Foam light seals can be replaced by the patient hobbyist. You can get the seal material and the adhesive on the net from camera repair suppliers; for some cameras, you can even get things pre-cut to fit. One of the most knowledgeable Olympus OM-series repair shops offers a precut foam kit for well under $10.
Whatever you get, find that system's mailing list and get on it. They can help with reputable repair shops, suppliers for system-specific stuff, and so on.
I'll second the clear filter recommendation. Every lens I own (and there are 20-somethign of them) wears a UV or skylight filter (they're effectively both the same, a piece of clear glass) full time. If you do encounter the unexpected, a $25 filter is cheaper than a $125 (or $500) lens.
Do spend the money and get a good one, though, since every picture you take will look through it. Stick with Hoya or Tiffen.
I'd recommend an Olympus OM-1 (manual exposure) or OM-2 (autoexposure), personally. Then again, I'm biased, having owned and used an OM-2 since 1976, and an OM-1 before that. They're small (they're the camera that inspired the Nikon FE/FM), light, and handle extremely well. They also have a fiercely devoted following. The biggest drawback is that Olympus has pretty much dropped the system, and in particular never made a successful autofocus version.
A bigger recommendation is to visit a camera store with a wide range of used gear, and spend a couple of hours playing around. You won't make good pictures with a camera that's hard for you to handle or doesn't feel good in your hands. Any camera from a recognized manufacturer (Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Pentax, Minolta, and Konica are the ones you'll likely see) will make perfectly good pictures, and will do just as well in teaching you how to see and capture what you want to capture. The same goes for aftermarket lenses from Tamron, Vivitar, Soligor, or Tokina.
Unlike the previous poster who suggested a digital SLR, I'll recommend you stay away from that until you know better what you like and dislike and can judge your needs on that basis. The field is in way too much flux at the moment, and the costs are still way too high. (You can't get a digital body for less than a kilobuck, and won't be able to for many years, I expect.) There are also too many tradeoffs involved with focal length multiplication effects, and you may well discover that you *like* wide- and super-wideangle lenses - which are simply not available for *any* digital. My most-used camera is an Olympus E-10, but its biggest deficiency is that the widest it will go, even with an accessory lens, is an equivalent 28mm - and there are more than a few times I need wider than that. For those, I reach for an OM-4 and a 24, or 21.
Few articles about gerrymandering really get into how ugly and blatant it is.
It's been ugly and blatant for decades. The only change is who's doing it, and the Democrats are screaming because they don't control the process any more.
Wake up and smell the coffee, guys: turnabout is fair play.
This would be a good thing if they were using the ability to pack the same number of stations into fewer channels. However, they're not...each station gets a whole new 6 MHz channel all to itself, to use as it pleases. No spectrum will be freed up. All they're doing is reshuffling who goes where.
I've tried to get him to give OS X a whirl more than once, and his objection is that he doesn't want to become dependent on non-open-source code. The proprrietary library he's referring to is the Cocoa UI layer.
16C - awesome calculator for programmers, especially embedded work. There is no better number system converter available at any price. No I can't do bin/dec/hex in my head faster than the 16C and neither can you. Expensive due to relatively low numbers produced.
I bought a 16C in 1983 when I got a new job with a 30% pay raise. I figured it was a tool of the trade. I was right, too - and not only is a tool, it's a Snap-On. The thing is damn near indestructible.
The going price for these on eBay is from $125 to almost $300, depending on accessories and condition. It's still the finest tool for the job.
Hm. While you're indeed correct, this then raises the question of just how much alike program segments have to be before they're just copies of one another.
The tool is good enough to answer SCO's claims, since they're claiming that vast stretches of code were lifted with only the copyright statements removed, but as a more general code comparison, it might be lacking. I'm not at all sure that that problem is answerable short of an AI-complete solution, though.
If you're looking for z/VM and z/Linux expertise, there are several consulting firms that will get you going and train you in what you need to know. One good one, that has a really good reputation in the mainframe community, is Sine Nomine Associates. Tell 'em I sent you. (Disclaimer: Yeah, I work for them. Not on z/VM, though.)
You, too, miss the point. There are lots of devices for sale that make it easy for people to use ham (it's STILL not an acronym, people) frequencies. They're called radios, and you can buy them from such manufacturers as Icom, Kenwood, Yaesu/Vertex/Standard, Ten-Tec, and Alinco. With only a small amount of work, commercial radios from GE Ericsson and Motorola will work just fine on the ham bands, too. The key is that, in order to use them legally, you have to actually learn something about radio. This is again by law - in this case, not just US law, but international treaty as well. The market for people willing to actually learn things is dwindling, sadly enough, as should be blindingly obvious to those who stop and contemplate Linux vs. Windows for more than a few seconds. ...de K5ZC
All else didn't fail. Some cell phone networks were still up.
None of the ones I had any experience with - and yes, I was in the area that evening - were usable. They were too jammed...just like they were on 9/11 (and yes, I was there then, too).
Cellphone networks, like all telephone networks are designed on the premise that only a fraction of their capacity will be in use at one time. During a disaster, that assumption crashes in flames, because *everyone* wants to call and let someone knoe they're all right. ...de K5ZC
So, you're effectively saying, without the communication that goes on in a public communication spectrum, the spectrum is worthless?
The normal, non-emergency use of the spectrum is valuable for the same reason that nuclear weapons must be tested periodically to remain useful: because there's no other way to verify that everything still works. If you can't use it day-to-day, then it may well not be there when you do need it.
The only reason HAM is still any one of those things is because it has no marketable value, in terms of the average consumer. Can you imagine if one day out of the blue, the major telecom companies decided to market HAM, and everyone had one? Can you imagine how useful it'd be then?
You miss the point completely: Ham radio (it's a word, not an acronym, and not capitalized at all) has no marketable value precisely because it is, bylaw, a noncommercial service. Telecom companies do not market it because they cannot.
Even if the cell phone networks switch to alternate power and microwave linking, there's no coordination to minimize interference - indeed, no mechanism to do so. Everybody tries to call, and the system chokes.
It did exactly that during the power outage. In fact, there were more than a few news stories about people using good old-fashioned pay phones because the cell network was unusable. ...de K5ZC
However, cell phones magically don't work when there is no network.
Not only that, they are fairly easily overloaded. I was in Manhattan on 9/11, and my cellphone was completely useless.
Hams have a long, distinguished record of providing communications when nothing else can get through. Ham radio is a national resource, and BPL will, if that video is representative of its effects, utterly destroy it....de K5ZC
I've never heard of any chip that did something like this on an instruction level.
That's why it's a mainframe.:-)
The crypto coprocessors are beyond the scope of Hercules, at least as it stands now (although I wouldn't rule out adding it in the future). Even so, however, I get from my reading of 740.13 that the key length doesn't matter. (Am I wrong there?) I doubt that part will become an issue anytime soon, but the five instructions are rather more of an immediate problem. It looks like the message digest stuff isn't an issue, so it comes down to what the DES/3DES instructions actually do. I haven't seen the code in question.
I was mistaken: it's five new instructions. They provide DES and 3DES symmetric cryptography, and SHA-1 message digest functions. The PDF introduction to the z/990 I found at IBM's Redbooks site doesnt' go into a lot of detail, but it does say that much in chapter 5. The biggest omission, and one that may prove critical, is the key lengths supported (the BIS site is unclear as to whether crypto with keys longer than 56 bits falls under the open source exemption).
We may find ourselves holding off for now, mainly because we'd like to get the 2.18 release out the door in the next couple of weeks, and this issue is likely to take longer than that to resolve. Still, it's a matter of pride for the Hercules team that we implement IBM's announced architectural extensions faster than any other emulator (this won't be the first time), and having to delay for nontechnical reasons is a bit irritating.
Am I the only one reading this who thinks they should have a special event ham station with GU4DEC as a callsign? (As far as I can tell, G?4DEC isn't currently in use.)
The cell phone companies note the ESN (a unique serial number assigned to your phone that identifies it exactly) of any phone that activates an inordinate number of cell sites and, if they choose, file complaints with the FCC for disruption of the network.
You truly don't understand how cellular technology works, do you?
The phone activates any site that receives its signal, and the sites arbitrate between themselves to determine which one the phone talks to. The phone has no say in the matter.
This works fine as long as the phone is only seen by a limited number of sites. When the phone is seen by hundreds of sites, they can't communicate between themselves fast enough to arbitrate effectively, especially if the phone is traveling at several hundred miles an hour.
Further, the cellular bands are divided up into a small number of frequencies (or their spread-spectrum analogues). The whole basis for the system is that those frequencies can be reused in fairly close proximity precisely because a phone on one frequency won't interfere with another phone on the same frequency a few cells away. (This is why there need to be so many cell sites to cover a given area.) If the phone has a much wider area of coverage, it knocks out that frequency for lots of sites, and interferes with calls far and wide.
This discussion has so far assumed a single cellular provider's network. Now, add in the fact that it's quite likely that a phone at 37,000 feet will be seen by multiple networks, which may or may not be cooperating, and you've got a REAL mess on your hands.
Slashdot Mirror
Foam light seals can be replaced by the patient hobbyist. You can get the seal material and the adhesive on the net from camera repair suppliers; for some cameras, you can even get things pre-cut to fit. One of the most knowledgeable Olympus OM-series repair shops offers a precut foam kit for well under $10.
Whatever you get, find that system's mailing list and get on it. They can help with reputable repair shops, suppliers for system-specific stuff, and so on.
I'll second the clear filter recommendation. Every lens I own (and there are 20-somethign of them) wears a UV or skylight filter (they're effectively both the same, a piece of clear glass) full time. If you do encounter the unexpected, a $25 filter is cheaper than a $125 (or $500) lens.
Do spend the money and get a good one, though, since every picture you take will look through it. Stick with Hoya or Tiffen.
I'd recommend an Olympus OM-1 (manual exposure) or OM-2 (autoexposure), personally. Then again, I'm biased, having owned and used an OM-2 since 1976, and an OM-1 before that. They're small (they're the camera that inspired the Nikon FE/FM), light, and handle extremely well. They also have a fiercely devoted following. The biggest drawback is that Olympus has pretty much dropped the system, and in particular never made a successful autofocus version.
A bigger recommendation is to visit a camera store with a wide range of used gear, and spend a couple of hours playing around. You won't make good pictures with a camera that's hard for you to handle or doesn't feel good in your hands. Any camera from a recognized manufacturer (Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Pentax, Minolta, and Konica are the ones you'll likely see) will make perfectly good pictures, and will do just as well in teaching you how to see and capture what you want to capture. The same goes for aftermarket lenses from Tamron, Vivitar, Soligor, or Tokina.
Unlike the previous poster who suggested a digital SLR, I'll recommend you stay away from that until you know better what you like and dislike and can judge your needs on that basis. The field is in way too much flux at the moment, and the costs are still way too high. (You can't get a digital body for less than a kilobuck, and won't be able to for many years, I expect.) There are also too many tradeoffs involved with focal length multiplication effects, and you may well discover that you *like* wide- and super-wideangle lenses - which are simply not available for *any* digital. My most-used camera is an Olympus E-10, but its biggest deficiency is that the widest it will go, even with an accessory lens, is an equivalent 28mm - and there are more than a few times I need wider than that. For those, I reach for an OM-4 and a 24, or 21.
Few articles about gerrymandering really get into how ugly and blatant it is.
It's been ugly and blatant for decades. The only change is who's doing it, and the Democrats are screaming because they don't control the process any more.
Wake up and smell the coffee, guys: turnabout is fair play.
This would be a good thing if they were using the ability to pack the same number of stations into fewer channels. However, they're not...each station gets a whole new 6 MHz channel all to itself, to use as it pleases. No spectrum will be freed up. All they're doing is reshuffling who goes where.
yeah...but then all you have to watch on it is the same old crap.
If HDTV is the answer, what is the question? (Aside from "how do electronics manufacturers sell more sets".)
I've tried to get him to give OS X a whirl more than once, and his objection is that he doesn't want to become dependent on non-open-source code. The proprrietary library he's referring to is the Cocoa UI layer.
The comments on MacOS in chapter 3 are aimed specifically at pre-OS X versions.
Is the software on this thing available anywhere? An emulator would be neat...the 8008 would be pretty simple to emulate, and the rest is even easier.
16C - awesome calculator for programmers, especially embedded work. There is no better number system converter available at any price. No I can't do bin/dec/hex in my head faster than the 16C and neither can you. Expensive due to relatively low numbers produced.
I bought a 16C in 1983 when I got a new job with a 30% pay raise. I figured it was a tool of the trade. I was right, too - and not only is a tool, it's a Snap-On. The thing is damn near indestructible.
The going price for these on eBay is from $125 to almost $300, depending on accessories and condition. It's still the finest tool for the job.
Hm. While you're indeed correct, this then raises the question of just how much alike program segments have to be before they're just copies of one another.
The tool is good enough to answer SCO's claims, since they're claiming that vast stretches of code were lifted with only the copyright statements removed, but as a more general code comparison, it might be lacking. I'm not at all sure that that problem is answerable short of an AI-complete solution, though.
I've seen a lot of bitching that ESR can't code. One look at this proves otherwise.
If you're looking for z/VM and z/Linux expertise, there are several consulting firms that will get you going and train you in what you need to know. One good one, that has a really good reputation in the mainframe community, is Sine Nomine Associates. Tell 'em I sent you. (Disclaimer: Yeah, I work for them. Not on z/VM, though.)
You, too, miss the point. There are lots of devices for sale that make it easy for people to use ham (it's STILL not an acronym, people) frequencies. They're called radios, and you can buy them from such manufacturers as Icom, Kenwood, Yaesu/Vertex/Standard, Ten-Tec, and Alinco. With only a small amount of work, commercial radios from GE Ericsson and Motorola will work just fine on the ham bands, too. The key is that, in order to use them legally, you have to actually learn something about radio. This is again by law - in this case, not just US law, but international treaty as well. The market for people willing to actually learn things is dwindling, sadly enough, as should be blindingly obvious to those who stop and contemplate Linux vs. Windows for more than a few seconds.
...de K5ZC
All else didn't fail. Some cell phone networks were still up.
...de K5ZC
None of the ones I had any experience with - and yes, I was in the area that evening - were usable. They were too jammed...just like they were on 9/11 (and yes, I was there then, too).
Cellphone networks, like all telephone networks are designed on the premise that only a fraction of their capacity will be in use at one time. During a disaster, that assumption crashes in flames, because *everyone* wants to call and let someone knoe they're all right.
The normal, non-emergency use of the spectrum is valuable for the same reason that nuclear weapons must be tested periodically to remain useful: because there's no other way to verify that everything still works. If you can't use it day-to-day, then it may well not be there when you do need it.
The only reason HAM is still any one of those things is because it has no marketable value, in terms of the average consumer. Can you imagine if one day out of the blue, the major telecom companies decided to market HAM, and everyone had one? Can you imagine how useful it'd be then?
You miss the point completely: Ham radio (it's a word, not an acronym, and not capitalized at all) has no marketable value precisely because it is, bylaw, a noncommercial service. Telecom companies do not market it because they cannot.
Even if the cell phone networks switch to alternate power and microwave linking, there's no coordination to minimize interference - indeed, no mechanism to do so. Everybody tries to call, and the system chokes.
...de K5ZC
It did exactly that during the power outage. In fact, there were more than a few news stories about people using good old-fashioned pay phones because the cell network was unusable.
However, cell phones magically don't work when there is no network.
...de K5ZC
Not only that, they are fairly easily overloaded. I was in Manhattan on 9/11, and my cellphone was completely useless.
Hams have a long, distinguished record of providing communications when nothing else can get through. Ham radio is a national resource, and BPL will, if that video is representative of its effects, utterly destroy it.
Anyone want to start a pool on how long this will last before the MPAA gets them shut down?
I'll take a month...
I've never heard of any chip that did something like this on an instruction level.
:-)
That's why it's a mainframe.
The crypto coprocessors are beyond the scope of Hercules, at least as it stands now (although I wouldn't rule out adding it in the future). Even so, however, I get from my reading of 740.13 that the key length doesn't matter. (Am I wrong there?) I doubt that part will become an issue anytime soon, but the five instructions are rather more of an immediate problem. It looks like the message digest stuff isn't an issue, so it comes down to what the DES/3DES instructions actually do. I haven't seen the code in question.
I was mistaken: it's five new instructions. They provide DES and 3DES symmetric cryptography, and SHA-1 message digest functions. The PDF introduction to the z/990 I found at IBM's Redbooks site doesnt' go into a lot of detail, but it does say that much in chapter 5. The biggest omission, and one that may prove critical, is the key lengths supported (the BIS site is unclear as to whether crypto with keys longer than 56 bits falls under the open source exemption).
We may find ourselves holding off for now, mainly because we'd like to get the 2.18 release out the door in the next couple of weeks, and this issue is likely to take longer than that to resolve. Still, it's a matter of pride for the Hercules team that we implement IBM's announced architectural extensions faster than any other emulator (this won't be the first time), and having to delay for nontechnical reasons is a bit irritating.
Am I the only one reading this who thinks they should have a special event ham station with GU4DEC as a callsign? (As far as I can tell, G?4DEC isn't currently in use.)
The cell phone companies note the ESN (a unique serial number assigned to your phone that identifies it exactly) of any phone that activates an inordinate number of cell sites and, if they choose, file complaints with the FCC for disruption of the network.
You truly don't understand how cellular technology works, do you?
The phone activates any site that receives its signal, and the sites arbitrate between themselves to determine which one the phone talks to. The phone has no say in the matter.
This works fine as long as the phone is only seen by a limited number of sites. When the phone is seen by hundreds of sites, they can't communicate between themselves fast enough to arbitrate effectively, especially if the phone is traveling at several hundred miles an hour.
Further, the cellular bands are divided up into a small number of frequencies (or their spread-spectrum analogues). The whole basis for the system is that those frequencies can be reused in fairly close proximity precisely because a phone on one frequency won't interfere with another phone on the same frequency a few cells away. (This is why there need to be so many cell sites to cover a given area.) If the phone has a much wider area of coverage, it knocks out that frequency for lots of sites, and interferes with calls far and wide.
This discussion has so far assumed a single cellular provider's network. Now, add in the fact that it's quite likely that a phone at 37,000 feet will be seen by multiple networks, which may or may not be cooperating, and you've got a REAL mess on your hands.