...modified a Commodore SX-64 to contain a 1.2 GHz PIII system.
Hardly a 1+ GHz Commodore SX-64 Mod. More like a simple case-mod effort. Slapping a small form-factor MB into an SX-64 case is kinda cool, but it ain't that cool. Now, building a real C64 notebook or building a souped up C64 (not emulated) would be damn cool.
Well, at least you stopped calling it a "non-issue"....
Re-read the article and my initial comment. The article refers to the EULA in language which infers that it only takes effect when using Windows Update. My response was based on the article. If the article is correct, then just do not use Windows Update and there is no longer any problem.
However, of the EULA goes deeper than that, then use a firewall and make damn sure you know what effect each patch/service pack is going to have. I repeat my earlier statements one more time for the hard of thinking - A responsible organisation should not use features such as Windows-Update on mission critical servers or workstations. And just for you, one more time: a responsible admin will not allow auto-updaters to modify any production systems without fully testing each and every patch and without being aware of the potential effects of those patches.
Essentially, Microsoft got the right to "disable" *anything* they choose to disable. And they don't care about the Windows update settings because this whole thing is about DRM and not Windows update. Oh, did I mention that they will inform the users only through "reasonable" efforts on "a web site"? How noble. So when some app doesn't run anymore, you won't know why. Even if Microsoft really only wants to affect mp3-players etc., we all know that accidents can happen and also other apps may be affected.
No, Microsoft are claiming to have the right to disable anything they choose to. This has not yet been challenged, but I find it hard to imagine a court of law that will uphold this.
Do you still think this is a non-issue? You want your bank to use this kind of software? You got to be kidding me.
I don't want my bank accepting these kinds of terms in an EULA. I don't want my bank connecting computers/servers containing sensitive data to the internet unless they have very secure infrastructure in place and know how to manage their firewalls and other security measures properly. This does not mean allowing any company to automatically update software and certainly does not mean allowing any external organisation access to information they have no right to be accessing!
Of course, I also do not want my bank using software with DRM built-in on their workstations/servers unless they have a damn good reason to do so. If they are not accessing DRM-protected content and have no DRM-related software installed, then there is no reason to install patches to those non-existent products.
I will repeat it for you: If a bank, financial institution, government department or any other organisation which holds confidential information does not manage their installed software properly, then I would rather not deal with them. A responsible organisation should not use features such as Windows-Update on mission critical servers or workstations. All software (new software, updates and patches) should be thoroughly tested and all licences should be completely understood before the software/patch is installed in a production environment. Anything with such ridiculous clauses should be questioned and if no suitable compromise can be found with the vendor, that software/patch should not be installed. If you do not accept the terms and cannot negotiate more reasonable terms, find an alternative solution.
Did Micorsoft issue a guarantee not to dig through your system when you turn off Windows Update? Actually the new EULA gives them the right, regardless of some config setting.
I based my comments on the original article which seemed to imply that the EULA only gave Microsot the right to trawl through your system if you used Windows-Update. If what you say is correct (and I'll take your word for it) then the situation is worse than I thought. Of course, Microsoft are just trying to bully their way through and I hope that they will be challenged on this. I have seen indications that Microsoft are trying to force corporate users to keep current with service packs or risk losing their licence - if they change the EULA with each service pack on top of that, they are forcing the customer to choose between accepting an EULA that violates their right to privacy or lose their licence.
No-one has the right to inspect the contents of my PC without my explicit permission unless they have a valid search-warrant. I choose not to use Windows-Update at home for various reasons (not least of which I have to reproduce different configurations that each of my clients have so I can test the software I write) - in fact, my current client strictly forbids users from turning it on, as their IT guys manage all software updates for the network. It is up to my client to decide whether or not to accept the terms of the EULA, not me.
I still say it is largely a non-issue. The banks and financial institutions should most definitely not be using Windows Update! If their IT guys are not on top of the various service packs and hot fixes available, and don't adequately test them in their environment, then I for one would rather not deal with that institution! I have seen a few (admittedly rare, but unfortunately critical) occasions where service packs and/or hot fixes have caused more problems due to environment specific issues. Letting the Windows-Update service decide what to install and when, is just asking for trouble. All it takes is for one patch to fail at a critical moment, and all hell can break loose.
I don't use Windows Update, but my understanding is that the "let Microsoft dig through your system" stuff is only if you do use Windows Update. If this is correct, then there is no problem - don't use it!
Surely someone managing machines in a business critical environment would have the nous to turn off the auto-update? Don't use it. Install patches and hot-fixes manually after fully testing them to make sure they don't kill your system. Do not rely on Microsoft (or any third party vendor for that matter) to automatically update your servers without you knowing exactly what is going on!
The XP-related stuff though, is a bit of a worry. Then again, the solution is pretty straight-forward - DON'T USE XP. If you need Windows, use Windows 2000. If Microsoft bring the same checks in to 2000 via future service packs, then configure your firewall properly and stop it happening.
>The same strategy is used to sell macrovision removal devices in the north american market without trouble from the mpaa.
And here I was thinking it was because Macrovision is analog, and therefore not covered by the DMCA. Not to mention it was cracked a solid decade prior to introduction by the Time Base Corrector, whose primary purpose (as you can read on that document) isn't to allow you to copy Macrovision protected movies.
Who mentioned anything about the DMCA? The poster said MPAA. I would be very surprised if the MPAA hadn't checked all its options to try to stamp out these devices anyway.
[arb] However, if the copyright period is continually extended, what incentive is there for someone to create something new if their old ideas are still making money?
To make more money, of course.
Trust me--we don't want to force great authors to crank out works. If their next work takes ten years to write, let it take ten years; better than than to have ten works that are all mere shadows of what could be.
True, but if copyright lasted 20 years, that's more than enough time to create the next great masterpiece. There is not reason for a copyright to last indefinitely.
I agree 100%. Corporations, IMHO, shouldn't be allowed to hold copyright at all. If they must, then it should be for a very reduced term.
And it is purely the corporations who are driving the extensions to copyright periods. I have nothing against the creator (author, artist, musician, etc) making money off their creations for a lengthy period of time, but the way the system seems to work is that the creator makes a very tiny amount (if anything) out of their works, and corporations make a fortune - and for an absurdly long period of time in some cases. In fact, many creators of valuable copyrighted works do not own the copyrights and that is just plain wrong.
Well, that's easy. A patent is pure innovation; a copyright, on the other hand, is more art & derivation than innovation. A patent's monopoly is an advantage on a differnet product, while a copyright is just an enforcement of commerical worth; there are a very few situations where "copyright licensing" is an issue for someone's work that isn't just a reprint of the original work.
But why should an inventor have only a 17 year window to profit from his invention before losing his protection, when a movie studio can profit indefinitely from movies which are already 70+ years old? Isn't it time that these works went back to the public domain as copyright laws originally intended them to? The original creators are long gone!
Consider that artists and inventors are probably more closely related in what they do than you give them credit for. It is harder to patent something (or at least it should be!) than to copyright something. More effort must go into creating something unique to earn a patent. I could write a very crappy story which I can copyright and retain the rights to for a VERY long time, yet if I work my ass off and invent something incredibly useful and valuable to the human race, I only get a small window of opportunity... A bit unbalanced IMHO.
BTW, I am not advocating that patents should be extended in duration, more that copyrights be brought back to a more reasonable term.
Copyrights (and patents, but not trademarks) exist so the creators of new ideas / written works CAN make money, and thus are encouraged to keep on making new things.
However, if the copyright period is continually extended, what incentive is there for someone to create something new if their old ideas are still making money? If I write a novel that astound the world and makes a fortune, and continues to be sold over many, many years, why should I write another? If the copyright expired after 10 or 20 years though, when it expired, my monopoly over that novel would be removed and I would have to get off my butt and create something new to generate an income.
The mega-corporations pushing for the extensions are only doing it so they can continue to reap in the $$$ from (very) old cash-cows. If they couldn't fall back on these, they would be forced to try to find something new and innovative!
Has anyone wondered why copyrights should last longer than patents?
At my current client we have desktop cases which are about the right height to allow me to lean the book against the desktop case with my keyboard sitting in front of the book. This works well for the rare situations where I have felt the need to have a book open as I am coding. Of course, this is really only an option for "regular" sized books, and can be a real pain for some of the huge 1000+ page tomes out there!
For larger books (mostly conference notes or even magazines) I do as an earlier poster suggested and read it before sitting at the computer, then I only need to refer to it briefly... You really need to assess your current situation and determine why you need to be referring to the book so often that it becomes a problem.;-)
You are never forced top get a MS passport. Hotmail, MSN search, microsoft.com and MSDN all do not require a passport ID at all. It is an option you are given when you visit these service so that yoru login names can all be unified, but it is not forced on you.
Really? You could have fooled me...
Your MSN® Hotmail® account is also a Microsoft®.NET Passport. Completing this form will register you with Hotmail and with.NET Passport. With.NET Passport, you can use the Hotmail address and password you create below to sign in to any site that has the.NET Passport sign-in button.
For a minute there I thought you had written DTMF - I was trying to figure out how you were expecting to manage servers/workstations using a touch-tone phone?
At one company I worked for, someone had built a very small application which handled switching environments and all the associated settings. While the implementation was very crude, it was also quite effective. The applications we were developing were Windows-based and written in Visual Basic. The environment manager was customisable (to an extent) and used an INI file to describe each of the possible environments (dev, system test, UAT, production, training, demo), where to find the relevant versions of the files that were required and any relevant registry entries. User's were able to switch between different environments relatively easily and it worked quite well. We had a seperate directory set up for each environment which contained a complete set of files for that environment. Each time a new build was done, the environment's directory was updated, and when the users ran the environment manager only the changed files were copied to their machine. This tool was also used to roll out new versions of the applications, effectively replacing bulky windows installers. (Okay, there was still one initial setup program that needed to be run to initially install the software, but after that the environment manager did the rest.)
All the meta-data for the environment manager was kept under source-control, and the users executed the environment manager from the network. (They could optionally run it locally, but it was then pointed to the network to make sure it was getting the correct INI file.) The only minor complication was that after a build, the environment directory needed to be updated on the network with the latest executables, however this was easily integrated into our build/roll-out procedures. We tagged each release in our source-control system, and were able to easily roll-back any environment if needed.
2. Applications and operating systems aren't the same thing. Just because OS X comes with IE doesn't mean that IE is part of the OS.
When I was doing IT support work a few years back, I lost track of the number of times users would complain about problems with Windows when it was actually one of the applications they were running. Typical users (who are barely computer literate sometimes) do not see any distinction between the operating system and the applications. If OS X comes with IE, then IE is part of OS X in the eyes of most users.
I agree with you that that's not the purpose of XP, I meant that the "coaching" practices used in XP might help to speed up the learning process and maybe improve the relationships between the programers (I wasn't proposing a to form an XP team in the middle of a project). Even in too-formal-for-my-taste projects (when you usually have a lot of Steady Eddies, and a few Natural Coders), that seems to work pretty well (if the "coach" can control his/her ego). I think that if you are a Natural Coder, you should try to help the Steady Eddies improve (even if that slows you down).
One tactic I have used in projects where I have been lead is to assign senior developers as mentors to the junior coders. Rather than working together on code a la pair programming, the mentors would regularly monitor the junior programmers by looking over their code regularly (on a daily basis sometimes) and asking if there were any questions. Not only did it help the junior guys learn more but it still let the senior developers write their own code at their own pace.
One of the keys of leading a development team is trying to foster communication between members. Regular group coffee outings, a weekly team breakfast, assigning mentors, code reviews, etc all help. Sometimes locating an entire team in a single development lab (away from the rest of the office and all the distractions) is useful. Being in the same room not only makes communication easier, but it lets you keep a close eye on the performance of the team members.
Only thing I would add is the use of code reviews, first as a teaching tool (review the better coders' work first), then to improve the lesser coders quality after they've gotten accustomed to the review process.
Another advantage of code reviews you missed which is very relevant here: it lets everyone know how much progress is being made by other developers. If developers are falling behind, it becomes blatantly obvious...
While the information you are after is not on these boards, at least you will be able to contact some people who have the boards - maybe they've found some more information.
Other than that, I can only repeat what a couple of other people have said here - do some very methodical testing, starting with all single character messages from a-z, A-Z, 0-9 and punctuation. Then try a fair range of two character messages with the same options as the first run. (aa-az, aA-aZ, a0-a9, ba-bz, etc, but there's no real need to try ALL combinations.) Then try a fair sampling of 3 char messages. Next try some longer strings, modifying one character at a time and the same string modifying each property. After that, try a range of single characters (say 10-15 different characters) with each of the options. Finally, do some 2 char, 3 char and a longer message with a reasonable set of different options.
If you gather a truck-load of data (several hundred sets, not just 100) you stand a better chance of figuring it out. You really need the trivial cases (single and two character strings) and some non-trivial cases (a phrase, not just 'TEST') to make it easier to reverse-engineer the algorithm.
As others have mentioned, given the time frame and the fact that it is 6502-based, the algorithm is not likely to be particularly complex, but working it out can take a lot of time!
Mean-while, I might have a look at the 6502 code and your test data to see if anything jumps out at me...
I'd say that for a billboard, they will use smaller polymer displays which will be cheaper to make than one mondo 24'x32' display. Say 48 -4'x4' screens. Now, there's a tempting target- you might not have much use for a 24'x32' screen, but all those smaller screens, think what you could do with them?
Yeah - you could steal say 48 of them and build a mondo 23'x32' display at home!;-)
Finally, this patent was filed almost 4 years ago. This could definitely have been the first case of differing content by domain name.
However, I am sure there were countless web-sites that were restricting access or delivering different content based on country-code TLDs before this application was filed.
I guess it all depends on the technique they use to determine the region (I haven't read the entire patent yet). If it is anything other than chopping the last bit off the domain name and looking up a table and/or looking up domain registry entries for address details, then it definitely should have failed the obviousness test.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought, why doesn't some one come up with a C64 palm top.
Bingo! That's the kind of thing I'd be interested in seeing.
That and the Commodore One project.
...modified a Commodore SX-64 to contain a 1.2 GHz PIII system.
Hardly a 1+ GHz Commodore SX-64 Mod. More like a simple case-mod effort. Slapping a small form-factor MB into an SX-64 case is kinda cool, but it ain't that cool. Now, building a real C64 notebook or building a souped up C64 (not emulated) would be damn cool.
Well, at least you stopped calling it a "non-issue"....
Re-read the article and my initial comment. The article refers to the EULA in language which infers that it only takes effect when using Windows Update. My response was based on the article. If the article is correct, then just do not use Windows Update and there is no longer any problem.
However, of the EULA goes deeper than that, then use a firewall and make damn sure you know what effect each patch/service pack is going to have. I repeat my earlier statements one more time for the hard of thinking - A responsible organisation should not use features such as Windows-Update on mission critical servers or workstations. And just for you, one more time: a responsible admin will not allow auto-updaters to modify any production systems without fully testing each and every patch and without being aware of the potential effects of those patches.
Essentially, Microsoft got the right to "disable" *anything* they choose to disable. And they don't care about the Windows update settings because this whole thing is about DRM and not Windows update. Oh, did I mention that they will inform the users only through "reasonable" efforts on "a web site"? How noble. So when some app doesn't run anymore, you won't know why. Even if Microsoft really only wants to affect mp3-players etc., we all know that accidents can happen and also other apps may be affected.
No, Microsoft are claiming to have the right to disable anything they choose to. This has not yet been challenged, but I find it hard to imagine a court of law that will uphold this.
Do you still think this is a non-issue? You want your bank to use this kind of software? You got to be kidding me.
I don't want my bank accepting these kinds of terms in an EULA. I don't want my bank connecting computers/servers containing sensitive data to the internet unless they have very secure infrastructure in place and know how to manage their firewalls and other security measures properly. This does not mean allowing any company to automatically update software and certainly does not mean allowing any external organisation access to information they have no right to be accessing!
Of course, I also do not want my bank using software with DRM built-in on their workstations/servers unless they have a damn good reason to do so. If they are not accessing DRM-protected content and have no DRM-related software installed, then there is no reason to install patches to those non-existent products.
I will repeat it for you: If a bank, financial institution, government department or any other organisation which holds confidential information does not manage their installed software properly, then I would rather not deal with them. A responsible organisation should not use features such as Windows-Update on mission critical servers or workstations. All software (new software, updates and patches) should be thoroughly tested and all licences should be completely understood before the software/patch is installed in a production environment. Anything with such ridiculous clauses should be questioned and if no suitable compromise can be found with the vendor, that software/patch should not be installed. If you do not accept the terms and cannot negotiate more reasonable terms, find an alternative solution.
Did Micorsoft issue a guarantee not to dig through your system when you turn off Windows Update?
Actually the new EULA gives them the right, regardless of some config setting.
I based my comments on the original article which seemed to imply that the EULA only gave Microsot the right to trawl through your system if you used Windows-Update. If what you say is correct (and I'll take your word for it) then the situation is worse than I thought. Of course, Microsoft are just trying to bully their way through and I hope that they will be challenged on this. I have seen indications that Microsoft are trying to force corporate users to keep current with service packs or risk losing their licence - if they change the EULA with each service pack on top of that, they are forcing the customer to choose between accepting an EULA that violates their right to privacy or lose their licence.
No-one has the right to inspect the contents of my PC without my explicit permission unless they have a valid search-warrant. I choose not to use Windows-Update at home for various reasons (not least of which I have to reproduce different configurations that each of my clients have so I can test the software I write) - in fact, my current client strictly forbids users from turning it on, as their IT guys manage all software updates for the network. It is up to my client to decide whether or not to accept the terms of the EULA, not me.
I still say it is largely a non-issue. The banks and financial institutions should most definitely not be using Windows Update! If their IT guys are not on top of the various service packs and hot fixes available, and don't adequately test them in their environment, then I for one would rather not deal with that institution! I have seen a few (admittedly rare, but unfortunately critical) occasions where service packs and/or hot fixes have caused more problems due to environment specific issues. Letting the Windows-Update service decide what to install and when, is just asking for trouble. All it takes is for one patch to fail at a critical moment, and all hell can break loose.
I don't use Windows Update, but my understanding is that the "let Microsoft dig through your system" stuff is only if you do use Windows Update. If this is correct, then there is no problem - don't use it!
Surely someone managing machines in a business critical environment would have the nous to turn off the auto-update? Don't use it. Install patches and hot-fixes manually after fully testing them to make sure they don't kill your system. Do not rely on Microsoft (or any third party vendor for that matter) to automatically update your servers without you knowing exactly what is going on!
The XP-related stuff though, is a bit of a worry. Then again, the solution is pretty straight-forward - DON'T USE XP. If you need Windows, use Windows 2000. If Microsoft bring the same checks in to 2000 via future service packs, then configure your firewall properly and stop it happening.
It has already been done...
>The same strategy is used to sell macrovision removal devices in the north american market without trouble from the mpaa.
And here I was thinking it was because Macrovision is analog, and therefore not covered by the DMCA. Not to mention it was cracked a solid decade prior to introduction by the Time Base Corrector, whose primary purpose (as you can read on that document) isn't to allow you to copy Macrovision protected movies.
Who mentioned anything about the DMCA? The poster said MPAA. I would be very surprised if the MPAA hadn't checked all its options to try to stamp out these devices anyway.
[arb] However, if the copyright period is continually extended, what incentive is there for someone to create something new if their old ideas are still making money?
To make more money, of course.
Trust me--we don't want to force great authors to crank out works. If their next work takes ten years to write, let it take ten years; better than than to have ten works that are all mere shadows of what could be.
True, but if copyright lasted 20 years, that's more than enough time to create the next great masterpiece. There is not reason for a copyright to last indefinitely.
I agree 100%. Corporations, IMHO, shouldn't be allowed to hold copyright at all. If they must, then it should be for a very reduced term.
And it is purely the corporations who are driving the extensions to copyright periods. I have nothing against the creator (author, artist, musician, etc) making money off their creations for a lengthy period of time, but the way the system seems to work is that the creator makes a very tiny amount (if anything) out of their works, and corporations make a fortune - and for an absurdly long period of time in some cases. In fact, many creators of valuable copyrighted works do not own the copyrights and that is just plain wrong.
Well, that's easy. A patent is pure innovation; a copyright, on the other hand, is more art & derivation than innovation. A patent's monopoly is an advantage on a differnet product, while a copyright is just an enforcement of commerical worth; there are a very few situations where "copyright licensing" is an issue for someone's work that isn't just a reprint of the original work.
But why should an inventor have only a 17 year window to profit from his invention before losing his protection, when a movie studio can profit indefinitely from movies which are already 70+ years old? Isn't it time that these works went back to the public domain as copyright laws originally intended them to? The original creators are long gone!
Consider that artists and inventors are probably more closely related in what they do than you give them credit for. It is harder to patent something (or at least it should be!) than to copyright something. More effort must go into creating something unique to earn a patent. I could write a very crappy story which I can copyright and retain the rights to for a VERY long time, yet if I work my ass off and invent something incredibly useful and valuable to the human race, I only get a small window of opportunity... A bit unbalanced IMHO.
BTW, I am not advocating that patents should be extended in duration, more that copyrights be brought back to a more reasonable term.
Copyrights (and patents, but not trademarks) exist so the creators of new ideas / written works CAN make money, and thus are encouraged to keep on making new things.
However, if the copyright period is continually extended, what incentive is there for someone to create something new if their old ideas are still making money? If I write a novel that astound the world and makes a fortune, and continues to be sold over many, many years, why should I write another? If the copyright expired after 10 or 20 years though, when it expired, my monopoly over that novel would be removed and I would have to get off my butt and create something new to generate an income.
The mega-corporations pushing for the extensions are only doing it so they can continue to reap in the $$$ from (very) old cash-cows. If they couldn't fall back on these, they would be forced to try to find something new and innovative!
Has anyone wondered why copyrights should last longer than patents?
At my current client we have desktop cases which are about the right height to allow me to lean the book against the desktop case with my keyboard sitting in front of the book. This works well for the rare situations where I have felt the need to have a book open as I am coding. Of course, this is really only an option for "regular" sized books, and can be a real pain for some of the huge 1000+ page tomes out there!
;-)
For larger books (mostly conference notes or even magazines) I do as an earlier poster suggested and read it before sitting at the computer, then I only need to refer to it briefly... You really need to assess your current situation and determine why you need to be referring to the book so often that it becomes a problem.
Clumsy to not be able to see the screen when shooting yourself.
Come on man! It's not that bad is it? Sure the price is high, but not worth commiting suicide over!
I remember playing with magic sand 20+ years ago - what's so new about this? Go to a toy-shop and get some for yourself!
Sheesh! Next thing we know, someone will be submit a story about amazing new pets!
Really? You could have fooled me...
For a minute there I thought you had written DTMF - I was trying to figure out how you were expecting to manage servers/workstations using a touch-tone phone?
At one company I worked for, someone had built a very small application which handled switching environments and all the associated settings. While the implementation was very crude, it was also quite effective. The applications we were developing were Windows-based and written in Visual Basic. The environment manager was customisable (to an extent) and used an INI file to describe each of the possible environments (dev, system test, UAT, production, training, demo), where to find the relevant versions of the files that were required and any relevant registry entries. User's were able to switch between different environments relatively easily and it worked quite well. We had a seperate directory set up for each environment which contained a complete set of files for that environment. Each time a new build was done, the environment's directory was updated, and when the users ran the environment manager only the changed files were copied to their machine. This tool was also used to roll out new versions of the applications, effectively replacing bulky windows installers. (Okay, there was still one initial setup program that needed to be run to initially install the software, but after that the environment manager did the rest.)
All the meta-data for the environment manager was kept under source-control, and the users executed the environment manager from the network. (They could optionally run it locally, but it was then pointed to the network to make sure it was getting the correct INI file.) The only minor complication was that after a build, the environment directory needed to be updated on the network with the latest executables, however this was easily integrated into our build/roll-out procedures. We tagged each release in our source-control system, and were able to easily roll-back any environment if needed.
1. OS X doesn't come with Office.
2. Applications and operating systems aren't the same thing. Just because OS X comes with IE doesn't mean that IE is part of the OS.
When I was doing IT support work a few years back, I lost track of the number of times users would complain about problems with Windows when it was actually one of the applications they were running. Typical users (who are barely computer literate sometimes) do not see any distinction between the operating system and the applications. If OS X comes with IE, then IE is part of OS X in the eyes of most users.
Somebody mod this guy up! This is most definitely not flamebait - he's referring to a tool called memtest.
Or even Hot Dispatch?
I agree with you that that's not the purpose of XP, I meant that the "coaching" practices used in XP might help to speed up the learning process and maybe improve the relationships between the programers (I wasn't proposing a to form an XP team in the middle of a project). Even in too-formal-for-my-taste projects (when you usually have a lot of Steady Eddies, and a few Natural Coders), that seems to work pretty well (if the "coach" can control his/her ego).
I think that if you are a Natural Coder, you should try to help the Steady Eddies improve (even if that slows you down).
One tactic I have used in projects where I have been lead is to assign senior developers as mentors to the junior coders. Rather than working together on code a la pair programming, the mentors would regularly monitor the junior programmers by looking over their code regularly (on a daily basis sometimes) and asking if there were any questions. Not only did it help the junior guys learn more but it still let the senior developers write their own code at their own pace.
One of the keys of leading a development team is trying to foster communication between members. Regular group coffee outings, a weekly team breakfast, assigning mentors, code reviews, etc all help. Sometimes locating an entire team in a single development lab (away from the rest of the office and all the distractions) is useful. Being in the same room not only makes communication easier, but it lets you keep a close eye on the performance of the team members.
Only thing I would add is the use of code reviews, first as a teaching tool (review the better coders' work first), then to improve the lesser coders quality after they've gotten accustomed to the review process.
Another advantage of code reviews you missed which is very relevant here: it lets everyone know how much progress is being made by other developers. If developers are falling behind, it becomes blatantly obvious...
And what about the ones who spend all day reading and posting to slashdot?
;-)
Give them a pay-rise of course!
I assume you've found the following resources, but just in case...
8 &t=69 which might also provide some people who could help...
There's a thread the 'The LED Forum' about this sign. The people there might be able to help... http://www.eio.com/public/led/0219.html
Also, one message in that thread is for a message at SignIndustry.com http://www.signindustry.com/mb/read.php?f=19&i=13
While the information you are after is not on these boards, at least you will be able to contact some people who have the boards - maybe they've found some more information.
Other than that, I can only repeat what a couple of other people have said here - do some very methodical testing, starting with all single character messages from a-z, A-Z, 0-9 and punctuation. Then try a fair range of two character messages with the same options as the first run. (aa-az, aA-aZ, a0-a9, ba-bz, etc, but there's no real need to try ALL combinations.) Then try a fair sampling of 3 char messages. Next try some longer strings, modifying one character at a time and the same string modifying each property. After that, try a range of single characters (say 10-15 different characters) with each of the options. Finally, do some 2 char, 3 char and a longer message with a reasonable set of different options.
If you gather a truck-load of data (several hundred sets, not just 100) you stand a better chance of figuring it out. You really need the trivial cases (single and two character strings) and some non-trivial cases (a phrase, not just 'TEST') to make it easier to reverse-engineer the algorithm.
As others have mentioned, given the time frame and the fact that it is 6502-based, the algorithm is not likely to be particularly complex, but working it out can take a lot of time!
Mean-while, I might have a look at the 6502 code and your test data to see if anything jumps out at me...
Good luck!
I'd say that for a billboard, they will use smaller polymer displays which will be cheaper to make than one mondo 24'x32' display. Say 48 -4'x4' screens. Now, there's a tempting target- you might not have much use for a 24'x32' screen, but all those smaller screens, think what you could do with them?
;-)
Yeah - you could steal say 48 of them and build a mondo 23'x32' display at home!
Finally, this patent was filed almost 4 years ago. This could definitely have been the first case of differing content by domain name.
However, I am sure there were countless web-sites that were restricting access or delivering different content based on country-code TLDs before this application was filed.
I guess it all depends on the technique they use to determine the region (I haven't read the entire patent yet). If it is anything other than chopping the last bit off the domain name and looking up a table and/or looking up domain registry entries for address details, then it definitely should have failed the obviousness test.