Due to the impacts of the coronavirus outbreak, we are experiencing longer than normal lead times on certain products. We encourage back-ordering out-of-stock items to receive them as soon as possible.
Track My Order
Frequently Asked Questions
International Shipping Info
Mon-Fri, 9am to 12pm and
1pm to 5pm U.S. Mountain Time:
Chat With Us
May 14, 2012
about 2 years ago
Likely meant to be a passives only soldering mat. Shame. Having something ESD rated for sensitive components would have been awesome.
News - Safe Cracking with Robots
about 3 years ago
28:15:32 for the time and 38/12/16 for the combo.
News - SparkFun Supports Immigra…
about 3 years ago
1) WWII happened over 70 years ago. Yet people are still being brought up on war crimes charges as recently as last year because PEOPLE ARE STILL ANGRY OVER IT. Things may not be changeable at this point in time. But that doesn't mean that nothing can be done about it. Again, if one is to be angry at the current ban, then anger should be directed at all bans for the same reasons. If one is an atrocity, they all were. Just because you can march on D.C. and trash the place because it happened in the past doesn't make it any less real.
2) I can't even begin to address this without writing a novel. But let me tell a story. There once was a small bank in a foreign land. That small bank went about its business day in and day out. Sometimes it worked with much bigger banks to transact business. One day, a bunch of mean people managed to get inside the workings of the small bank and used it to harm the much bigger banks. It hurt a lot of people financially. Now, if you were a different big bank, would you continue doing business with this little bank? Or would you lock down all avenues of connection with this bank until many checks and safeguards were implemented to PROTECT YOUR PEOPLE? I mean, if people using the little bank can't send money to their family members using the big bank, it's an atrocity and should be stopped immediately, right? What if they're sick? We should let everyone in the big bank be vulnerable so that the money for the sick person can be transferred, right? I mean, it's everybody's right to do business with the big bank. It NEEDS to stay open and transacting. It's not fair to lock it down. Hey, that's my money in there and I need it to return home! I need it to do whatever! Open up and let me transact business like I'm supposed to be able to do every day I want to! Never mind that when I opened an account, it was with the understanding that I was putting my money in there to keep it SAFE. Nevermind that there are entities around that hold banks severely accountable if they ever show signs of weakness in regards to their safety. My needs come first!
Or maybe it's wiser of the bank to lock down for a brief period of time, check all their safeguards and policies, ensure that they are conducting business with other solid, reputable banks and making sure that the not-so-reputable banks have a lot of restrictions in place to keep things like that from happening again.
What makes more sense? And what is really the most important thing in play here? It's a question that isn't as easily answered as some people make it out to be. And if they think it is, they're missing some pretty key pieces.
Not trying to add to the polarization on the topic. While I can agree that it is the right of every person to have an opinion and for every business to have a policy/mission/direction/etc., I also have to agree with some that this would probably have been better listed as some headline or non-forum post somewhere. Polarizing issues like this are best left to just being a statement in a place where statements are best seen without being obtrusive (i.e. the front page to the website is the statement and nothing else). I can be fine with the rest on two points.
1) That people recognize that this is not the only ban that has ever happened in the history of the US. While some are not on official government records, there have been many times when specific religious/national groups have been turned away from the ports, sometimes for no other reason than because they existed. Safety (i.e. disease), national security, persecution (from the US itself, look into the histories of the Quakers or the persecutions of the Mormon pioneers/pilgrims for examples) and other reasons have all been used to turn people away. The SCOTUS has been able to overturn many state laws before ONLY because they did not apply uniformly to all peoples. In this case, being opposed to immigration bans/restrictions can be very accepted ONLY if you are angry at all immigration bans/restrictions and not just this one. As long as you recognize that other bans/restrictions have happened in the past and that you're just as angry at them as this one, so be it. I can accept it.
2) While many "bans" in the past were actually restrictions instead of outright bans, times have changed. When refugees migrated to countries before, there were not wolves in sheeps clothing trying to do extensive damage to their new countries in those movements. The refugees before were trying to escape terror and didn't have people hiding in it to cause more. Recent experiences highlight the dangers now associated with the refugee movement and how it only takes one opportune person to make it through the process to cause a lot of damage. To put it into a tech perspective, do you allow a primary server affected by the Heartbleed bug to continue serving while you work to figure out a fix? Or do you take it offline, apply the fix and then bring it back up as soon as possible, possibly missing out on several business transactions in the meantime? What's the acceptable level of risk to your and/or your customers? If you find a workstation with malware on it, do you allow it to continue functioning and work to fix it? Or do you take down all your systems and do extensive checks to ensure that no data was stolen and that it hasn't propagated itself to other systems? Do you think your customers will leave you completely if you say "Sorry we haven't been around for a week. We found malware and did an extensive search of our systems. No personal information was taken. You're safe."? Oh look, here's a furnace with high levels of CO coming out of it. We'll keep it running while we look for a repair person because we don't want to be cold. There's an extension cord with a chunk of insulation missing. We'll just leave it plugged in and tape it up because it's running Bill's experimental farm monitoring and we don't want to mess it up.
Look at the Paris bombings/shootings. The Belgian incident. All the attacks on women in several European nations. How do you tell the victims of incidents like those that they were part of an "acceptable restriction risk" while the nation's immigration/travel processes were being examined/reformed? How do you say, "sorry you lost your life/loved ones. But it's ok because we helped 5,999 good refugees to flee their countries in those 90 days of reform and only missed that one. We're getting better."? Is that acceptable? I think I've made my point.
While I can agree that the ban looks excessively harsh and severely targeted, I also look at an administration that looks at the terror threat resting in refugee bodies now and, just like the Heartbleed bug, wants to shutdown the system long enough to make sure it's completely caught and cleared out. I consider one life lost at the hand of a wolf in sheeps clothing to be an unacceptable risk. As long as that doesn't happen and as long as it doesn't take longer than necessary, I can support the decision (while disliking it) and hope that things turn out for the better when they're done with the repairs.
News - It's an August Caption Co…
about 5 years ago
Still sour from Marty being the only contestant to hit 88 MPH at the last AVC, Casey pulls out the all the stops to show that Pintos are just as capable at time travel as any other machine.
News - Your June Caption Contest
about 6 years ago
A reliable source leaked a photo of Sparkfun's secret experiment slated to be the ultimate Raspberry Pi killer, the "Kiss Box". No word yet on whether Hershey's has bought off on the idea or if initial prototypes have made it through customs.
News - May Caption Contest!
about 6 years ago
Man. Dr. Frankenstein had it so rough with all that pre-historic lab equipment. Glad Sparkfun was invented since then. Now if only that high-voltage shock-box kit I ordered would just get here...
"The ear bone's connected to the... microphone. The microphone's connected to the... bluetooth. The bluetooth's connected to the... internet feed. Now, why would doctors need 8 years of training to do this again?
Data, Data, Data... First of all, it is not considered an automated robot when its robot controller is considered sentient. Secondly, I TOLD you what would happen if you tried to race that Sparkfun crew from Bouldarius 6 in that Intersolar AVC competition. Maybe this pressure chip will help...
No public wish lists :(