Just curious - is this the one person who has opted-in to receive SPAM?
I know there must be at least one since those scum-sucking, fly-by-night scamsters^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H I mean, "fine companies" wouldn't lie to us.
Would they?
Here's another - "How do you capture ..."
on
He Writes Back
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I thought this one was pretty good:
We have spent many painstaking hours trying to capture the pride of the American spirit since the 9-11-01 tragedy that struck the WTC. While watching the news we noticed how the American Spirit unites in these times of pain and loss.
This is why we present to you the 9-11 Commemorative Mouse Pads and T-Shirts.
(Followed by pictures of mousepads and t-shirts with 9/11 theme...)
I haven't seen t-shirts demonstrating this sort of artistry and tactical business savvy since the OJ Simpson trial!
Well, God Bless America, and it is the Land of Opportunity and all that jazz, but I have one small suggestion I'd like to make about your merchandise. A lot of people might be hesitant to purchase 9/11-oriented products if they don't at least say that a portion of the proceeds will go to charity.
If you're going to capitalize, you've got to do it right, and I can help you!
I just so happens that I established the "Heroic Tribute To Heroic American Heros Fund" before you
could say "Look, the second tower fell!" On the paperwork I claim that it's for some brave act to be performed in honor of the fallen (whatever that means), but it's really intended to put the "F" "U" back in "fund"! There are enough legit organizations out there anyway, and there's way too much cash being donated than is needed for these folks who claim to be "affected" by this tragedy.
So if we can work out an arrangement where you throw in a portion of your proceeds to my fund (say 5%), It'll also make would-be customers think you're on the level, and not the cashing-in sort of hack your advertisement and website make you out to be. Your sales will skyrocket, making your
investment in me worth it!
Trust me, this is a golden opportunity. Are you in or are you going to be selling these t-shirts for a buck a pop along with those "Y2K - The World Blew Up And All The Cockroaches Found Was This
Lousy T-shirt!" t-shirts?
VNC is NOT ruled out by the EULA. You just have to have an XP license for your client machine as well.
The intent is to prevent you from running programs on XP or using the XP UI unless you have a license for each workstation. This means you can't use multiple WinTerms or Linux boxes scattered around your house to access your one licensed XP PC in the den, or even back at your office.
Just because you paid for it, and just because you are the only person using it doesn't mean you get to use it however you want. You only get to use XP if you're physically sitting at the PC to which it is licensed. In short, Microsoft won't let you enjoy that super-fantabulous XP experience on all your Linux boxen unless you buy a copy of XP for each one.
Before this is over, Microsoft will buy enough congressmen to get a law requiring that every microprocessor chip sold be bundled with a MS Windows license. It will become the CPU tax, just like the recording industry's tax on blank media. After all, you could use that CPU to pirate Windows, so that proves you are a thief.
Beware that this hidden data is extremely fragile. It will not be preserved when copying files. It will only be backed up if you choose to backup the raw file system or drive. If you use file-oriented backups like cpio, you'll lose the hidden information.
You could rename the file or link to it without losing data. You could rename a parent directory successfully. If you tried to copy the directory, however, you'd lose the data. In short, if you do anything that changes the file's location on the disk, the secret data is lost, or at least disassociated with the original file name and vulnerable to overwriting.
I don't see how this study provides much useful information. There are two reasons that complainants may win most cases. The article suggests that it's because the judges are biased. It is just as likely that the complainants win most cases because their complaints are valid.
I'm not suggesting that the process it truly fair. Like just about everything else these days, I'm sure the playing field is slanted heavily in favor of commercial interests with deep pockets. I just don't think there's enough information here to prove bias.
The study would be more meaningful if it focused on complaints where the defendant had a plausible justification for keeping a domain. I don't know how you can do this objectively. If you make subjective decisions about which complaints are included, it would color statistical analysis of the data.
At a minimum, I'd like to drop the no-brainers before tallying results. It's pretty obvious to me that Pepsico should have the rights to pepsi.com, pepsicola.com, and pepsico.com. It's a unique name, it shouldn't be a surprise that the judges would rule in Pepsi's favor. I'd like to know how they rule on names like pepsi-sucks.com or pepsi-lovers.com, and on names that could legitimately belong to a number of entities, for example abc.com or johnson.com.
What's the big deal about driver-less transportation? I see this every day - solitary passengers putting on makeup, chatting on the phone, reading the paper, pretty much anything and everything except driving. Real world proof that you don't need a very good robot to run a car.
Be reasonable. D1 was great in its day. I lost thousands of hours to it. But D1 is a dead product, superceded by D2. If you liked the original, you will probably like D2 even better. It's the same basic game, but with far, far greater variety and replay value. Of course, if you didn't like D1, you may not like D2 either. To each his own.
There is no replacement for StarCraft. There doesn't appear to be one on the horizon. I think it is remarkable that a company like Blizzard continues to support and enhance it. How many other companies are still provding free patches for five-year-old games? How many other companies even provide bug fixes for old products like this with little sales potential?
I too am concerned about Blizzard's actions with respect to bnetd. I understand their legitimate need (and their right) to control the spread of the Warcraft III beta, but they overreacted. I hope this is just an aberration. Too many companies seem to have run out of fresh ideas of their own, so they use the legal system to suppress fair competition. It would be a shame if Blizzard has joined that list.
Yes, Blizzard has problems. If you look at their overall record, I think Blizzard is still one of the good guys. There don't seem to be many of them left. Give Blizzard a little slack, at least for a while longer.
Remember it well. I had a cat that liked to sleep on top of my Model 4 - it was nice and warm. I still vividly remember working for a couple of hours on some project or another, leaning back to review what I'd done, and watching in horror as the cat got up and stepped down - right on the reset switch. (The switch was horizontal, slightly recessed in one corner of the keyboard.)
Save early, save often. Damn cat.
Summary of Tandy computer line
on
Tandys Never Die
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I was actively involved with these in the late 70's and early 80's. I had a couple of TRS-80s at home; we used their Xenix systems at work. Here's a quick summary of the family tree:
Model I / Model III / Model 4/4P - The original TRS-80, used a Z-80 processor at 1.77 MHz. The Model I had 64x16 video, 4K to 48K RAM, and separate keyboard, video, expansion interface, and disk drives. It came standard with BASIC in ROM, and cassette tape (250 bps at first, then 500 bps). The optional 5.25" floppies held about 90K (that is NOT a typo).
The Model III was nearly identical except it put it all in one box. The big change was the availability of double-density floppies (180K).
The Model 4 looked like a Model III, but was entirely RAM-based. It held up to 128K RAM (woohoo!!), though the upper 96K was accessible as one of three 32K banks. The Model 4 also added 80x24 video. The 4P was a Model 4 in a luggable case.
The Model I/III/4 series all ran an operating system called TRSDOS. These three models were mostly upwards-compatible.
The Model II followed the Model I chronologically (and preceded the Model III - imagine that). The Model II was their business system. It had a 4 MHz Z80 processor with 32K to 64K of RAM. It had 80x24 video. It used 8" floppy drives - up to four of them - holding 600K each. It contained an internal card cage for expansion.
The Model II was a tank. The main unit was about the size of a small dorm-type refrigerator, and probably weighed about 40-50 pounds. The external floppy drive cabinet was almost as big. The Model II was the first to offer a hard drive - 8 MB on 8" platters - the cabinet was about two foot square, and about 6" high, about like an oversized desktop PC today.
The Model II ran a different and completely incompatible OS, also called TRSDOS. It was completely disk-based, containing only a minimal boot ROM. Model II software was not compatible with Model I/III/4 software.
The Model II was followed by the Model 12 - same basic system with half-height, double-sided 8" floppy drives. Slightly smaller cabinet with up to two internal 1.2 MB floppies.
The Model II/12 was later used as the core of the Motorola 68000-based Model 16. The Model 16 used the entire MII Z-80 architecture as its I/O processing subsystem. The Model 16 included a 6 MHz 68000 and supported up to 256K of RAM. The 68000 processor and its memory boards were separate cards that installed in the MII card cage. The operating system and application ran on the 68000 side.
The Model 16 came with TRSDOS 16 (another incompatible variant), but the real power came once Xenix was offered. Xenix was a port of System III UNIX enhanced with a lot of BSD features. At one time, Tandy had the largest install base of UNIX-based systems. They weren't very big, no more than nine users, but there were a lot of them. I supported about 18 of them where I worked at the time.
The Model 16 series peaked with the introduction of the Tandy 6000. This still contained the basic Model II architecture - you could still dual-boot to Z80 TRSDOS, but the design was updated to focus on Xenix use. It included an 8 MHz 68000, up to 1 MB of memory, and ultimately up to four 70 MB hard drives.
Having established itself as the leader in UNIX for small business, and having invested substantial time and dollars in building a relatively effective suppport infrastructure for UNIX, Tandy made the brilliant decision to abandon that market and focus exclusively on PC clone systems. Given their prominence in the PC world today, you can see how well that worked. The executive behind this decision later moved to Microsoft.
OK, that's the history of their original Z-80 family.
Totally separate from this, Tandy offered the Model 100 mentioned in this article. It was based on an 80C85 processor (low power - CMOS - version of the 8080, with a handful of additional instructions) and was entirely RAM-based, i.e., it had no internal floppy or hard drives. It was a stand-alone product line, completely incompatible with their other systems. The 100 was followed by the 200, and then the 600, as I recall.
Tandy's third PC line was their Color Computer ("Coco") series. All of the systems I mentioned above were strictly monochrome and used some form of monitor. The Color Computer was their launch into home TV-based systems. Again, IIRC, the Coco series were all based on the 6809 processor. The Coco series initially used cartridges and cassette tapes. Later, a floppy disk upgrade was offered using Microware's OS-9 operating system (pretty cool in its own right, similar to UNIX in many respects).
Moving on, Tandy also offered several pocket-style computers over the years. They also offered a series of PC-compatibles (more or less) beginning with the Tandy 1000. As a UNIX biggot, I didn't follow the line closely. Again, IIRC, the 1000 was a PCjr clone and the 1200 was a strict PC XT clone.
The Tandy 2000 was a high performance MS-DOS PC, offering an 80186 a year or so before IBM offered the AT. There was a version of Xenix for the 2000, but it didn't make it into the wild very often. The 2000 was followed by the 3000 and 4000 (both 286-based, I think). They were offered with Xenix, but never gained the penetration of the 16/6000 line. Tandy also offered a 5000 - I think this was their micro-channel clone. (Anyone remember micro-channel?)
That's the history off the top of my head. There were a couple of other one-of models scattered through this, and after the 3000 & 4000, Tandy moved full-bore into forgettable PC clones. In its early days, however, Tandy was neck-and-neck with Apple for most computers sold.
Slashdot Mirror
I know there must be at least one since those scum-sucking, fly-by-night scamsters^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H I mean, "fine companies" wouldn't lie to us.
Would they?
We have spent many painstaking hours trying to capture the pride of the American spirit since the 9-11-01 tragedy that struck the WTC. While watching the news we noticed how the American Spirit unites in these times of pain and loss.
This is why we present to you the 9-11 Commemorative Mouse Pads and T-Shirts.
I haven't seen t-shirts demonstrating this sort of artistry and tactical business savvy since the OJ Simpson trial!
Well, God Bless America, and it is the Land of Opportunity and all that jazz, but I have one small suggestion I'd like to make about your merchandise. A lot of people might be hesitant to purchase 9/11-oriented products if they don't at least say that a portion of the proceeds will go to charity.
If you're going to capitalize, you've got to do it right, and I can help you!
I just so happens that I established the "Heroic Tribute To Heroic American Heros Fund" before you could say "Look, the second tower fell!" On the paperwork I claim that it's for some brave act to be performed in honor of the fallen (whatever that means), but it's really intended to put the "F" "U" back in "fund"! There are enough legit organizations out there anyway, and there's way too much cash being donated than is needed for these folks who claim to be "affected" by this tragedy.
So if we can work out an arrangement where you throw in a portion of your proceeds to my fund (say 5%), It'll also make would-be customers think you're on the level, and not the cashing-in sort of hack your advertisement and website make you out to be. Your sales will skyrocket, making your investment in me worth it!
Trust me, this is a golden opportunity. Are you in or are you going to be selling these t-shirts for a buck a pop along with those "Y2K - The World Blew Up And All The Cockroaches Found Was This Lousy T-shirt!" t-shirts?
I'm looking forward to doing business with you,
Jonathan Land
The intent is to prevent you from running programs on XP or using the XP UI unless you have a license for each workstation. This means you can't use multiple WinTerms or Linux boxes scattered around your house to access your one licensed XP PC in the den, or even back at your office.
Just because you paid for it, and just because you are the only person using it doesn't mean you get to use it however you want. You only get to use XP if you're physically sitting at the PC to which it is licensed. In short, Microsoft won't let you enjoy that super-fantabulous XP experience on all your Linux boxen unless you buy a copy of XP for each one.
Before this is over, Microsoft will buy enough congressmen to get a law requiring that every microprocessor chip sold be bundled with a MS Windows license. It will become the CPU tax, just like the recording industry's tax on blank media. After all, you could use that CPU to pirate Windows, so that proves you are a thief.
You could rename the file or link to it without losing data. You could rename a parent directory successfully. If you tried to copy the directory, however, you'd lose the data. In short, if you do anything that changes the file's location on the disk, the secret data is lost, or at least disassociated with the original file name and vulnerable to overwriting.
I'm not suggesting that the process it truly fair. Like just about everything else these days, I'm sure the playing field is slanted heavily in favor of commercial interests with deep pockets. I just don't think there's enough information here to prove bias.
The study would be more meaningful if it focused on complaints where the defendant had a plausible justification for keeping a domain. I don't know how you can do this objectively. If you make subjective decisions about which complaints are included, it would color statistical analysis of the data.
At a minimum, I'd like to drop the no-brainers before tallying results. It's pretty obvious to me that Pepsico should have the rights to pepsi.com, pepsicola.com, and pepsico.com. It's a unique name, it shouldn't be a surprise that the judges would rule in Pepsi's favor. I'd like to know how they rule on names like pepsi-sucks.com or pepsi-lovers.com, and on names that could legitimately belong to a number of entities, for example abc.com or johnson.com.
Anyone have better information?
Does Xybernaut even have any products that I can avoid? Will they ever have any products, or are they going into the revenue-by-lawsuit business?
Sounds like someone needs to spend less time in chat rooms, more time at the drawing board.
What's the big deal about driver-less transportation? I see this every day - solitary passengers putting on makeup, chatting on the phone, reading the paper, pretty much anything and everything except driving. Real world proof that you don't need a very good robot to run a car.
There is no replacement for StarCraft. There doesn't appear to be one on the horizon. I think it is remarkable that a company like Blizzard continues to support and enhance it. How many other companies are still provding free patches for five-year-old games? How many other companies even provide bug fixes for old products like this with little sales potential?
I too am concerned about Blizzard's actions with respect to bnetd. I understand their legitimate need (and their right) to control the spread of the Warcraft III beta, but they overreacted. I hope this is just an aberration. Too many companies seem to have run out of fresh ideas of their own, so they use the legal system to suppress fair competition. It would be a shame if Blizzard has joined that list.
Yes, Blizzard has problems. If you look at their overall record, I think Blizzard is still one of the good guys. There don't seem to be many of them left. Give Blizzard a little slack, at least for a while longer.
But that's just my $0.02 worth.
Save early, save often. Damn cat.
Model I / Model III / Model 4/4P - The original TRS-80, used a Z-80 processor at 1.77 MHz. The Model I had 64x16 video, 4K to 48K RAM, and separate keyboard, video, expansion interface, and disk drives. It came standard with BASIC in ROM, and cassette tape (250 bps at first, then 500 bps). The optional 5.25" floppies held about 90K (that is NOT a typo).
The Model III was nearly identical except it put it all in one box. The big change was the availability of double-density floppies (180K).
The Model 4 looked like a Model III, but was entirely RAM-based. It held up to 128K RAM (woohoo!!), though the upper 96K was accessible as one of three 32K banks. The Model 4 also added 80x24 video. The 4P was a Model 4 in a luggable case.
The Model I/III/4 series all ran an operating system called TRSDOS. These three models were mostly upwards-compatible.
The Model II followed the Model I chronologically (and preceded the Model III - imagine that). The Model II was their business system. It had a 4 MHz Z80 processor with 32K to 64K of RAM. It had 80x24 video. It used 8" floppy drives - up to four of them - holding 600K each. It contained an internal card cage for expansion.
The Model II was a tank. The main unit was about the size of a small dorm-type refrigerator, and probably weighed about 40-50 pounds. The external floppy drive cabinet was almost as big. The Model II was the first to offer a hard drive - 8 MB on 8" platters - the cabinet was about two foot square, and about 6" high, about like an oversized desktop PC today.
The Model II ran a different and completely incompatible OS, also called TRSDOS. It was completely disk-based, containing only a minimal boot ROM. Model II software was not compatible with Model I/III/4 software.
The Model II was followed by the Model 12 - same basic system with half-height, double-sided 8" floppy drives. Slightly smaller cabinet with up to two internal 1.2 MB floppies.
The Model II/12 was later used as the core of the Motorola 68000-based Model 16. The Model 16 used the entire MII Z-80 architecture as its I/O processing subsystem. The Model 16 included a 6 MHz 68000 and supported up to 256K of RAM. The 68000 processor and its memory boards were separate cards that installed in the MII card cage. The operating system and application ran on the 68000 side.
The Model 16 came with TRSDOS 16 (another incompatible variant), but the real power came once Xenix was offered. Xenix was a port of System III UNIX enhanced with a lot of BSD features. At one time, Tandy had the largest install base of UNIX-based systems. They weren't very big, no more than nine users, but there were a lot of them. I supported about 18 of them where I worked at the time.
The Model 16 series peaked with the introduction of the Tandy 6000. This still contained the basic Model II architecture - you could still dual-boot to Z80 TRSDOS, but the design was updated to focus on Xenix use. It included an 8 MHz 68000, up to 1 MB of memory, and ultimately up to four 70 MB hard drives.
Having established itself as the leader in UNIX for small business, and having invested substantial time and dollars in building a relatively effective suppport infrastructure for UNIX, Tandy made the brilliant decision to abandon that market and focus exclusively on PC clone systems. Given their prominence in the PC world today, you can see how well that worked. The executive behind this decision later moved to Microsoft.
OK, that's the history of their original Z-80 family.
Totally separate from this, Tandy offered the Model 100 mentioned in this article. It was based on an 80C85 processor (low power - CMOS - version of the 8080, with a handful of additional instructions) and was entirely RAM-based, i.e., it had no internal floppy or hard drives. It was a stand-alone product line, completely incompatible with their other systems. The 100 was followed by the 200, and then the 600, as I recall.
Tandy's third PC line was their Color Computer ("Coco") series. All of the systems I mentioned above were strictly monochrome and used some form of monitor. The Color Computer was their launch into home TV-based systems. Again, IIRC, the Coco series were all based on the 6809 processor. The Coco series initially used cartridges and cassette tapes. Later, a floppy disk upgrade was offered using Microware's OS-9 operating system (pretty cool in its own right, similar to UNIX in many respects).
Moving on, Tandy also offered several pocket-style computers over the years. They also offered a series of PC-compatibles (more or less) beginning with the Tandy 1000. As a UNIX biggot, I didn't follow the line closely. Again, IIRC, the 1000 was a PCjr clone and the 1200 was a strict PC XT clone.
The Tandy 2000 was a high performance MS-DOS PC, offering an 80186 a year or so before IBM offered the AT. There was a version of Xenix for the 2000, but it didn't make it into the wild very often. The 2000 was followed by the 3000 and 4000 (both 286-based, I think). They were offered with Xenix, but never gained the penetration of the 16/6000 line. Tandy also offered a 5000 - I think this was their micro-channel clone. (Anyone remember micro-channel?)
That's the history off the top of my head. There were a couple of other one-of models scattered through this, and after the 3000 & 4000, Tandy moved full-bore into forgettable PC clones. In its early days, however, Tandy was neck-and-neck with Apple for most computers sold.
Yes, I need a life.