Yes, radiotelephones were around for some time. An
article
at britannica.com reviews the history pretty well. This old wireless phone talk reminds me of the forgotten classic movie
The Plot Against Harry (1969) (not Hitchcock's The Trouble with Harry), where Harry was a small time gangster with a phone in his car. Great classic funny movie, check it out.
Without 2600, Patrick says he would "probably be one of those pot-smoking, crack-sniffing guys who gave up on life a long time ago"
Hmmm, 2600 doesn't seem to be teaching the young crackers too well.
You do not sniff crack. You smoke it, in a crack pipe. At least they're not sniffing the pot too.
It's too bad that Microsoft is just letting this valuable technology go to waste. Maybe they could open clippy's source instead of just taking it off the market.
I'm not surprised that a person like Baer, with a strong vested interest, would write such a biased history. Baer suggests that Higginbotham's demo wasn't a video game because it didn't immediately become a commercial product. Clearly, it couldn't become a product because it was too expensive to produce (and maintain) systems at the time. To Baer, it wasn't a game because it wasn't commercial. To me, it was a game, because you could play it.
Baer seems to use the same sort of warped reasoning to make his points that folks like the government spooks use when they try to restrict encryption, or that the music biz suits use when they try to dump napster, or that microsoft uses when they try to explain that Linux is unamerican, and we'd all really be better off with single-use software that goes stale like a loaf of bread. An oven-fresh version of Outlook, every time you read your mail! Gee, thanks.
I just find Baer's reasoning to be severely twisted.
It's useful for participants to tell their own stories, but beware when they describe the work of their adversaries.
The difficulty with such a tv isn't with the software, it's with the screen.
TV screens usually have longer persistence phosphors, brighter, non-interlaced, slower refresh, and lower resolution. Computers screens have shorter persistence, dimmer, interlaced, faster refresh, and higher resolution.
That's because a computer user typically sits two feet away from the screen and a tv watcher sits twelve feet away. Computer users need to read very small text, tv watchers don't read lots of info off the screen. Using the wrong kind of screen for the job would be annoying for any one of the reasons listed above. Try to compromise at a point in between, and you end up with an image that's too dim or bright, too flickery or with trails behind moving objects, or too blurry.
The requirements for the two types of screens are very different, and each has specially designed displays. It's certainly true that it's not economical to make a CRT screen that does both of these jobs well. Are there flat LCD (or other technology) screens that do both well? Maybe some day, but not yet in the mass market price range.
Let's say someone steals the codes to my operating system - like the sources to the OS on my Linux box. Let's even say that the thief steals a copy of the plain text of my passwords, though I can't imagine how that could happen. Can't I just reload and change my passwords?
Wouldn't the satellite's boot software be in ROMs so that they could do a clean reload of the rest, with a new passwords?
The adventure shell was written in 1984 by Doug Gwyn, gwyn@brl.mil, (now arl.mil). Doug is a well-respected old-school UNIX hacker. Yes, this is not nearly hot off the presses.
How much do microsoft engineers rely on open source software? How many of their hackers use Linux, emacs, gcc to develop their latest version of windows ce/me/nt? How much of windows design was (poorly) cloned from the freely available designs of UNIX and other well documented systems? Allchin should change his name to Elmer Fud. "Sssh. Be vewy vewy quiet. I'm baiting open source hackers! Heh heh heh."
I'm an old-school UNIX hacker, some would say UNIX bigot. But I found Sun's answers smug, juvenile, and annoying. I would have found Sun's response more credible if they just got to the point and saved us the "Chuck, you ignorant slut" ornamentation.
The phrase, "from the crystal set and the cat's whisker to IP" brings up an interesting point. I don't think our theoretical/algorithmic insight has moved forward very much over the past hundred years. It's progress in materials science that has spurred the revolution in electronic technology. The progress has all been in shrinking the parts down to micro nano pico size. The transition isn't crystal set to IP, it's (quartz) crystal set to (silicon crystal) semiconductor substrate.
I bet that if the scientists of 100 years ago had the tiny components we use, they would have been able to put them together into the kinds of toys we have today.
You see software and hardware hackers swaggering around like they are responsbile for the new wave of technology. Don't kid yourself - all hail the materials scientist, who shrinks the bits that build the future.
Skins are the software equivalent of accessorizing your car. You know those cars that have furry dashboards, blackout glass, chain link steering wheel, longhorns on the hood, playboy bunny mudflaps, neon lights under the chassis, rotating bezel lights around the license plates? If those strike you as odd, maybe you should step back and take another look at your desktop.
I agree that UNIX, BSD, and Linux are essentially the same. But there is a difference between the three, and that's in market perception. While this doesn't mean much to the hacker, it is important to the market, because OS's (without apps) aren't very interesting to the general public by themselves, for them, OS's only serve as application platforms. Important factors for an app platform are (most important first):
popularity
availability of a rich suite of apps
whether the platform is stable (doesn't crash)
speed/efficiency
cost
At this point, Linux is way ahead of the other UNIX-like siblings on popularity, and also leads in app availability.
I'm an old UNIX and BSD hacker and bigot (since the '70's), and I personally think that BSD is a better, more robust, more secure, slicker software distribution than Linux, but I understand that Linux has the upper hand in the market just because of more effective hype.
It might sound sensible to say "Why can't we all just get along?" or even "Why can't these Linux kids give UNIX/BSD their props?" but that matter is no more objective than OS preference.
This close election was like a fire. You have smoke detectors in your building, and as long as there's no fire, the smoke detectors seem fine. But when the fire comes, the detectors are supposed to work preoperly.
In the case of this election, the infrastructure is working terribly poorly. Up to 5% of votes cast are invalid is some areas? Conflicting laws about how to adjudicate close races? Biased bonehead political hacks running amok? The failsafe measures are embarrassingly poor. The smoke detectors only worked fine until the fire came. They certainly aren't protecting the right of all Americans to have their individual choices reflected accuately in a close national election.
It sounds like Johnson is infatuated with OS X. He doesn't talk about how well she handles, only about how great she looks. I like a slick interface as much as the next person, but I want a machine that will perform under stress, not a pretty thing with big tail fins. Some people might get moist over ray-traced window decorations, I'd rather have a machine that is easy to use and maintain - as simple as possible, flexible, modular, extensible, portable, and so forth.
Frankly, OS X may be pretty good - Apple may have done a fine job given the contraints they were operating under - keeping their old customers satisfied, keeping the QT crowd happy, while integrating a new microkernel/ UNIX substructure. Not a simple task.
But it's a bit early for Johnson to be calling OS X the new Sgt Pepper. His article is all hype about graphic design. Graphic design is an amusing diversion, but it doesn't get the job done. And sewing a dog's head onto a cat's body may be a remarkable feat, but that doesn't make it Sgt Pepper.
Slashdot Mirror
In the case of willfull infringement, the patent owner may be entitled to treble (3x) damages.
Yes, radiotelephones were around for some time. An article at britannica.com reviews the history pretty well. This old wireless phone talk reminds me of the forgotten classic movie The Plot Against Harry (1969) (not Hitchcock's The Trouble with Harry), where Harry was a small time gangster with a phone in his car. Great classic funny movie, check it out.
Hmmm, 2600 doesn't seem to be teaching the young crackers too well. You do not sniff crack. You smoke it, in a crack pipe. At least they're not sniffing the pot too.
It's too bad that Microsoft is just letting this valuable technology go to waste. Maybe they could open clippy's source instead of just taking it off the market.
here's the ball lightning page without the nasty flashing ad frame
The IBM Wearable Computing web site has a bit more info and a bunch of pix.
Baer seems to use the same sort of warped reasoning to make his points that folks like the government spooks use when they try to restrict encryption, or that the music biz suits use when they try to dump napster, or that microsoft uses when they try to explain that Linux is unamerican, and we'd all really be better off with single-use software that goes stale like a loaf of bread. An oven-fresh version of Outlook, every time you read your mail! Gee, thanks. I just find Baer's reasoning to be severely twisted.
It's useful for participants to tell their own stories, but beware when they describe the work of their adversaries.
TV screens usually have longer persistence phosphors, brighter, non-interlaced, slower refresh, and lower resolution. Computers screens have shorter persistence, dimmer, interlaced, faster refresh, and higher resolution.
That's because a computer user typically sits two feet away from the screen and a tv watcher sits twelve feet away. Computer users need to read very small text, tv watchers don't read lots of info off the screen. Using the wrong kind of screen for the job would be annoying for any one of the reasons listed above. Try to compromise at a point in between, and you end up with an image that's too dim or bright, too flickery or with trails behind moving objects, or too blurry.
The requirements for the two types of screens are very different, and each has specially designed displays. It's certainly true that it's not economical to make a CRT screen that does both of these jobs well. Are there flat LCD (or other technology) screens that do both well? Maybe some day, but not yet in the mass market price range.
I'm doing something like that too. My research subjects are pink geneticists. I've already had good luck adding a luminosity gene from a jellyfish...
Wouldn't the satellite's boot software be in ROMs so that they could do a clean reload of the rest, with a new passwords?
The adventure shell was written in 1984 by Doug Gwyn, gwyn@brl.mil, (now arl.mil). Doug is a well-respected old-school UNIX hacker. Yes, this is not nearly hot off the presses.
How much do microsoft engineers rely on open source software? How many of their hackers use Linux, emacs, gcc to develop their latest version of windows ce/me/nt? How much of windows design was (poorly) cloned from the freely available designs of UNIX and other well documented systems? Allchin should change his name to Elmer Fud. "Sssh. Be vewy vewy quiet. I'm baiting open source hackers! Heh heh heh."
Next they're going to shoot the retro rockets and try to land it closer to the McDonald's.
I'm an old-school UNIX hacker, some would say UNIX bigot. But I found Sun's answers smug, juvenile, and annoying. I would have found Sun's response more credible if they just got to the point and saved us the "Chuck, you ignorant slut" ornamentation.
I bet that if the scientists of 100 years ago had the tiny components we use, they would have been able to put them together into the kinds of toys we have today.
You see software and hardware hackers swaggering around like they are responsbile for the new wave of technology. Don't kid yourself - all hail the materials scientist, who shrinks the bits that build the future.
here's the collection of yahoo pics of the monolith.
Sky and Telescope magazine has a better article on the eclipse, with a bigger copy of the maximum eclipse map.
Skins are the software equivalent of accessorizing your car. You know those cars that have furry dashboards, blackout glass, chain link steering wheel, longhorns on the hood, playboy bunny mudflaps, neon lights under the chassis, rotating bezel lights around the license plates? If those strike you as odd, maybe you should step back and take another look at your desktop.
Not PLOVER, PLUGH. And I haven't played ADVENT since the '70's either.
- popularity
- availability of a rich suite of apps
- whether the platform is stable (doesn't crash)
- speed/efficiency
- cost
At this point, Linux is way ahead of the other UNIX-like siblings on popularity, and also leads in app availability.I'm an old UNIX and BSD hacker and bigot (since the '70's), and I personally think that BSD is a better, more robust, more secure, slicker software distribution than Linux, but I understand that Linux has the upper hand in the market just because of more effective hype.
It might sound sensible to say "Why can't we all just get along?" or even "Why can't these Linux kids give UNIX/BSD their props?" but that matter is no more objective than OS preference.
In the case of this election, the infrastructure is working terribly poorly. Up to 5% of votes cast are invalid is some areas? Conflicting laws about how to adjudicate close races? Biased bonehead political hacks running amok? The failsafe measures are embarrassingly poor. The smoke detectors only worked fine until the fire came. They certainly aren't protecting the right of all Americans to have their individual choices reflected accuately in a close national election.
The good folks at Shoup Voting Solutions have a web site, just in case you'd like to celebrate election day by slashdotting them.
Frankly, OS X may be pretty good - Apple may have done a fine job given the contraints they were operating under - keeping their old customers satisfied, keeping the QT crowd happy, while integrating a new microkernel/ UNIX substructure. Not a simple task.
But it's a bit early for Johnson to be calling OS X the new Sgt Pepper. His article is all hype about graphic design. Graphic design is an amusing diversion, but it doesn't get the job done. And sewing a dog's head onto a cat's body may be a remarkable feat, but that doesn't make it Sgt Pepper.