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

On 4/14/2011 10:07, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 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).

That's precisely my point. :-) It doesn't work out a whole lot better if you 
have multiple sources for the DRM interpreters.

-- 
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 11:14:00 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 4/14/2011 10:07, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> 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).
> 
> That's precisely my point. :-) It doesn't work out a whole lot better if
> you have multiple sources for the DRM interpreters.

True.

The fundamental flaw with DRM, as you (I think said) elsewhere is that if 
one can consume the media, one has to decrypt it, and if one can decrypt 
it to consume it, one can decrypt it (maybe *eventually*) for other uses.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 14/04/2011 6:06 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Haven't done the 1948 show episodes yet, but yes, there was the 1976
> series of Clue in there as well.:)
>
Not many of the episodes survived I'm in the process of converting some 
of the few I've got to send to you.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 12:33:18 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 14/04/2011 6:06 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Haven't done the 1948 show episodes yet, but yes, there was the 1976
>> series of Clue in there as well.:)
>>
> Not many of the episodes survived I'm in the process of converting some
> of the few I've got to send to you.

Oh, cool, I didn't know there were more.  Let me know and I'll set the 
port forwarding up again (I shut it down when the last transfer finished).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 16/04/2011 7:14 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Oh, cool, I didn't know there were more.  Let me know and I'll set the
> port forwarding up again (I shut it down when the last transfer finished).
>

I'm ready to upload. There are 3 episodes B&W and a couple of 
interviews. I can't find disc 1 ATM. I've also got some "I'm sorry I'll 
read it again".

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 16/04/2011 7:35 PM, Stephen wrote:
> I've also got some "I'm sorry I'll read it again".

Sorry, "Do not adjust your set"

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 4/12/2011 9:15 AM, 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.

Beyond 2000 was my favorite growing up. I so miss that program. Always 
liked the opening sequence, too. The title music was catchy.

> 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. ;-)

You'd have to have some kind of private/public key authentication system.

> 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.

Yep. My FIL's Toyota pretty much has a transceiver in the fob and a 
button you push to start the engine. No key involved. The fob stays in 
your pocket the whole time. I wonder how far someone could get, though 
if say, they hopped in your car while you were standing near and took 
off. (Would the car keep running even though it was out of range of the 
fob?)

> 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.

Yeah, that and the title "Beyond 2000" seems kind of silly for a show 
about futuristic inventions when we're, you know, beyond 2000 already ;)

> 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.)
>

Once people could duplicate a CD, and MP3 went mainstream, yep. Cassette 
died. The only way it could survive is if you have an old car radio, but 
I suspect people just simply replace those with something that can play 
CD's full of MP3's anyway.

I have a feeling the CD is a dying species. Soon everything will either 
be on a high-density ROM or flash chip.

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

Terrible, terrible idea.

> 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.
>

Seems like I saw that Intel was playing with this very thing. Only, as 
you mentioned using light as a replacement for the copper traces, rather 
than the actual switching. And even more interesting, one trace can 
contain several signals by transmitting different wavelengths down one 
path.

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

> Beyond 2000 was my favorite growing up. I so miss that program. Always
> liked the opening sequence, too. The title music was catchy.

I remember the opening sequence being *very* futuristic. I don't 
remember the music though.

>> 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.
>
> Yep. My FIL's Toyota pretty much has a transceiver in the fob and a
> button you push to start the engine. No key involved. The fob stays in
> your pocket the whole time.

My car is the same.

I still maintain that making a mechanical key out of plastic is a stupid 
idea. ;-)

> I wonder how far someone could get, though
> if say, they hopped in your car while you were standing near and took
> off. (Would the car keep running even though it was out of range of the
> fob?)

Given that the batteries in the fob eventually die, it would be a safety 
issue if the car just suddenly stopped when that happened. (Or when you 
drive past something that emits too much interference.) So I believe 
that once the engine is running, anybody that wants to can drive off 
with the car.

My car beeps at you if you try to shut the door with the keys outside 
the car. It also refuses to lock the doors if the keys are inside. It's 
surprising how many times I've put the keys in my bag, pressed the 
button, the doors didn't lock, and 2 hours later my car is still there. 
I guess people don't go around actually /trying/ to get into cars just 
in case they're unlocked. ;-)

>> 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.
>
> Yeah, that and the title "Beyond 2000" seems kind of silly for a show
> about futuristic inventions when we're, you know, beyond 2000 already ;)

I think we all knew that flying cars really weren't just around the 
corner. ;-)

>> 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.
>
> Once people could duplicate a CD, and MP3 went mainstream, yep.

It was possible to make a portable solid-state music player for quite 
some time. But with (say) 64MB of flash, why would you bother? That 
would be, like, 6 minutes of music.

MP3 is what made it feasible. Now 64MB is nearer an hour of music...

> Cassette
> died. The only way it could survive is if you have an old car radio, but
> I suspect people just simply replace those with something that can play
> CD's full of MP3's anyway.

I wish my car could play compressed CDs. Or even if it just had a CD 
changer like the salesman claimed it had... Or, hell, even just a way to 
plug in an external sound source.

> I have a feeling the CD is a dying species. Soon everything will either
> be on a high-density ROM or flash chip.

I don't see CD dying anytime soon.

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

It's a simple idea, but in practise it doesn't work like it's supposed to.

>> 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.
>
> Seems like I saw that Intel was playing with this very thing. Only, as
> you mentioned using light as a replacement for the copper traces, rather
> than the actual switching. And even more interesting, one trace can
> contain several signals by transmitting different wavelengths down one
> path.

The advantage of light is that signals can pass straight through each 
other, significantly shortening signal paths. Plus I gather there are 
power savings, and a lack of capacitance to worry about.

Then again, if this stuff is so great, where is it?

Post a reply to this message

On 12/04/2011 21:24, nemesis wrote:
> see, your blog would be much more active if you reserved such texts for
> it. ;)

No, if I put this on my blog, I would have just got no responses at all. 
:-P Nobody actually reads my blog. (Well, except me of course...)

> 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.

Star Wars. How apt. The originals were made at a time when technology 
could barely do anything, and they're brilliant. The new ones were made 
in a modern age of technical excellence, and they're awful...

Post a reply to this message

On 18/04/2011 2:59 PM, Invisible wrote:
> I wish my car could play compressed CDs. Or even if it just had a CD
> changer like the salesman claimed it had... Or, hell, even just a way to
> plug in an external sound source.

You could buy something like an iTrip which connects to your MP3 player 
and transmits the audio output as an FM radio signal, which is picked up 
by your car radio.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 15:01:29 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> On 12/04/2011 21:24, nemesis wrote:
>> see, your blog would be much more active if you reserved such texts for
>> it. ;)
> 
> No, if I put this on my blog, I would have just got no responses at all.
> :-P Nobody actually reads my blog. (Well, except me of course...)

Again, not true; I have it set up on an RSS feed, so every time you post, 
I see it.  I may not comment, but that doesn't mean I'm not reading it.  
I've told you this before, maybe it'll stick this time. ;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 4/18/2011 5:31, Mike Raiford wrote:
> (Would the car
> keep running even though it was out of range of the fob?)

And, crossing over from another thread, it's clear that even when someone 
provides an owner's manual for something as complex as a car, and there are 
features in the car that are completely new to the user, it's obvious that 
the user *still* doesn't read the owner's manual.  ;-)

The car won't shut off just because the key leaves. The dashboard screams, tho.

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

Post a reply to this message

Invisible escreveu:
> On 12/04/2011 21:24, nemesis wrote:
>> see, your blog would be much more active if you reserved such texts for
>> it. ;)
> 
> No, if I put this on my blog, I would have just got no responses at all. 
> :-P Nobody actually reads my blog. (Well, except me of course...)

nobody reads because you keep blogging about dancing instead of 
interesting stuff like this? ;)

>> 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.
> 
> Star Wars. How apt. The originals were made at a time when technology 
> could barely do anything, and they're brilliant. The new ones were made 
> in a modern age of technical excellence, and they're awful...

isn't it the same for everything else?  Like... music?

They are awful, but still technically excelent.

my point is even games these days look better than Star Wars back 
then... :-)

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

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 09:19:12 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 4/18/2011 5:31, Mike Raiford wrote:
>> (Would the car
>> keep running even though it was out of range of the fob?)
> 
> And, crossing over from another thread, it's clear that even when
> someone provides an owner's manual for something as complex as a car,
> and there are features in the car that are completely new to the user,
> it's obvious that the user *still* doesn't read the owner's manual.  ;-)
> 
> The car won't shut off just because the key leaves. The dashboard
> screams, tho.

We rented a Prius for our recent vacation, and I wondered about this 
myself - but not enough to throw the fobs out the window while going down 
the freeway. ;)

I also thought it was funny (and always have) that the rental agencies 
put both keys (or fobs, in the case of the Prius) on the same keyring and 
you can't take either off the ring.

"If only I had a spare key - oh, I do, and it's locked inside the car 
with the other one". ;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 18/04/2011 16:58, Stephen wrote:
> On 18/04/2011 2:59 PM, Invisible wrote:
>> I wish my car could play compressed CDs. Or even if it just had a CD
>> changer like the salesman claimed it had... Or, hell, even just a way to
>> plug in an external sound source.
>
> You could buy something like an iTrip which connects to your MP3 player
> and transmits the audio output as an FM radio signal, which is picked up
> by your car radio.

Wouldn't that mean that everybody within a 30-meter radius of my car can 
illegally pick up the same signals?

Also, would the fact that my car's aerial is missing be a problem?

Post a reply to this message

On 19/04/2011 8:59 AM, Invisible wrote:
> On 18/04/2011 16:58, Stephen wrote:
>> On 18/04/2011 2:59 PM, Invisible wrote:
>>> I wish my car could play compressed CDs. Or even if it just had a CD
>>> changer like the salesman claimed it had... Or, hell, even just a way to
>>> plug in an external sound source.
>>
>> You could buy something like an iTrip which connects to your MP3 player
>> and transmits the audio output as an FM radio signal, which is picked up
>> by your car radio.
>
> Wouldn't that mean that everybody within a 30-meter radius of my car can
> illegally pick up the same signals?
>

Only if they are tuned to the frequency.

> Also, would the fact that my car's aerial is missing be a problem?

Probably not.
-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 4/18/2011 8:59 AM, Invisible wrote:
>> Beyond 2000 was my favorite growing up. I so miss that program. Always
>> liked the opening sequence, too. The title music was catchy.
>
> I remember the opening sequence being *very* futuristic. I don't
> remember the music though.
>

I'm sure it could be found on Youtube. ;)

I remember it started out with the voyager probe, and went from there, I 
forget how it all tied together.

>> Yep. My FIL's Toyota pretty much has a transceiver in the fob and a
>> button you push to start the engine. No key involved. The fob stays in
>> your pocket the whole time.
>
> My car is the same.
>

Mine still has the old-fashioned steel (or whatever metal its made out 
of, I'm sure it some sort of alloy) key. ;)

> I still maintain that making a mechanical key out of plastic is a stupid
> idea. ;-)

Well, yeah...

>
> Given that the batteries in the fob eventually die, it would be a safety
> issue if the car just suddenly stopped when that happened. (Or when you
> drive past something that emits too much interference.) So I believe
> that once the engine is running, anybody that wants to can drive off
> with the car.
>

Hmm.. Good point, but would make auto theft rather easy. Not much the 
owner could do if the car thief jumps in, presses start and takes off 
while the owner is distracted.

> My car beeps at you if you try to shut the door with the keys outside
> the car. It also refuses to lock the doors if the keys are inside. It's
> surprising how many times I've put the keys in my bag, pressed the
> button, the doors didn't lock, and 2 hours later my car is still there.
> I guess people don't go around actually /trying/ to get into cars just
> in case they're unlocked. ;-)

Oh, it can tell if the key is inside or outside the car?

>
> I think we all knew that flying cars really weren't just around the
> corner. ;-)
>

Flying cars are impractical. the FAA would never allow it ;) (Sorry, 
this is from a USA perspective, but... you get the point, hopefully)


> It was possible to make a portable solid-state music player for quite
> some time. But with (say) 64MB of flash, why would you bother? That
> would be, like, 6 minutes of music.
>
> MP3 is what made it feasible. Now 64MB is nearer an hour of music...
>

Right... Remember when MP3 came out, computing power wasn't really up to 
task, either. I remember it took hours to encode a single song.

> I wish my car could play compressed CDs. Or even if it just had a CD
> changer like the salesman claimed it had... Or, hell, even just a way to
> plug in an external sound source.

Mine plays MP3's and has an AUX jack.... I mostly use my Zune, nowadays, 
mostly because it's a PITA to burn new CD's when my musical whim 
changes. I wish it had an SD or CF port. Also, it tends to be a bit 
finicky when it comes to playing MP3's that have been ID3 tagged in a 
weird way.

>
> I don't see CD dying anytime soon.
>

Maybe ... Though it will continue on more as CD-R than as pressed CD's. 
DVD and Blu-Ray will continue, though.

>>> I remember seeing the first automatic speed cameras, and thinking this
>>> was a neat idea. Oh how wrong I was... ;-)
>>
>> Terrible, terrible idea.
>
> It's a simple idea, but in practise it doesn't work like it's supposed to.
>

Right. I don't like the idea of a machine determining whether I get a 
ticket or not. The machine can't weigh the circumstances, or let a 
first-time offender slide. The machine treats everyone exactly the same, 
regardless of their situation or offense record.

Now, you could say that's fairness in the most absolute sense, but, 
sometimes its best to allow a human being to intervene.


> The advantage of light is that signals can pass straight through each
> other, significantly shortening signal paths. Plus I gather there are
> power savings, and a lack of capacitance to worry about.
>
> Then again, if this stuff is so great, where is it?

Well, we now have laser diodes that can work at several wavelengths now, 
so ... we're not far off. Before it just wasn't feasible. But yes, the 
beams can cross, and signals can be multiplexed by wavelength.

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

> Mine still has the old-fashioned steel (or whatever metal its made out
> of, I'm sure it some sort of alloy) key. ;)

You're aware that steel *is* an alloy, right? ;-)

>> Given that the batteries in the fob eventually die, it would be a safety
>> issue if the car just suddenly stopped when that happened.
>
> Hmm.. Good point, but would make auto theft rather easy. Not much the
> owner could do if the car thief jumps in, presses start and takes off
> while the owner is distracted.

I don't know about other cars, but mine seems to only work if you're 
within a few feet of the driver's seat. Even if you're getting something 
out of the boot, if the keys are in your pocket, the engine won't start. 
It's apparently that accurate.

> Oh, it can tell if the key is inside or outside the car?

Apparently. Doesn't make any sense to me, but hey...

>> I think we all knew that flying cars really weren't just around the
>> corner. ;-)
>
> Flying cars are impractical. the FAA would never allow it ;)

The safety issues are one thing. The sheer inefficiency of 
heavier-than-air flight is another...

>> It was possible to make a portable solid-state music player for quite
>> some time. But with (say) 64MB of flash, why would you bother? That
>> would be, like, 6 minutes of music.
>>
>> MP3 is what made it feasible. Now 64MB is nearer an hour of music...
>
> Right... Remember when MP3 came out, computing power wasn't really up to
> task, either. I remember it took hours to encode a single song.

Decoding is faster than encoding. For MP3 and many other codecs. 
Generally encoding requires you to transform the input stream and apply 
some kind of psychological model to decide which data has highest 
priority, and then perform constraint-solving to cram as much of the 
high priority data in as you've got room for. To decode, you more or 
less just execute the instructions you're given. A bit like the way 
executing a compiled program is way easier than compiling it in the 
first place. ;-)

>> I wish my car could play compressed CDs. Or even if it just had a CD
>> changer like the salesman claimed it had... Or, hell, even just a way to
>> plug in an external sound source.
>
> Mine plays MP3's and has an AUX jack.... I mostly use my Zune, nowadays,
> mostly because it's a PITA to burn new CD's when my musical whim
> changes. I wish it had an SD or CF port. Also, it tends to be a bit
> finicky when it comes to playing MP3's that have been ID3 tagged in a
> weird way.

It's not uncommon for stand-alone players to be real picky about 
technical details of encoded media. I've seen MP3 players that choke if 
you use variable bitrates, or bitrates above or below a certain 
threshold, or whatever.

>> I don't see CD dying anytime soon.
>
> Maybe ... Though it will continue on more as CD-R than as pressed CD's.
> DVD and Blu-Ray will continue, though.

Last time I checked, HMV was still selling pressed CDs by the truckload. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

On 4/19/2011 6:46, Mike Raiford wrote:
> Oh, it can tell if the key is inside or outside the car?

You still haven't read the owner's manual, have you? :-)

> Right... Remember when MP3 came out, computing power wasn't really up to
> task, either. I remember it took hours to encode a single song.

I remember back in the days of Windows 3.1 we had a hardware card to do jpeg 
compression. It was faster to ship a bunch of raw images over the net to a 
PC running a bat file in a loop to compress them and pull them back (over 
NFS) than it was to compress them on the sparcstation where they were generated.

> I mostly use my Zune, nowadays,

How do you like that, UI-wise?

>> It's a simple idea, but in practise it doesn't work like it's supposed to.

I think it's more "in practice it doesn't work like people claimed they 
wanted it to work."   It could work just fine if people wanted it to, but 
the folks in charge don't want it to only catch the flagrant violators.

> Now, you could say that's fairness in the most absolute sense, but,
> sometimes its best to allow a human being to intervene.

In the USA, the police are supposed to look at the picture and all and make 
the decision based on all those factors.  Nothing is *supposed* to go out 
automatically without review.

Then they figured out they could make it a "fee" rather than an actual 
ticket you might be able to fight in court.

> Well, we now have laser diodes that can work at several wavelengths now, so
> ... we're not far off. Before it just wasn't feasible. But yes, the beams
> can cross, and signals can be multiplexed by wavelength.

And it still has to interact when it gets to the other end.

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

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 08:59:30 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> On 18/04/2011 16:58, Stephen wrote:
>> On 18/04/2011 2:59 PM, Invisible wrote:
>>> I wish my car could play compressed CDs. Or even if it just had a CD
>>> changer like the salesman claimed it had... Or, hell, even just a way
>>> to plug in an external sound source.
>>
>> You could buy something like an iTrip which connects to your MP3 player
>> and transmits the audio output as an FM radio signal, which is picked
>> up by your car radio.
> 
> Wouldn't that mean that everybody within a 30-meter radius of my car can
> illegally pick up the same signals?

Maybe not 30 metres, but yes, it is possible that others might be able to 
receive it.  So?  It's a legal device used for a legal purpose.

> Also, would the fact that my car's aerial is missing be a problem?

No, because the aerial isn't the only receiver - the cable to the aerial 
also is capable of receiving the signal just as well.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 08:46:24 -0500, Mike Raiford wrote:

>> I think we all knew that flying cars really weren't just around the
>> corner. ;-)

There are a couple of companies that make them - one that I read about a 
couple weeks ago that's actually in production, but it's more expensive 
than a decent private jet and a decent car.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> Now, you could say that's fairness in the most absolute sense, but,
>> sometimes its best to allow a human being to intervene.
>
> In the USA, the police are supposed to look at the picture and all and
> make the decision based on all those factors. Nothing is *supposed* to
> go out automatically without review.
>
> Then they figured out they could make it a "fee" rather than an actual
> ticket you might be able to fight in court.

I heard some guy here took a speeding ticket to court - and won.

The reason? His car wasn't breaking the speed limit. The bus on the 
other side of the road was.

In short, the machine is /not/ always right.

Now, the real WTF: Why the hell was a bus [which is government property] 
breaking the speed limit? And was the driver prosecuted??

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

Post a reply to this message

On 4/19/2011 13:49, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> The reason? His car wasn't breaking the speed limit. The bus on the other
> side of the road was.
>
> In short, the machine is /not/ always right.

Sounds more like a radar gun. And yes, you have to know how to work those to 
use them properly.  In the USA, the traffic cameras are almost always for 
people running red lights, not speeding, for exactly that reason.

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

Post a reply to this message

On 4/19/2011 9:18 AM, Invisible wrote:
>> Mine still has the old-fashioned steel (or whatever metal its made out
>> of, I'm sure it some sort of alloy) key. ;)
>
> You're aware that steel *is* an alloy, right? ;-)
>

Yeah, I'm aware ;P


> I don't know about other cars, but mine seems to only work if you're
> within a few feet of the driver's seat. Even if you're getting something
> out of the boot, if the keys are in your pocket, the engine won't start.
> It's apparently that accurate.

Ah, OK...

>
>> Oh, it can tell if the key is inside or outside the car?
>
> Apparently. Doesn't make any sense to me, but hey...
>

Three receivers. It can know where the transducer in the key is, then.

>
> The safety issues are one thing. The sheer inefficiency of
> heavier-than-air flight is another...
>

Gliders are heavier than air, and are also rather efficient.


-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

On 4/19/2011 10:58 AM, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/19/2011 6:46, Mike Raiford wrote:
>> Oh, it can tell if the key is inside or outside the car?
>
> You still haven't read the owner's manual, have you? :-)
>

huh? Of course not!


>> I mostly use my Zune, nowadays,
>
> How do you like that, UI-wise?
>

Not too bad. It has some quirks, but it generally flows OK. It is rather 
convenient to have the button on the side to bring up the transport 
controls and pause/play.

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

On 4/19/2011 10:58 AM, Darren New wrote:

>
>> I mostly use my Zune, nowadays,
>
> How do you like that, UI-wise?
>

BTW, I meant to ask, why do you ask?


-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

>>> I mostly use my Zune, nowadays,
>> How do you like that, UI-wise?
> BTW, I meant to ask, why do you ask?

I've never seen one, I am writing programs for the XBox using the same 
development platform that runs on the Zune (and now the windows phone).

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

Post a reply to this message