When I was a kid, I used to enjoy watching TV programs about the future. 
Stuff like Tomorrow's World and Beyond 2000. Basically programs where 
they show you crazy new inventions. Some of them seemed fantastic, some 
of them seemed utterly stupid. There aren't that many that I still remember.

I do recall some guy demonstrating a kind of green putty that "sweats" 
when you heat it. He took a handful of this stuff, rubbed his hands in 
it, picked up a thin bit of copper pipe, and proceeded to blowtorch it. 
Apparently copper melts at over 1000°C, and yet the guy's hand was 
completely unharmed due to the unbelievable thermal dissipation 
properties of the putty.

I especially liked the car security system which involves electrifying 
the car seat to several thousand volts. They demonstrated the sparks it 
generates, but nobody actually said anything about what it does to a 
human being. I'm guessing this isn't legal. ;-)

There was a suggestion that one day, your entire house would be 
controlled by a computer. Stuff like, you could put some food in an oven 
that doubles as a refrigerator, and when you leave work, you dial a 
special phone number which tells the oven to stop refrigerating and 
start cooking, and when you get home, your meal is done.

Yeah, well, /that/ never happened. :-P Today of course, it wouldn't be a 
telephone number. It would be some kind of Internet operation. But there 
are a number of security, safety and reliability questions to consider. 
Do you want random strangers to be able to control your oven, or open 
all your windows? Probably not. What happens when the system stops 
working? On top of that, given that they've yet to come up with a way 
for the component parts of your stereo system to communicate with each 
other unless they're all from the same manufacturer, the chances of your 
entire *house* cooperating are pretty non-existent. ;-)

Another week, they had a plastic key with a microprocessor inside it. 
When you stick it in the lock, it transmits a code to the computer in 
the lock, which makes the door unlock. [Actually, it didn't. The key 
snapped off in the lock, leaving the presenter to tell us all how 
wonderful it is, and how this is only a prototype.] It seemed pretty 
stupid to me, but today electronic locks are all over the place. They 
just don't make them shaped like mechanical keys any more - because 
that's silly.

Unfortunately, towards the end of the show, every invention they 
featured was "hey, somebody took [random household object] and put a 
small computer inside it, allowing it to do [list of largely useless 
functions]". I guess that's why they eventually cancelled it; they just 
couldn't find genuinely interesting inventions any more.

I do remember them demonstrating the Sony MiniDisk, which *did* 
eventually become a commercial product. It was supposed to kill the old 
magnetic cassettes. At the time, recordable CDs hadn't been invented. So 
while you could *buy* pressed CDs, if you wanted to *record* anything, 
the _only_ available option was cassette. The presenter explained how 
loud sounds mask out quiet sounds, and MiniDisk uses this effect to 
squeeze more data than would usually be possible onto such a small carrier.

(Today of course we know that MiniDisk belongs with Zip and Jazz in the 
category of "kind of successful, but not very". Zip disks were supposed 
to kill the 3.5" floppy. LS-120 was supposed to kill it. Jazz was 
supposed to kill it. CD-R nearly killed it. But in the end, flash drives 
are what actually finished the humble floppy. Similarly, cassette was 
killed not so much by MiniDisk but by a combination of CD-R and 
ubiquitous MP3 players, not to mention the Internet.)

I remember seeing the first automatic speed cameras, and thinking this 
was a neat idea. Oh how wrong I was... ;-)

I also remember something rather puzzling. Apparently somebody 
discovered that if you etch silicon with a certain kind of acid, it 
produces a special microscopic structure which has an unexpected 
property: it can transform electricity into like, and the reverse. This 
was hailed as the future of IC technology. In the future, we were told, 
interconnects on an IC would work using light rather electricity. For 
light has one really critical advantage: beams of light can pass through 
each other.

By contrast, if you want to move signals around using wires, you either 
have to have extremely long and convoluted wire routes to get around all 
the obstacles in your way, or complex multiple-layer wiring designs. But 
with light, a signal can just go straight from A to B, intersecting as 
many other signal paths as you like.

So if this technology is the future... where is it? How come it's 
completely vanished off the face of existence?

There seemed to be some suggesting that the entire IC might work by 
processing light instead of electricity. I'm sceptical about whether 
that could work. I'm not aware of any light-based switching technology.

On the other hand, just using light for implementing long-range 
connections? That could *totally* work! By strategically using optical 
signals in place of electronic ones, you might be able to drastically 
reduce signal path lengths, which reduces propagation delays. More to 
the point, if I'm understanding this right, long traces have the problem 
of high capacitance too, which an optical signal path would seemingly 
also avoid.

So why is absolutely nobody using this stuff? I can only imagine that 
the answer is the same as for the 3D IC. In other words, "it's too 
expensive" combined with "we haven't reached the hard limits of current 
methods yet".

Post a reply to this message

Le 12/04/2011 16:15, Invisible a écrit :
> So why is absolutely nobody using this stuff?

On the right hand, you have a working technology and only a small
investement to make it a bit better (as smaller, quicker, ... ), and
more important: a lot of people have knowledges about that technology,
so it is easy to find workers.

On the left hand, you have only an idea, without even a proof that it
can beat the existing one. Moreover, the entering price of the new
technology is many many time the cost... without warranty about the
final product being better & cheaper.

Only fools would go for the left hand. Managers go with the right hand.
It's a no fault path, and managers can escape before the dead end.
Fools are what inventors are made of. And patent system overused by big
companies just killed that path: If you are an isolated successful
inventor, you will get ruined by the lawsuits by shark-lawers for
possible patent violation.

You only get a bag-free vacuum cleaner through the system so far...

About minidisc by sony, it was nice but started to suck at DRM already.
(integrated copy protection: 1 generation numeric copy only, no way to
transfert from disk to PC in numeric). Same for DAT tape...

About the green putty... can you prove to the FDA it is not toxic ? What
if swallowed by a child ? (law suit's risk vs interest... )
what if I burned myself because it was exhausted ? (or get exhausted...)

Magic-actor (wizard/showman) have their own tricks, but it is not for
the people.

The lawers killed your future.

-- 
Software is like dirt - it costs time and money to change it and move it
around.

Just because you can't see it, it doesn't weigh anything,
and you can't drill a hole in it and stick a rivet into it doesn't mean
it's free.

Post a reply to this message

> Only fools would go for the left hand. Managers go with the right hand.
> It's a no fault path, and managers can escape before the dead end.
> Fools are what inventors are made of.

By that reckoning, nothing new would ever be invented. I'm sure if some 
big company could figure out how to make chips with 10x the performance 
of all their competitors, they would be Seriously Interested in this idea.

> About minidisc by sony, it was nice but started to suck at DRM already.
> (integrated copy protection: 1 generation numeric copy only, no way to
> transfert from disk to PC in numeric). Same for DAT tape...

It's news to me that DAT was ever intended as anything other than a 
studio format.

> About the green putty... can you prove to the FDA it is not toxic ? What
> if swallowed by a child ? (law suit's risk vs interest... )
> what if I burned myself because it was exhausted ? (or get exhausted...)

It was always intended for industrial applications. As far as I know, 
they might even be using it.

> The lawers killed your future.

Damnit! >_<

Post a reply to this message

On 4/12/2011 7:15, Invisible wrote:
> So if this technology is the future... where is it? How come it's completely
> vanished off the face of existence?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_computing

> There seemed to be some suggesting that the entire IC might work by
> processing light instead of electricity. I'm sceptical about whether that
> could work. I'm not aware of any light-based switching technology.

The very effect that makes you not need wires means the entire IC can't work 
with nothing but light. You don't need wires because photons don't interact 
with each other - they only interact with electrons. Hence, you can't easily 
switch light without involving electricity.

> On the other hand, just using light for implementing long-range connections?
> That could *totally* work!

You mean, like, microwave communication towers and fiber optic cable? Yeah, 
that would be cool if someone were using that, wouldn't it? It might even 
eventually trickle down to consumers - maybe they'll put that in USB 3.0 or 
something.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

In 1967 the Philco-Ford Company produced a documentary about what life
will be like in 1999 (named "1999 A.D.") While the details were obviously
way off, the gist of some of the predictions was surprisingly accurate.
For example in this clip you see them predicting online shopping, online
banking and flatscreen monitors:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpq5ZmANp0k

  (IIRC online shopping was still not a very big thing in 1999, but it
certainly existed, and isn't too far away from the current situation,
where online shopping is quite established.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 12/04/2011 3:48 PM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> About minidisc by sony, it was nice but started to suck at DRM already.
> (integrated copy protection: 1 generation numeric copy only, no way to
> transfert from disk to PC in numeric). Same for DAT tape...


FYI My Tascam DAT recorder has an "Engineering" mode that ignores DRM.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 12/04/2011 5:52 PM, Warp wrote:
> and flatscreen monitors:

I remember reading an article in the late 50's or early 60's saying that 
flatscreen monitors would be impossible. Of course it was talking about CRTs

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 15:15:04 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> Another week, they had a plastic key with a microprocessor inside it.
> When you stick it in the lock, it transmits a code to the computer in
> the lock, which makes the door unlock. [Actually, it didn't. The key
> snapped off in the lock, leaving the presenter to tell us all how
> wonderful it is, and how this is only a prototype.] It seemed pretty
> stupid to me, but today electronic locks are all over the place. They
> just don't make them shaped like mechanical keys any more - because
> that's silly.

Actually, many modern cars in the US use microchipped mechanical keys - 
makes them much more difficult to duplicate (also makes them a lot more 
expensive).

On our recent holiday, though, we rented a Prius and it didn't have a 
mechanical key at all.

So both models are in use.

> So if this technology is the future... where is it? How come it's
> completely vanished off the face of existence?

It hasn't - some of it didn't work out.  Novell had a product technology 
called NEST (Novell Embedded Systems Technology) about 10-15 years ago 
that aimed to network common appliances - I saw things like VCRs that 
were network-enabled, even a coffee maker.  That VCR technology is a 
predecessor to current DVR technology (many DVRs can be programmed over 
the network).

Others of it are in use, but maybe in different applications than were 
presented.  That's the challenge of predicting the future - you have to 
analyse trends and make predictions based on what the current trends show 
you.

It's not a very exact science, because it relies very heavily on 
guesswork, and the further out you try to predict, the more inaccurate 
the predictions become - partly because the trending only takes you so 
far, and partly because you can't predict based on upcoming breakthroughs 
(you don't know when there will be a breakthrough in nanotechnology for 
example, though you might be able to predict that a breakthrough is 
likely to happen) - especially breakthroughs that are completely 
unexpected.

> There seemed to be some suggesting that the entire IC might work by
> processing light instead of electricity. I'm sceptical about whether
> that could work. I'm not aware of any light-based switching technology.

Of course scepticism would be present in any area where one didn't have 
expertise.  I've heard of some of this type of thing being done 
experimentally in academic settings.  Quantum computing, OTOH, I'm not 
sure anyone could have predicted because the behaviours of quantum 
particles (and the discovery of certain particles) couldn't easily have 
been predicted (but I'm no expert and it's possible/probable that someone 
who is could've seen it coming from further off).

> So why is absolutely nobody using this stuff? I can only imagine that
> the answer is the same as for the 3D IC. In other words, "it's too
> expensive" combined with "we haven't reached the hard limits of current
> methods yet".

There is a certain amount of technological inertia to overcome - current 
methods are cheap, developing new methods costs a lot of money, 
especially when you start talking about large-scale production.

So in essence, you're correct. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 16:15:49 +0100, Invisible wrote:

>> About minidisc by sony, it was nice but started to suck at DRM already.
>> (integrated copy protection: 1 generation numeric copy only, no way to
>> transfert from disk to PC in numeric). Same for DAT tape...
> 
> It's news to me that DAT was ever intended as anything other than a
> studio format.

That's why it sucks so hard as a backup medium - it was only intended to 
be used for lossy data (ie, audio), and was adapted for use for backup 
medium.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> On 12/04/2011 5:52 PM, Warp wrote:
> > and flatscreen monitors:

> I remember reading an article in the late 50's or early 60's saying that 
> flatscreen monitors would be impossible. Of course it was talking about CRTs

  Ironically, there exists a technology to make flatscreen CRTs, with all
the advantages of CRT (such as contrast) with less of the disadvantages
(such as distortion, misalignment, etc). The basic idea is that there's
one (static) electron ray per pixel. (Well, three, one for each color
component.)

  For some reason the technology has never been commercialized, even though
it could potentially be feasible.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 12/04/2011 04:52 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/12/2011 7:15, Invisible wrote:
>> So if this technology is the future... where is it? How come it's
>> completely
>> vanished off the face of existence?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_computing

Oh, is that what they call it now?

>> There seemed to be some suggesting that the entire IC might work by
>> processing light instead of electricity. I'm sceptical about whether that
>> could work. I'm not aware of any light-based switching technology.
>
> The very effect that makes you not need wires means the entire IC can't
> work with nothing but light. You don't need wires because photons don't
> interact with each other - they only interact with electrons. Hence, you
> can't easily switch light without involving electricity.

The article linked claims that materials with a "non-linear refractive 
index" can be used to make signals interact. It also suggests that this 
is much less efficient than semiconductors.

>> On the other hand, just using light for implementing long-range
>> connections? That could *totally* work!
>
> You mean, like, microwave communication towers and fiber optic cable?

No, I mean like if component A needs to be connected to component Z at 
the other end of the die, you could stick in an optical link, rather 
than trying to route a trace the entire way across the die. And doing so 
might be a big win in terms of signal propogation speed, capacitance, etc.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>> So if this technology is the future... where is it? How come it's
>> completely vanished off the face of existence?
>
> It hasn't - some of it didn't work out.

I meant optical computing specifically. Nobody talks about it any more. 
So what happened to it?

>> So why is absolutely nobody using this stuff? I can only imagine that
>> the answer is the same as for the 3D IC. In other words, "it's too
>> expensive" combined with "we haven't reached the hard limits of current
>> methods yet".
>
> There is a certain amount of technological inertia to overcome - current
> methods are cheap, developing new methods costs a lot of money,
> especially when you start talking about large-scale production.
>
> So in essence, you're correct. :)

Heh. Thought so.

In that case, presumably once current technologies start hitting 
hard(er) limits, new ones will start to be viable.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Le 2011/04/12 10:15, Invisible a écrit :

> I also remember something rather puzzling. Apparently somebody
> discovered that if you etch silicon with a certain kind of acid, it
> produces a special microscopic structure which has an unexpected
> property: it can transform electricity into like, and the reverse. This
> was hailed as the future of IC technology. In the future, we were told,
> interconnects on an IC would work using light rather electricity. For
> light has one really critical advantage: beams of light can pass through
> each other.
>
> By contrast, if you want to move signals around using wires, you either
> have to have extremely long and convoluted wire routes to get around all
> the obstacles in your way, or complex multiple-layer wiring designs. But
> with light, a signal can just go straight from A to B, intersecting as
> many other signal paths as you like.
>
> So if this technology is the future... where is it? How come it's
> completely vanished off the face of existence?
>
> There seemed to be some suggesting that the entire IC might work by
> processing light instead of electricity. I'm sceptical about whether
> that could work. I'm not aware of any light-based switching technology.
>
> On the other hand, just using light for implementing long-range
> connections? That could *totally* work! By strategically using optical
> signals in place of electronic ones, you might be able to drastically
> reduce signal path lengths, which reduces propagation delays. More to
> the point, if I'm understanding this right, long traces have the problem
> of high capacitance too, which an optical signal path would seemingly
> also avoid.
>
> So why is absolutely nobody using this stuff? I can only imagine that
> the answer is the same as for the 3D IC. In other words, "it's too
> expensive" combined with "we haven't reached the hard limits of current
> methods yet".
>

For optical computers, there are several working prototypes in several labs.
Some charactéristics and up sides:
The good:
Multiple parallel use of the same switch/circuit by using light of 
different colours, over 100 simultaneous computing channels on 1 
component at the same time! Brings up realy massive parallel 
multiprocessing.
Digital circuits having 5 discreet stable signal level. Base 5 computing 
anyone?...
No cross interference.
No capacitance nor inductance.
Capable of theoretical clock speed in the THz.
Capable of mixed digital and analogic processing.
Dirrect intercomponents data paths.

The bad:
Most of those components are cm sized, or monstrously huge compared to 
electronic parts.
Mostly organic material based can compromise longevity and stability.
Non-organic based solutions tend to be very brittle and devlop faults 
and minute cracks.
There are problems with the RAM side. Low capacity and retention time. 
Refreshing dynamic RAM is difficult and static RAM not realy functional. 
Storage loops have huge latency or very low capacity.
Nobody can yet take advantage of 5 digital states.




Alain

Post a reply to this message

On 4/12/2011 11:33, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> The article linked claims that materials with a "non-linear refractive
> index" can be used to make signals interact.

Guess what causes something to have a non-linear refractive index? Electrons.

> No, I mean like if component A needs to be connected to component Z at the
> other end of the die, you could stick in an optical link, rather than trying
> to route a trace the entire way across the die. And doing so might be a big
> win in terms of signal propogation speed, capacitance, etc.

Maybe. But you still have to convert it from electronics to light and back 
again.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On 4/12/2011 10:25, Stephen wrote:
> On 12/04/2011 5:52 PM, Warp wrote:
>> and flatscreen monitors:
>
> I remember reading an article in the late 50's or early 60's saying that
> flatscreen monitors would be impossible. Of course it was talking about CRTs

There's also a version where the guns are at the bottom and the beam gets 
curved as it passes up the back of the plate.  IIRC, they had two guns, one 
for purplish and one for greenish, so the colors weren't as good.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On 4/12/2011 11:35, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I meant optical computing specifically. Nobody talks about it any more. So
> what happened to it?

I hear about it pretty regularly, as research. People are still trying to 
figure out how to get it interfaced to the electronics efficiently and so on.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

Le 2011/04/12 14:33, Orchid XP v8 a écrit :

> The article linked claims that materials with a "non-linear refractive
> index" can be used to make signals interact. It also suggests that this
> is much less efficient than semiconductors.
>

There are cases where an interface can switch from pass through to 
reflective depending on a controll light beam.
You can selectively change the reflective capacity of very narow bands. 
You can reflect at 952nm but not 950nm nor 954nm if you want to.


Alain

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 19:35:37 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>>> So if this technology is the future... where is it? How come it's
>>> completely vanished off the face of existence?
>>
>> It hasn't - some of it didn't work out.
> 
> I meant optical computing specifically. Nobody talks about it any more.
> So what happened to it?

I've read a few articles on it recently.  Seems that *some* people are 
still talking about it.

>>> So why is absolutely nobody using this stuff? I can only imagine that
>>> the answer is the same as for the 3D IC. In other words, "it's too
>>> expensive" combined with "we haven't reached the hard limits of
>>> current methods yet".
>>
>> There is a certain amount of technological inertia to overcome -
>> current methods are cheap, developing new methods costs a lot of money,
>> especially when you start talking about large-scale production.
>>
>> So in essence, you're correct. :)
> 
> Heh. Thought so.
> 
> In that case, presumably once current technologies start hitting
> hard(er) limits, new ones will start to be viable.

Yep.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Alain <aze### [at] qwertyorg> wrote:
> The bad:
> Most of those components are cm sized, or monstrously huge compared to 
> electronic parts.

  Guess what the size of the first transistors (well, the equivalent of
transistors used in the first electronic computers) were.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 12/04/2011 07:46 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/12/2011 11:33, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> The article linked claims that materials with a "non-linear refractive
>> index" can be used to make signals interact.
>
> Guess what causes something to have a non-linear refractive index?
> Electrons.

I'll take your word for it. ;-)

>> No, I mean like if component A needs to be connected to component Z at
>> the
>> other end of the die, you could stick in an optical link, rather than
>> trying
>> to route a trace the entire way across the die. And doing so might be
>> a big
>> win in terms of signal propogation speed, capacitance, etc.
>
> Maybe. But you still have to convert it from electronics to light and
> back again.

Indeed. A hybrid optical-electronic IC looks far more plausible to me 
than a purely optical one.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On 12/04/2011 06:25 PM, Stephen wrote:
> I remember reading an article in the late 50's or early 60's saying that
> flatscreen monitors would be impossible. Of course it was talking about
> CRTs

Our lab *had* several flat CRTs. (We recently got rid of them. They were 
quite old by now.)

Of course, the glass was flatter than the actual tube, to give a greater 
impression of flatness than actually exists. The monitors were huge, so 
the radius of curvature is lower anyway. And by twiddling knobs, you can 
adjust which part of the image is out of focus. ;-)

I'm still looking forward to the day when they invent a way to have 
high-resolution images at the cinema. Currently they can't even seem to 
get all of it in focus...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On 12/04/2011 08:37 PM, Warp wrote:
> Alain<aze### [at] qwertyorg>  wrote:
>> The bad:
>> Most of those components are cm sized, or monstrously huge compared to
>> electronic parts.
>
>    Guess what the size of the first transistors (well, the equivalent of
> transistors used in the first electronic computers) were.

Indeed. I gather people currently make chips for use in projectors that 
flip microscopic mirrors around, so certainly making micro-scale optics 
isn't impossible...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On 12/04/2011 07:50 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/12/2011 11:35, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> I meant optical computing specifically. Nobody talks about it any
>> more. So
>> what happened to it?
>
> I hear about it pretty regularly, as research. People are still trying
> to figure out how to get it interfaced to the electronics efficiently
> and so on.

OK. So, in the words of that awful TV advert, "I'm not dead babeh. I'm 
just, uh, havin' a break".

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On 12/04/2011 6:29 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> It's news to me that DAT was ever intended as anything other than a
>> >  studio format.
> That's why it sucks so hard as a backup medium - it was only intended to
> be used for lossy data (ie, audio), and was adapted for use for backup
> medium.

Are you sure about that, Jim?
I seem to remember that in the mid 70s I used DAT tape to load 
programmes and data into a Burroughs mini computer.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 12/04/2011 6:35 PM, Warp wrote:
> Stephen<mcavoys_at@aoldotcom>  wrote:
>> On 12/04/2011 5:52 PM, Warp wrote:
>>> and flatscreen monitors:
>
>> I remember reading an article in the late 50's or early 60's saying that
>> flatscreen monitors would be impossible. Of course it was talking about CRTs
>
>    Ironically, there exists a technology to make flatscreen CRTs, with all
> the advantages of CRT (such as contrast) with less of the disadvantages
> (such as distortion, misalignment, etc). The basic idea is that there's
> one (static) electron ray per pixel. (Well, three, one for each color
> component.)
>
>    For some reason the technology has never been commercialized, even though
> it could potentially be feasible.
>

I think that idea would have been beyond the ken of man at the time. 
Nice to have heard it though.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 12/04/2011 7:48 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/12/2011 10:25, Stephen wrote:
>> On 12/04/2011 5:52 PM, Warp wrote:
>>> and flatscreen monitors:
>>
>> I remember reading an article in the late 50's or early 60's saying that
>> flatscreen monitors would be impossible. Of course it was talking
>> about CRTs
>
> There's also a version where the guns are at the bottom and the beam
> gets curved as it passes up the back of the plate. IIRC, they had two
> guns, one for purplish and one for greenish, so the colors weren't as good.
>

Never heard of that, very interesting.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

see, your blog would be much more active if you reserved such texts for 
it. ;)

You know you're in the future when you have your telephone, stereo, book 
library, TV set, bank account and games right with you all the time in 
your pocket.  And Space Invaders looks better than Star Wars.

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> >    Ironically, there exists a technology to make flatscreen CRTs, with all
> > the advantages of CRT (such as contrast) with less of the disadvantages
> > (such as distortion, misalignment, etc). The basic idea is that there's
> > one (static) electron ray per pixel. (Well, three, one for each color
> > component.)
> >
> >    For some reason the technology has never been commercialized, even though
> > it could potentially be feasible.
> >

> I think that idea would have been beyond the ken of man at the time. 
> Nice to have heard it though.

  What do you mean "at the the time"? It's a modern invention.

  I didn't remember the name of the technology, but I found it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-conduction_electron-emitter_display

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 12/04/2011 10:03 PM, Warp wrote:

>
>> I think that idea would have been beyond the ken of man at the time.
>> Nice to have heard it though.
>
>    What do you mean "at the the time"? It's a modern invention.
>

What I meant was in the 1950/60s the thought of having a matrix of tiny 
cathode ray tubes, would be beyond belief.

>    I didn't remember the name of the technology, but I found it:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-conduction_electron-emitter_display
>

Thanks for the link.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 21:17:28 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 12/04/2011 6:29 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> It's news to me that DAT was ever intended as anything other than a
>>> >  studio format.
>> That's why it sucks so hard as a backup medium - it was only intended
>> to be used for lossy data (ie, audio), and was adapted for use for
>> backup medium.
> 
> Are you sure about that, Jim?
> I seem to remember that in the mid 70s I used DAT tape to load
> programmes and data into a Burroughs mini computer.

I'm pretty sure about that.  "Digital Audio Tape" is what DAT stands for.

You aren't thinking about standard cassettes?  I used to use those on 
Commodore PET and C64 computers, and they also had occasional issues with 
data loss.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 2011-04-12 09:15, Invisible wrote:
> When I was a kid, I used to enjoy watching TV programs about the future.
> Stuff like Tomorrow's World and Beyond 2000. Basically programs where
> they show you crazy new inventions. Some of them seemed fantastic, some
> of them seemed utterly stupid. There aren't that many that I still
> remember.

They're still around, in various forms.  'Beyond Tomorrow' is afaict the 
same people who did Beyond 2000, but since we're past 2000...  There's 
also Popular Science's 'the Future of' or somesuch.  Few episodes I saw 
were each focused on a particular topic, such as gaming, transportation, 
etc.

Post a reply to this message

>> It's news to me that DAT was ever intended as anything other than a
>> studio format.
>
> That's why it sucks so hard as a backup medium - it was only intended to
> be used for lossy data (ie, audio), and was adapted for use for backup
> medium.

Digital is digital. If you lose digital data, generally it utterly 
screws everything up.

I too spent many years using DAT (actually DDS-4) tapes for backup. We 
had occasional problems, but nothing major.

Post a reply to this message

On 12/04/2011 06:20 PM, Stephen wrote:

> FYI My Tascam DAT recorder has an "Engineering" mode that ignores DRM.

And this is why DRM will never work. As long as at least one device 
exists which ignores DRM, the system is trivially broken.

Post a reply to this message

On 12/04/2011 10:28 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 21:17:28 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 12/04/2011 6:29 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> It's news to me that DAT was ever intended as anything other than a
>>>>>   studio format.
>>> That's why it sucks so hard as a backup medium - it was only intended
>>> to be used for lossy data (ie, audio), and was adapted for use for
>>> backup medium.
>>
>> Are you sure about that, Jim?
>> I seem to remember that in the mid 70s I used DAT tape to load
>> programmes and data into a Burroughs mini computer.
>
> I'm pretty sure about that.  "Digital Audio Tape" is what DAT stands for.
>

Well they were not called DAT but they were in the same casing and had 
similar lengths. They did have a small hole punched near to the ends of 
the tape and a light sensor to stop the tape running off the spindle.

> You aren't thinking about standard cassettes?  I used to use those on
> Commodore PET and C64 computers, and they also had occasional issues with
> data loss.
>


Never had one of those.


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 13/04/2011 8:55 AM, Invisible wrote:
> On 12/04/2011 06:20 PM, Stephen wrote:
>
>> FYI My Tascam DAT recorder has an "Engineering" mode that ignores DRM.
>
> And this is why DRM will never work. As long as at least one device
> exists which ignores DRM, the system is trivially broken.

True :-D

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 4/13/2011 0:54, Invisible wrote:
> Digital is digital. If you lose digital data, generally it utterly screws
> everything up.

Not really. When the digital is a digital representation of analog, it's OK 
to lose some bits sometimes.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On 4/13/2011 0:55, Invisible wrote:
> And this is why DRM will never work. As long as at least one device exists
> which ignores DRM, the system is trivially broken.

In that sense of trivial, it's already trivially broken, because there are 
no secrets involved. To play encrypted media, you have to decrypt it on the 
customer's equipment, meaning the customer has in his hands everything he 
needs to know to bypass the DRM.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 08:54:51 +0100, Invisible wrote:

>>> It's news to me that DAT was ever intended as anything other than a
>>> studio format.
>>
>> That's why it sucks so hard as a backup medium - it was only intended
>> to be used for lossy data (ie, audio), and was adapted for use for
>> backup medium.
> 
> Digital is digital. If you lose digital data, generally it utterly
> screws everything up.

You'd think so, but having seen them used in both lossy and lossless 
situations, I'll take experience over conjecture. ;)

> I too spent many years using DAT (actually DDS-4) tapes for backup. We
> had occasional problems, but nothing major.

I never had good luck with DDS-2 tapes myself.  You might recall that I 
related a story a couple years ago where I got *blamed* for data loss 
from DDS-2 DAT tapes even though I warned that the systems were telling 
me that the backups were no good (ie, they failed verification every 
night).  Then the finance server crashed and was completely unrecoverable.

I don't trust DAT tapes for backup any further can I can *comfortably* 
spit a rat.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 09:15:42 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 12/04/2011 10:28 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 21:17:28 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/04/2011 6:29 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>>> It's news to me that DAT was ever intended as anything other than a
>>>>>>   studio format.
>>>> That's why it sucks so hard as a backup medium - it was only intended
>>>> to be used for lossy data (ie, audio), and was adapted for use for
>>>> backup medium.
>>>
>>> Are you sure about that, Jim?
>>> I seem to remember that in the mid 70s I used DAT tape to load
>>> programmes and data into a Burroughs mini computer.
>>
>> I'm pretty sure about that.  "Digital Audio Tape" is what DAT stands
>> for.
>>
>>
> Well they were not called DAT but they were in the same casing and had
> similar lengths. They did have a small hole punched near to the ends of
> the tape and a light sensor to stop the tape running off the spindle.

Yeah, that's different than what I'm talking about - DDS-2 (for example) 
didn't come out until the 90's IIRC.

>> You aren't thinking about standard cassettes?  I used to use those on
>> Commodore PET and C64 computers, and they also had occasional issues
>> with data loss.
>>
>>
> 
> Never had one of those.

I had a C64, but the PET was a business computer back in the 80's.  We 
had those at school.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 13/04/2011 5:07 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Yeah, that's different than what I'm talking about - DDS-2 (for example)
> didn't come out until the 90's IIRC.
>

It was a long time ago but I'm sure those tapes were very similar to 
DATs. I wouldn't put money on it though.

>>> >>  You aren't thinking about standard cassettes?  I used to use those on
>>> >>  Commodore PET and C64 computers, and they also had occasional issues
>>> >>  with data loss.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>> >
>> >  Never had one of those.
> I had a C64, but the PET was a business computer back in the 80's.  We
> had those at school.
>

My first computer was an Amstrad PC1512, that's not counting 
programmable calculators.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 18:53:03 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> My first computer was an Amstrad PC1512, that's not counting
> programmable calculators.

That goes back a bit before my time. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 13/04/2011 9:11 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 18:53:03 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> My first computer was an Amstrad PC1512, that's not counting
>> programmable calculators.
>
> That goes back a bit before my time. :)
>

1986?

The youngsters today don't know that they are living.
Four Yorkshiremen?

http://www.zappinternet.com/video/jetCpaHyaK/At-Last-the-1948-Show-The-Four-Yorkshiremen-Sketch


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 21:26:16 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 13/04/2011 9:11 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 18:53:03 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> My first computer was an Amstrad PC1512, that's not counting
>>> programmable calculators.
>>
>> That goes back a bit before my time. :)
>>
>>
> 1986?

Hmm, maybe not - I had been thinking it was more contemporary to the C64, 
but my brain hiccuped. ;)

> The youngsters today don't know that they are living. Four Yorkshiremen?
>
> http://www.zappinternet.com/video/jetCpaHyaK/At-Last-the-1948-Show-The-
Four-Yorkshiremen-Sketch

Indeed, I've seen/heard many versions of it.  BTW, thanks for the 'new to 
me' Clue - I was right, we hadn't heard those before. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 13/04/2011 10:03 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:

>>>
>>> That goes back a bit before my time. :)
>>>
>>>
>> 1986?
>
> Hmm, maybe not - I had been thinking it was more contemporary to the C64,
> but my brain hiccuped. ;)

You might be buying one of these then.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12997245

>
>> The youngsters today don't know that they are living. Four Yorkshiremen?
>>
>> http://www.zappinternet.com/video/jetCpaHyaK/At-Last-the-1948-Show-The-
> Four-Yorkshiremen-Sketch
>
> Indeed, I've seen/heard many versions of it.  BTW, thanks for the 'new to
> me' Clue - I was right, we hadn't heard those before. :)
>

Clue? At last the 1948 show.


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 13/04/2011 04:55 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/13/2011 0:55, Invisible wrote:
>> And this is why DRM will never work. As long as at least one device
>> exists
>> which ignores DRM, the system is trivially broken.
>
> In that sense of trivial, it's already trivially broken, because there
> are no secrets involved. To play encrypted media, you have to decrypt it
> on the customer's equipment, meaning the customer has in his hands
> everything he needs to know to bypass the DRM.

It would be harder to crack if you invented some new storage format and 
then made all devices capable of playing it respect the DRM. (In 
particular, this means not making it playable on a PC.) Trouble is, as I 
say, as soon as one company manufactures a device that ignores the DRM, 
everything is ruined forever.

On the other hand, if you can see it, you can copy it. At least until 
they ban video recording equipment...

Post a reply to this message

On 4/14/2011 1:07 AM, Invisible wrote:
> On 13/04/2011 04:55 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> On 4/13/2011 0:55, Invisible wrote:
>>> And this is why DRM will never work. As long as at least one device
>>> exists
>>> which ignores DRM, the system is trivially broken.
>>
>> In that sense of trivial, it's already trivially broken, because there
>> are no secrets involved. To play encrypted media, you have to decrypt it
>> on the customer's equipment, meaning the customer has in his hands
>> everything he needs to know to bypass the DRM.
>
> It would be harder to crack if you invented some new storage format and
> then made all devices capable of playing it respect the DRM. (In
> particular, this means not making it playable on a PC.) Trouble is, as I
> say, as soon as one company manufactures a device that ignores the DRM,
> everything is ruined forever.
>
Such systems have existed, I will give you two guesses why they never 
took off. First, it locks you into using *only* devices that actually 
support it, which is exactly what the DRM of DVDs attempted to do. Ones 
that decode them for OSes/devices that can't natively do so still have 
to use the DRM, they just don't have to use the "approved" method. Any 
system that was unbreakable, would be useless though, since you would be 
forced to use it only how the distributor allowed. And.. That isn't 
going to go over too well. Second, it creates conditions where the data 
becomes unreadable, once the technology is passed out of use. Half the 
shit produced for computers over the last 30 years either requires the 
original hardware to even read, or had DRM on it, which requires 
"cracking" the DRM method used, to replicate it some place else, and 
even when there wasn't any DRM, simply difference in file formats, or 
media formats, have rendered everything from NASA records, to old games, 
to office documents, unusable.

If you care about the content persisting at all, you **can't** DRM it. 
If you don't give a shit that 50 years from now the only copy requires 
some device, which understands the DRM, and can read the media, of which 
only one is known to even exist, then.. lock the thing up as tight as 
you want. Just don't whine to the few people that managed to copy it 
anyway, that you are losing revenue, or some such, over something even 
*you* can't reproduce any more.

Post a reply to this message

On 14/04/2011 8:22 AM, Stephen wrote:
> On 13/04/2011 10:03 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> That goes back a bit before my time. :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> 1986?
>>
>> Hmm, maybe not - I had been thinking it was more contemporary to the C64,
>> but my brain hiccuped. ;)
>
You might be buying one of these then.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12997245


>>
>>> The youngsters today don't know that they are living. Four Yorkshiremen?
>>>
>>> http://www.zappinternet.com/video/jetCpaHyaK/At-Last-the-1948-Show-The-
>> Four-Yorkshiremen-Sketch
>>
>> Indeed, I've seen/heard many versions of it. BTW, thanks for the 'new to
>> me' Clue - I was right, we hadn't heard those before. :)
>>
>
>

Clue? At last the 1948 show.
>


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 4/14/2011 1:07, Invisible wrote:
> It would be harder to crack if you invented some new storage format and then
> made all devices capable of playing it respect the DRM.

They did this with DVDs and Blu-Rays.

> (In particular, this means not making it playable on a PC.)

The PC playback software respected the DRM. Someone just found a way to 
break into the PC software. Just like they found a way to break into the PS3 
hardware.

> Trouble is, as I say, as soon as one
> company manufactures a device that ignores the DRM, everything is ruined
> forever.

Or as soon as the DRM scheme is broken.  Most DRM schemes have mechanisms 
for repudiating certain schemes or keys or players or whatever. The Windows 
DRM stuff has a bunch of things in there to make sure that if you do manage 
to break it and they find out the player that broke, they can keep the keys 
away from that player in the future.  Of course, this means that every 
player has to communicate with the servers at some point before they can 
play stuff, so it wouldn't really work well for things like DVDs but rather 
only for online stuff.

> On the other hand, if you can see it, you can copy it. At least until they
> ban video recording equipment...

Yes, that's basically the trick I'm speaking of.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 08:22:23 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 13/04/2011 10:03 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
> 
>>>> That goes back a bit before my time. :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> 1986?
>>
>> Hmm, maybe not - I had been thinking it was more contemporary to the
>> C64, but my brain hiccuped. ;)
> 
> You might be buying one of these then.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12997245

I've been following that story with some interest, but I probably won't 
get one - the classic C64 keyboard isn't well suited for my way of 
typing, and the layout differs from standard layouts now (though perhaps 
they'll address that).

>>> The youngsters today don't know that they are living. Four
>>> Yorkshiremen?
>>>
>>> http://www.zappinternet.com/video/jetCpaHyaK/At-Last-the-1948-Show-
The-
>> Four-Yorkshiremen-Sketch
>>
>> Indeed, I've seen/heard many versions of it.  BTW, thanks for the 'new
>> to me' Clue - I was right, we hadn't heard those before. :)
>>
>>
> Clue? At last the 1948 show.

Haven't done the 1948 show episodes yet, but yes, there was the 1976 
series of Clue in there as well. :)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 09:30:54 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 4/14/2011 1:07, Invisible wrote:
>> It would be harder to crack if you invented some new storage format and
>> then made all devices capable of playing it respect the DRM.
> 
> They did this with DVDs and Blu-Rays.

And that didn't exactly work out well - both formats' DRM has been broken 
(DVD for many years now).

Jim

Post a reply to this message