Well, I have extensive CP/M experience. CP/M 2.2 itself was written entirely in 8080 assembler, as was previous versions. Some of the utilities were in PL/M.
The Z80 is backwards compatible with the 8080, and way better.
There were also rewrites that used some of the Z80's enhanced instructions.
I had a Z80 card for my Apple II... there never was CP/M 3.0 available for it that I know of. I think it'd be interesting to try bringing it up.
Or, perhaps I can ressurect the Z-80 softcard in my old Apple II if I can find the box it's in. (The softcard was one of M$'s truly innovative products... made before they were a monopoly.)
Okay, I was a bit pissed off. I didn't quite mean to show that much disrespect for the teachers... I just happened to be a bit more flammable tonight:)
There are good teachers, as I said. I certainly did have a few. Maybe most of my issue is with the community I was in, and not necessarily the teachers.
Who's the dipshit again? I never said that their pay was fair, did I? Did you even bother to read my post. I conceded that it's low for what they do. What I said is that they are NOT living in poverty like some of you people out there seem to think.
I can tell you right now, after having been to several of my high school teacher's houses, they certainly weren't living in poverty. Some of the nicest lots on acreage and all the perks. Not to mention state retirement plans and health care.
I'm just tired of people saying that public school teachers live in poverty. They don't. What they are is mostly a bunch of union assholes who care more about racking up their tenure than teaching. Statistically, they come from the bottom half of their class in college, and can't even qualify to get jobs that pay better.
Note that I said MOSTLY. I know there are some damn good teachers out there... I had a few myself. But most public school teachers just get up there, talk out of a book, and assign/grade homework and tests. They don't TEACH. They don't give life experience. They don't take the time to deal with students with learning problems like ADHD. All they give a shit about is teaching the average students who play sports and take easy classes to get a good GPA. That's what they do.
All the above is a damn good reason that someday when I have children of my own, I am sending them to a private school, even if it were to cost me every dime of savings I could put toward my retirement.
And for the record, I agree with you. I'd rather my tax money be spent the way you describe.
Also, my fiancee and I don't make a whole lot, but I live in a 3000 square foot house, eat steak most nights, and eggs and sausage every morning. If people'd prioritize correctly, they wouldn't need that much to live on, either.
But don't you dare call the truth shortsighted. The fact is, our public schools are shit, I'll admit it, but it's the teachers who are shit, not the salaries. If giving teachers bigger salaries gets you better teachers, I'm all for it, but what do you do about the current crop of tenure-seeking union thugs that are in there now?
Chances are, where the poverty line is higher, wages tend to be higher. I saw a McDonald's in Boston hiring counter help at $7.00 an hour when federal minimum was $4.25... so I'd imagine that other jobs reflect similarly.
Poverty level? According to this report, which was done in December of 1994, and this table within, teachers are NOT at the poverty level.
The fact, if you trust the report, is that the starting salary for primary teachers in the U.S. is about $22K per year. This figure is comparable to, and even above most western nations. It also is very close to the average per-capita GDP. At mid career, they make about $34K.
The point being, these people are FAR from starving, and the fact is, my fiancee and I barely make a combined income that matches the starting income for a teacher.
I should also mention that teachers get excellent benefits.
One could also note from the report that teachers in the U.S. work an average of 185 days. If you take a mid-career teacher making $30K, divide by 185 days, is $162/day, or $16/hour if they worked 10 hours a day, or $20/hour if they work 8.
So don't give me this crap about teachers not making enough money and that they are at the "poverty level". I make $12K a year, and I damn sure aren't living in "poverty." I go to school, I pay my bills, I eat, and I even get to build a new computer every now and then.
I WILL concede that the report concludes that teacher pay is low relative to the amount of time spent with each pupil, and number of pupils per teacher, compared to other western nations.
I will also concede that teacher pay isn't comparable to most other jobs that require a masters or doctorate degree, and therefore don't attract more qualified people.
I will NOT concede that they are starving and living in poverty.
As far as your other issues are concerned, I don't know much about them.
The last bit of organization associated with United States centric domain name organization is gone.
It sucked when.net,.org, and.com were relegated to equals rather than their intended purpose.
Now.us will just be the same.
The evolution of things? It's like this:
1. In the beginning, commercial companies who were not network infrastructure providers could only register.com, thus leaving.org and.net free for nonprofit orgs and network providers.
2. Bill Clinton came along and gave the internet to the corporations, and suddenly U.S. companies registered their names in.com,.net, and.org. Thus, using even more namespace.
3..biz comes along, and those same companies will now have FOUR names in the namespace.
4. Now.us will be exactly the same. Now those companies will just have mytrademark.com, mytrademark.net, mytrademark.org, mytrademark.biz, and NOW mytrademark.us.
So, can anyone tell me what good this move is, rather than making them register under county.state.us?
Anyone else remember when domain names were free and you never got spam on usenet or e-mail? It was the giving up of.org and.net brought about by Clinton-Gore that got us where we are today.
When Gore "invented" the internet, what he and Clinton invented was the destruction of it's beauty as a free exchange that wasn't dominated by giant corporations wielding laws like the DMCA.
Actually, "Watson", there seems to have been a fuckup in slashcode that sent me a a page, and in the page I got originally, the AC's post was not there. It, instead, appeared that the person I responded to was saying RTFA to the original poster.
If you haven't figured it out by now, looking in that context, let me point out how easy it is to misinterpret that person's response. What would have been YOUR reaction if the AC's post never showed up to you?
Incidentally, this isn't the first time I've had slashdot not put things properly, and not bother with an "x replies beneath your current threshold."
In short, I'm saying that (1) Yes, I made a mistake. (2) That mistake was caused by a bug in slashcode that didn't display the intermediate comment. (3) Go fuck yourself, "Watson."
At the expense of getting marked as flamebait and losing some karma...
Your people are still pretty cocky, no?
The last time I checked, a successful invasion results in an extended occupation. That clearly did not happen in 1812. We booted your ass back to Britain yet again.
So you see, we tell the story a bit differently here.
And for the record, after having participated with the British military in joint field exercises, it's a miracle they won ANY war. Nothing like hearing someone whine in a thick British accent "that wire ripped my trousers and I'm bleeding!"
And the U.K. hasn't been invaded since 1066 because the rest of the world decided it was better to try bomb you into submission rather than occupy you. Seems you don't have much in useful natural resources. (Oil, valuable metals, etc.)
I think your attitude toward the U.S. is a direct result of subtle social conditioning brought about by the fact that your royals are still pissed that we got away.
Actually, it's YOU who got it wrong. The original poster didn't even mention the onboard DSP that some modems have. What he said was this:
if I had the time and inclination to learn grungy DSP processing in C it'd be an interesting challenge
Processing signals with C on a digital computer is Digital Signal Processing (DSP). If you bypass an onboard DSP chip on a modem and process the signals yourself, you are still doing DSP, just not using the dedicated DSP chip on the modem.
As far as I can see this is for analouge modems only. Is this still so intensively needed that it is woth that amount of money?
Some of us (A) Have no use for a DSL/Cable/Whatever high-speed digital connection, (B) Don't live in an area where you can get one, (C) Can't afford one, and (D) All of the above.
If analog modems weren't very popular, you wouldn't see walls full of them in computer stores. And yes, there is a local computer store here with a wall full of hundreds of analog modems.
Thinking about my pocketbook, would it raise or lower my taxes? This assumes, of course, that they adjusted tax rates to reflect the need for more or less funding for such a system? (I paid almost 50% of my income in taxes last year. Oh, and I only made 10,000. And people think the government gives businesses tax breaks.)
If you moved certain government services online, would it increase or decrease the government's budget requirements, assuming they didn't shift funding from anywhere besides the services that were moving to online-mostly?
I can tell you right now, if it makes bigger government, I'm not interested. Period.
How about we focus on NOT telling people what they should be focusing their private resources on, and NOT telling people how disgusting they are to you?
Did you ever think it would be more productive to your cause to contribute YOUR time to it, rather than contributing your time to telling other people that they should spend THEIR time on it?
Did it occur to you that there are some people who don't want any part of your agenda, that maybe they have different priorities?
What disgusts me is people like you who try and push an agenda, but your way of getting people on board is to criticize what other people are doing, rather than make your effort look better with positive statements and actions.
You might find people more willing to help with your issues if you didn't criticize their own (scientifically) valid projects.
Just think about how much energy you "pissed away" with your negative statement. Nice, counterproductive work, that.
And, for the record, a prime number generally doesn't have "a nice cool factor" apart from itself, and it's unit. (1, in this case.)
Here we have evidence of what can be achieved by combining the small efforts of many volunteers. Yet, what do we do with this power?
The problem is, it only takes about 5 minutes of "volunteering" to do this. Install, configure, run. That's it. So you combined a lot of volunteered 5-minute blocks. The CPU time used by the project had nothing to do with man-effort, and therefore wasn't the large effort of any people, except maybe the programmers who wrote the software.
You see, you think that this "volunteer" effort would be better spent ending poverty, loving everyone, curing disease, and ending (supposed) environmental destruction.
While there are distributed programs doing medical research, it looks like you are out of luck on your other three categories.
Now, let's say you can get everyone to spend five minutes that they would have spent installing and configuring the software that calculated this prime number on something like... working at the food bank to feed the hungry... either cooking, serving or whatever.
Imagine managing a bunch of people that took a five minute shift? Do you REALLY think that it would be efficient at all?
You see, to do work in the remaining three categories (end poverty, loving everyone, and stopping environmental destruction) requires a LOT more than five minutes from every person involved to be efficient and reasonable. I think you'll find a LOT more people willing to donate... say... five minutes than say... a full day. You'll find even less who will donate... a month. And not many people will donate six months or more.
That really only applies to stopping poverty... that can be done with volunteer chunks. Loving everyone and stopping envrionmental destuction requires continual effort by EVERYONE. You won't get that. Sorry. There are a lot more people who would rather drive their cars than worry about the possibility of an oil spill in Alaska, and a lot more people who find no reason to love everyone. Personally, there are a lot of people out there I don't love... and, if I can use the term, even perhaps... hate.
And finally, for stopping poverty, I might give a little more, but, you see, I don't have much money myself, seeing as how the tech bust has put me out of work, and I doubt anyone'd ever give me a dime I didn't work for. Thus, I am not inclined to end poverty anytime soon.
But, to bring us back on topic:
I simply question whether it is an acheivement worthy of representing human advancement.
Of course, it is. Any advancement is still advancement, no matter the category, nor what our other problems are. After reading my arguments above, if you can pretend to agree with them for a moment, you might see that while we may fail in some areas considered important by some people, we can excel in others.
Did you hear the one about the guy who bought fire insurance for his cigar, and then smoked it? It's true.
Two words: Urban legend.
The story goes that he was arrested for arson.
Seriously, though. I used to work for a large American insurance company, and there's no way in hell they'd write a policy on something like this.
There's also the matter that in many countries (not sure about Japan), the government is "self-insured"... Many private companies are also "self-insured" as well. This basically means that you have or can get the cash to pay for any damages you are liable for. Moreover, in many states, including Oregon, if you have a certain amount of money in a bank account that meets certain requirements ($100,000, no withdrawals for the last year in Oregon's case), you can even become "self-insured" with regards to your automobile.
But, this isn't damage where someone other entity has "liability," so insurance wasn't mandatory, and more than likely it was assumed that the entity in charge would pay for anything that went wrong.
So, chances are, nobody has any kind of contracted damage insurance on that thing with any insurance company.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I have extensive CP/M experience. CP/M 2.2 itself was written entirely in 8080 assembler, as was previous versions. Some of the utilities were in PL/M.
The Z80 is backwards compatible with the 8080, and way better.
There were also rewrites that used some of the Z80's enhanced instructions.
I had a Z80 card for my Apple II... there never was CP/M 3.0 available for it that I know of. I think it'd be interesting to try bringing it up.
Now I can port CP/M-68K to my TI-89!
Or, perhaps I can ressurect the Z-80 softcard in my old Apple II if I can find the box it's in. (The softcard was one of M$'s truly innovative products... made before they were a monopoly.)
Hmmmm...
I think your .sig coming true would make me shudder. :)
With a crappy radio, it had to be fairly close 5 feet to make it out... my monitor doesn't put out that much rf... it's a low-rad type.
Now, putting my ham radio at 5 watts about 10 feet away does interesting things to my monitor, I can tell you that!
Okay, I was a bit pissed off. I didn't quite mean to show that much disrespect for the teachers... I just happened to be a bit more flammable tonight :)
There are good teachers, as I said. I certainly did have a few. Maybe most of my issue is with the community I was in, and not necessarily the teachers.
It really worked... it took more work than the instructions portrayed to get it working, but it's pretty nifty.
Can't do MP3s yet... at least, not the version I tried.
first post?
Who's the dipshit again? I never said that their pay was fair, did I? Did you even bother to read my post. I conceded that it's low for what they do. What I said is that they are NOT living in poverty like some of you people out there seem to think.
I can tell you right now, after having been to several of my high school teacher's houses, they certainly weren't living in poverty. Some of the nicest lots on acreage and all the perks. Not to mention state retirement plans and health care.
I'm just tired of people saying that public school teachers live in poverty. They don't. What they are is mostly a bunch of union assholes who care more about racking up their tenure than teaching. Statistically, they come from the bottom half of their class in college, and can't even qualify to get jobs that pay better.
Note that I said MOSTLY. I know there are some damn good teachers out there... I had a few myself. But most public school teachers just get up there, talk out of a book, and assign/grade homework and tests. They don't TEACH. They don't give life experience. They don't take the time to deal with students with learning problems like ADHD. All they give a shit about is teaching the average students who play sports and take easy classes to get a good GPA. That's what they do.
All the above is a damn good reason that someday when I have children of my own, I am sending them to a private school, even if it were to cost me every dime of savings I could put toward my retirement.
And for the record, I agree with you. I'd rather my tax money be spent the way you describe.
Also, my fiancee and I don't make a whole lot, but I live in a 3000 square foot house, eat steak most nights, and eggs and sausage every morning. If people'd prioritize correctly, they wouldn't need that much to live on, either.
But don't you dare call the truth shortsighted. The fact is, our public schools are shit, I'll admit it, but it's the teachers who are shit, not the salaries. If giving teachers bigger salaries gets you better teachers, I'm all for it, but what do you do about the current crop of tenure-seeking union thugs that are in there now?
Chances are, where the poverty line is higher, wages tend to be higher. I saw a McDonald's in Boston hiring counter help at $7.00 an hour when federal minimum was $4.25... so I'd imagine that other jobs reflect similarly.
Poverty level? According to this report, which was done in December of 1994, and this table within, teachers are NOT at the poverty level.
The fact, if you trust the report, is that the starting salary for primary teachers in the U.S. is about $22K per year. This figure is comparable to, and even above most western nations. It also is very close to the average per-capita GDP. At mid career, they make about $34K.
The point being, these people are FAR from starving, and the fact is, my fiancee and I barely make a combined income that matches the starting income for a teacher.
I should also mention that teachers get excellent benefits.
One could also note from the report that teachers in the U.S. work an average of 185 days. If you take a mid-career teacher making $30K, divide by 185 days, is $162/day, or $16/hour if they worked 10 hours a day, or $20/hour if they work 8.
So don't give me this crap about teachers not making enough money and that they are at the "poverty level". I make $12K a year, and I damn sure aren't living in "poverty." I go to school, I pay my bills, I eat, and I even get to build a new computer every now and then.
I WILL concede that the report concludes that teacher pay is low relative to the amount of time spent with each pupil, and number of pupils per teacher, compared to other western nations.
I will also concede that teacher pay isn't comparable to most other jobs that require a masters or doctorate degree, and therefore don't attract more qualified people.
I will NOT concede that they are starving and living in poverty.
As far as your other issues are concerned, I don't know much about them.
Funny how that works here on slashdot... I've had similar things happen to me.
:)
Guess my karma isn't high enough.
'Course, this will be modded "off topic" and I'll lose a point... but at least I don't post my inflammatory stuff as an AC.
The last bit of organization associated with United States centric domain name organization is gone.
It sucked when .net, .org, and .com were relegated to equals rather than their intended purpose.
Now .us will just be the same.
The evolution of things? It's like this:
1. In the beginning, commercial companies who were not network infrastructure providers could only register .com, thus leaving .org and .net free for nonprofit orgs and network providers.
2. Bill Clinton came along and gave the internet to the corporations, and suddenly U.S. companies registered their names in .com, .net, and .org. Thus, using even more namespace.
3. .biz comes along, and those same companies will now have FOUR names in the namespace.
4. Now .us will be exactly the same. Now those companies will just have mytrademark.com, mytrademark.net, mytrademark.org, mytrademark.biz, and NOW mytrademark.us.
So, can anyone tell me what good this move is, rather than making them register under county.state.us?
Anyone else remember when domain names were free and you never got spam on usenet or e-mail? It was the giving up of .org and .net brought about by Clinton-Gore that got us where we are today.
When Gore "invented" the internet, what he and Clinton invented was the destruction of it's beauty as a free exchange that wasn't dominated by giant corporations wielding laws like the DMCA.
*ouch* Problems taking criticism? No problems with the formatting on my end...maybe you just suck.
Actually, you caught me on a bad day, and I must confess I *hate* the phrase 'no shit, Sherlock."
You don't really have to fuck yourself. If you could do that, you could probably make a fair amount of money in the porno industry.
And some of my Stallmanist friends wonder why I keep supporting Red Hat.
With a move like that, I think I'll definitely put my money into them by purchasing RH 8.0 when it comes out.
Even if it's just for publicity, it's a stroke of genius.
Actually, "Watson", there seems to have been a fuckup in slashcode that sent me a a page, and in the page I got originally, the AC's post was not there. It, instead, appeared that the person I responded to was saying RTFA to the original poster.
If you haven't figured it out by now, looking in that context, let me point out how easy it is to misinterpret that person's response. What would have been YOUR reaction if the AC's post never showed up to you?
Incidentally, this isn't the first time I've had slashdot not put things properly, and not bother with an "x replies beneath your current threshold."
In short, I'm saying that (1) Yes, I made a mistake. (2) That mistake was caused by a bug in slashcode that didn't display the intermediate comment. (3) Go fuck yourself, "Watson."
I guess your country is a little bit different than mine.
And I could make myself a hero among all the Welsh, Scottish, and Irish by slapping your queen across the face.
At the expense of getting marked as flamebait and losing some karma...
Your people are still pretty cocky, no?
The last time I checked, a successful invasion results in an extended occupation. That clearly did not happen in 1812. We booted your ass back to Britain yet again.
So you see, we tell the story a bit differently here.
And for the record, after having participated with the British military in joint field exercises, it's a miracle they won ANY war. Nothing like hearing someone whine in a thick British accent "that wire ripped my trousers and I'm bleeding!"
And the U.K. hasn't been invaded since 1066 because the rest of the world decided it was better to try bomb you into submission rather than occupy you. Seems you don't have much in useful natural resources. (Oil, valuable metals, etc.)
I think your attitude toward the U.S. is a direct result of subtle social conditioning brought about by the fact that your royals are still pissed that we got away.
Actually, it's YOU who got it wrong. The original poster didn't even mention the onboard DSP that some modems have. What he said was this:
if I had the time and inclination to learn grungy DSP processing in C it'd be an interesting challenge
Processing signals with C on a digital computer is Digital Signal Processing (DSP). If you bypass an onboard DSP chip on a modem and process the signals yourself, you are still doing DSP, just not using the dedicated DSP chip on the modem.
As far as I can see this is for analouge modems only. Is this still so intensively needed that it is woth that amount of money?
Some of us (A) Have no use for a DSL/Cable/Whatever high-speed digital connection, (B) Don't live in an area where you can get one, (C) Can't afford one, and (D) All of the above.
If analog modems weren't very popular, you wouldn't see walls full of them in computer stores. And yes, there is a local computer store here with a wall full of hundreds of analog modems.
Thinking about my pocketbook, would it raise or lower my taxes? This assumes, of course, that they adjusted tax rates to reflect the need for more or less funding for such a system? (I paid almost 50% of my income in taxes last year. Oh, and I only made 10,000. And people think the government gives businesses tax breaks.)
If you moved certain government services online, would it increase or decrease the government's budget requirements, assuming they didn't shift funding from anywhere besides the services that were moving to online-mostly?
I can tell you right now, if it makes bigger government, I'm not interested. Period.
didnt they just sell their sole to sony ?
If they sold their sole to Sony, how do they protect their feet?
Even then, how much would Sony pay for the bottom of some smelly, worn out shoes?
I've got this funny feeling you meant something else...
How about we focus on NOT telling people what they should be focusing their private resources on, and NOT telling people how disgusting they are to you?
Did you ever think it would be more productive to your cause to contribute YOUR time to it, rather than contributing your time to telling other people that they should spend THEIR time on it?
Did it occur to you that there are some people who don't want any part of your agenda, that maybe they have different priorities?
What disgusts me is people like you who try and push an agenda, but your way of getting people on board is to criticize what other people are doing, rather than make your effort look better with positive statements and actions.
You might find people more willing to help with your issues if you didn't criticize their own (scientifically) valid projects.
Just think about how much energy you "pissed away" with your negative statement. Nice, counterproductive work, that.
And, for the record, a prime number generally doesn't have "a nice cool factor" apart from itself, and it's unit. (1, in this case.)
You mean "sentence."
Sorry, I had to.
Here we have evidence of what can be achieved by combining the small efforts of many volunteers. Yet, what do we do with this power?
The problem is, it only takes about 5 minutes of "volunteering" to do this. Install, configure, run. That's it. So you combined a lot of volunteered 5-minute blocks. The CPU time used by the project had nothing to do with man-effort, and therefore wasn't the large effort of any people, except maybe the programmers who wrote the software.
You see, you think that this "volunteer" effort would be better spent ending poverty, loving everyone, curing disease, and ending (supposed) environmental destruction.
While there are distributed programs doing medical research, it looks like you are out of luck on your other three categories.
Now, let's say you can get everyone to spend five minutes that they would have spent installing and configuring the software that calculated this prime number on something like... working at the food bank to feed the hungry... either cooking, serving or whatever.
Imagine managing a bunch of people that took a five minute shift? Do you REALLY think that it would be efficient at all?
You see, to do work in the remaining three categories (end poverty, loving everyone, and stopping environmental destruction) requires a LOT more than five minutes from every person involved to be efficient and reasonable. I think you'll find a LOT more people willing to donate... say... five minutes than say... a full day. You'll find even less who will donate... a month. And not many people will donate six months or more.
That really only applies to stopping poverty... that can be done with volunteer chunks. Loving everyone and stopping envrionmental destuction requires continual effort by EVERYONE. You won't get that. Sorry. There are a lot more people who would rather drive their cars than worry about the possibility of an oil spill in Alaska, and a lot more people who find no reason to love everyone. Personally, there are a lot of people out there I don't love... and, if I can use the term, even perhaps... hate.
And finally, for stopping poverty, I might give a little more, but, you see, I don't have much money myself, seeing as how the tech bust has put me out of work, and I doubt anyone'd ever give me a dime I didn't work for. Thus, I am not inclined to end poverty anytime soon.
But, to bring us back on topic:
I simply question whether it is an acheivement worthy of representing human advancement.
Of course, it is. Any advancement is still advancement, no matter the category, nor what our other problems are. After reading my arguments above, if you can pretend to agree with them for a moment, you might see that while we may fail in some areas considered important by some people, we can excel in others.
Did you hear the one about the guy who bought fire insurance for his cigar, and then smoked it? It's true.
Two words: Urban legend.
The story goes that he was arrested for arson.
Seriously, though. I used to work for a large American insurance company, and there's no way in hell they'd write a policy on something like this.
There's also the matter that in many countries (not sure about Japan), the government is "self-insured"... Many private companies are also "self-insured" as well. This basically means that you have or can get the cash to pay for any damages you are liable for. Moreover, in many states, including Oregon, if you have a certain amount of money in a bank account that meets certain requirements ($100,000, no withdrawals for the last year in Oregon's case), you can even become "self-insured" with regards to your automobile.
But, this isn't damage where someone other entity has "liability," so insurance wasn't mandatory, and more than likely it was assumed that the entity in charge would pay for anything that went wrong.
So, chances are, nobody has any kind of contracted damage insurance on that thing with any insurance company.