Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Friday August 10 2018, @03:22PM   Printer-friendly
from the monitoring-a-monitor dept.

I recently had an interesting find at a local thrift store: a mess of televisions used in a correctional facility! Unfortunately, I didn't find any drugs or shivs hidden in mine (would be a bit hard, given the cases are clear) but they're nice pieces of kit for $8 each.

They'd be super handy as external monitors for something like htop or other system monitors, but the HDMI and VGA port appear to be disabled somehow. However, intriguingly, there is a USB port "for factory use only". I can get about 5 more if I want and I can find a good project for them, but I don't really know where to start when it comes to potentially modifying them to re-enable the HDMI port. I figure they just need their firmware configured to enable the ports, but I have no idea where to start. If anyone has any ideas of where to start poking around I'd appreciate it. They're also a rather unusual item, so I'd be glad to entertain any questions you may have about them.

Imgur album with some pictures of one of the monitors in question.

As always, thanks!

[Editor's Note: I've done a bit of web searching, the monitor is marked as AMP'D HDTV Monitor SLTV-1519AP-3S with ATSC Tuner, and others seem to have got it working. It appears to be useful as a gaming display, as well as for other purposes. It is a 15" screen (720p). Anyone with any ideas?]


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Touché) by requerdanos on Friday August 10 2018, @08:30PM (6 children)

    by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 10 2018, @08:30PM (#720059) Journal

    LOL you Murricans

    Thank you for contributing your unique cultural perspective.

    A shiv is about as defensive as a stealth bomber. But don't try to pretend to be the good guy. It exposes you for the hypocrites you are.

    Stealth bombers have practical problems in the area of personal defense, primarily in the areas of insufficient portability reducing the ability to have one handy when necessary, and excessive size resulting in a lack of ability to carry one discreetly even if you could lift one, which you can't.

    Small personal blades, on the other hand, are weapons that no one ever need know about unless you are attacked, in which case they may save your life. This self-defense is more important in some places, less important in others.

    It's OK to be a stabby psychopath... Human nature.

    I appreciate your participation, but disagree with your positions.

    • It's okay to carry a defensive weapon, even if you are in the Americas.
    • It's not okay to be a psychopath who attacks others, even if you are a world leader.
    • Although some humans have a violent nature, it's not hypocritical to recommend not having one.
    • Thus, I support the ability to carry a defensive weapon if necessary, but don't support attacking people.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Touché=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Touché' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 10 2018, @10:09PM (5 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 10 2018, @10:09PM (#720083)

    You really don't understand, do you? A "defensive" weapon is meant to deter. Something like mace is a defensive weapon. Someone comes at you with a knife, you pull out and point your mace, they will think twice about getting their eyes stung out for hours and likely leave you be.

    I'll give you that even for the most hardcore inmates, there will be some difficulty in finding a place to carry mace at-the-ready at all times. But then, a prison is an environment designed to strip everyone of weapons, particularly defensive ones, so that the "corrections" officers can maintain authority. Well, too bad. This does not make your argument somehow true.

    If someone wants to attack you with a shiv, having a shiv of your own is not defense. It's desperate measures because by nature of a concealed weapon: like a stealth bomber a shiv attack will come by surprise. If you survive it is either by sheer luck (or incompetence) or because your assailant wanted you to survive. You won't stop them from killing you by blindly stabbing them back in reactionary panic if they know what they're doing, attack in a pack and/or hold you down. By the time you can even pull out your blade, the job is done. You're dead.

    • It's okay to carry a defensive weapon, even if you are in the Americas.

    See above about what a defensive weapon is.

    • It's not okay to be a psychopath who attacks others, even if you are a world leader.

    So you're saying carrying a deadly weapon without telling anyone, always ready to start stabbing "in defense" is somehow less psychopathic?

    • Although some humans have a violent nature, it's not hypocritical to recommend not having one.

    You're actually recommending fighting violence with more violence and still think you have a leg to stand on? Lulz.

    • Thus, I support the ability to carry a defensive weapon if necessary, but don't support attacking people.

    Sigh. Go back to your NRA meeting, at least open carrying a firearm qualifies as a deterrent. But don't try to extend your ideological bullshit to things you don't understand in the slightest. Thanks for yanking that QED home, yank :)

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by legont on Saturday August 11 2018, @03:49AM (4 children)

      by legont (4179) on Saturday August 11 2018, @03:49AM (#720193)

      "defensive" weapon is meant to deter. Something like mace is a defensive weapon. Someone comes at you with a knife, you pull out and point your mace, they will think twice about getting their eyes stung out for hours and likely leave you be.

      I was trained differently. The main idea was that if I show a weapon, I have to use it. The reason is that it is psychologically easier to attack an armed opponent. Demonstrating a serious weapon, such as gun or knife, is a way to get killed. That's where the classic cowboy scene comes from: boys are looking into each other eyes without drawing their guns. Whoever draws it first is usually killed.

      In practical life the best knife, or even mace, defense would be to cry loud and ask for mercy and if the attack continues use the blade before the attacker sees it. Also, when using it, the intent should always be to kill the attacker. An intent to produce some reasonable damage is a bad idea for similar reasons. Wounded animal is more dangerous.

      Hence if you carry a weapon make sure you prepare yourself - accept it - to kill people. If you don't it is safer to leave guns and blades at home.

      --
      "Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 11 2018, @11:43AM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 11 2018, @11:43AM (#720280)

        Well said. I can't fault GP for his nonviolent ideals, but practically, shows of force don't work unless you have overwhelming force, which is nearly never the case between individuals.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 12 2018, @12:39AM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 12 2018, @12:39AM (#720385)

          GP here. I think the both of you are underestimating the effectiveness of a good (OC, sticky gel, spray nozzle) mace.

          Because it does not cause permanent damage, there is no moral inhibition - even to pacifists like myself - to using it in a pre-emptive attack in a confrontation that has not yet turned violent but looks like it's about to. It can be safely applied from well outside the reach of a knife-wielding attacker and opens up all tactical options - you can either go on the offense and physically attack or try to disarm the assailant who is now blind and cramping in pain - basically helpless - or just GTFO. On top, it doesn't require much skill to successfully apply, anyone can use it to full effect with zero training. All of this makes it a credible deterrent.

          An attacker who is not stupid will accept that charging into the mace guy, no matter how meek he looks, has the strong possibility of coming out of the fight with at least their dignity lost and maybe more. A stupid attacker will learn the hard way :)

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 12 2018, @01:15AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 12 2018, @01:15AM (#720395)

            There is no mace in prisons, and as a normally concealed weapon, it's not a deterrent to violence. I also have to disagree wrt the morality (as well as the advisability) of making a first strike just because it's nonlethal. Violence is violence, regardless of whether your intent is to kill or not. The same logic behind "if you show the weapon you must use it" makes using nonlethal weapons just as dangerous as lethal ones that aren't used lethally. Many people will respond to your threat with premeditated deadly force. Better to just take a whooping or get robbed if you don't have the heart for fighting without weapons.

          • (Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday August 12 2018, @11:10PM

            by sjames (2882) on Sunday August 12 2018, @11:10PM (#720718) Journal

            Be careful though. Depending on what the attacker is on, the mace may simply enrage him enough to beat you to a fine pulp while he screams in pain.