of how you are sending data. If a string of 5 characters needs to be sent to the micro, you may need a string that can actually hold 7 characters on account of the 10 and 13 sent after every command.
Everything you type should be displayed in the terminal window. It's nothing fancy, but you are now communicating with the terminal. Data is being sent from your keyboard, to the computer, through the USB cable to the FTDI, out the FTDI's TX pin, into the RX pin, back through the USB cable, into the computer, and is finally displayed in the terminal window. Don't believe me? Unplug the jumper and type some more. Pending you did turn local echo off, you should not see anything being typed. This is the echo test.
com2 control window uc 10 universal cable rapidshare hit
That was a lot of information! At the very least, you should walk away from this knowing what a terminal window is, how to use it, which terminal program is best suited for you and your operating system, and how to navigate that program's interface. Again, terminal programs are a very powerful tool when working with serial devices and microcontrollers. Now go collect some data!
Net neutrality advocates argue that allowing cable companies the right to demand a toll to guarantee quality or premium delivery would create an exploitative business model based on the ISPs position as gatekeepers.[130] Advocates warn that by charging websites for access, network owners may be able to block competitor Web sites and services, as well as refuse access to those unable to pay.[102] According to Tim Wu, cable companies plan to reserve bandwidth for their own television services, and charge companies a toll for priority service.[131] Proponents of net neutrality argue that allowing for preferential treatment of Internet traffic, or tiered service, would put newer online companies at a disadvantage and slow innovation in online services.[90] Tim Wu argues that, without network neutrality, the Internet will undergo a transformation from a market ruled by innovation to one ruled by deal-making.[131] SaveTheInternet.com argues that net neutrality puts everyone on equal terms, which helps drive innovation. They claim it is a preservation of the way the Internet has always operated, where the quality of websites and services determined whether they succeeded or failed, rather than deals with ISPs.[118] Lawrence Lessig and Robert W. McChesney argue that eliminating net neutrality would lead to the Internet resembling the world of cable TV, so that access to and distribution of content would be managed by a handful of massive, near monopolistic companies, though there are multiple service providers in each region. These companies would then control what is seen as well as how much it costs to see it. Speedy and secure Internet use for such industries as healthcare, finance, retailing, and gambling could be subject to large fees charged by these companies. They further explain that a majority of the great innovators in the history of the Internet started with little capital in their garages, inspired by great ideas. This was possible because the protections of net neutrality ensured limited control by owners of the networks, maximal competition in this space, and permitted innovators from outside access to the network. Internet content was guaranteed a free and highly competitive space by the existence of net neutrality.[102] For example, back in 2005 YouTube was just a small startup company. Due to the absence of Internet fast lanes, YouTube had the ability to grow larger than Google Video. Tom Wheeler and Senators Ronald Lee Wyden (D-Ore.) and Al Franken (D-Minn.) said, "Internet service providers treated YouTube's videos the same as they did Google's, and Google couldn't pay the ISPs [Internet service providers] to gain an unfair advantage, like a fast lane into consumers' homes," they wrote. "Well, it turned out that people liked YouTube a lot more than Google Video, so YouTube thrived."[132]
2ff7e9595c
Comments