Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [midatlanticretro] More info on the latest TV prop deal -- show identified!

Expand Messages
  • Brian Schenkenberger, VAXman-
    ... Youngsters... http://www.nickh.org/silly/opcodes.txt -- VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG Well I speak to
    Message 1 of 19 , Apr 24, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      "Wesley Furr" <wesley@...> writes:

      >"As a note, the series' unusual name is derived from a term for a computing
      >code specifically designed to destroy a machine's CPU."
      >
      >Really? Never heard of such a thing! That alone doesn't bode well in my
      >mind... Unless of course there actually was at some point in history a
      >machine that could be physically damaged by code alone...in which case, I
      >sit corrected.

      Youngsters...

      http://www.nickh.org/silly/opcodes.txt

      --
      VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG

      Well I speak to machines with the voice of humanity.
    • Neil Cherry
      ... And remember, always mount a scratch monkey! ... -- Linux Home Automation Neil Cherry ncherry@linuxha.com http://www.linuxha.com/
      Message 2 of 19 , Apr 24, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        On 04/24/2013 08:55 AM, Brian Schenkenberger, VAXman- wrote:

        > http://www.nickh.org/silly/opcodes.txt
        >
        > --
        > VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG
        >
        > Well I speak to machines with the voice of humanity.

        And remember, always mount a scratch monkey!

        :-)

        --
        Linux Home Automation Neil Cherry ncherry@...
        http://www.linuxha.com/ Main site
        http://linuxha.blogspot.com/ My HA Blog
        Author of: Linux Smart Homes For Dummies
      • Kelly D. Leavitt
        From: midatlanticretro@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Wesley Furr ... The TRS-80 model II had a built in HCF in its video system. If you set the sync way out of
        Message 3 of 19 , Apr 24, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          From: midatlanticretro@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Wesley Furr
          > Really? Never heard of such a thing! That alone doesn't bode well in
          > my mind... Unless of course there actually was at some point in
          > history a machine that could be physically damaged by code alone...
          > in which case, I sit corrected.
          The TRS-80 model II had a built in HCF in its video system. If you set the sync way out of range it would actually burn things.

          From an old comp.sys.tandy post:
          Mark McDougall" <ma...@...> wrote in message
          news:45639840$0$1581$5a62ac22@......

          > Frank Durda IV wrote:
          >
          > > There were a few sound reasons
          > > behind this, because it was completely possible to program a Model II
          > > to burn up its video system (complete with smoke and sometimes
          > > flames), and a few other expensive hardware pieces were also
          > > vulnerable to being destroyed due to not knowing what you were doing or
          > > if you only programmed half the settings in the alloted time or
          > > similar issues.
          >
          > Wow, that's incredible, and one could argue, incredibly bad design.
          > Having said that, it's entirely possible to destroy your VGA monitor in
          > software too.
          The problem with the video was the monitor driver board. If a sync was
          way out of range, it could cause one of the drivers to just 'turn on solid',
          which exceeded power disapation specs. The problem with this was
          that not only did the part fail, it usually shorted such that it fed 12v
          back
          through the driver circuit. A lot of times it would get far enough to
          get all the way back to the video/keyboard card.

          Kelly
        • Brian Schenkenberger, VAXman-
          ... ;) For those that don t understand it: http://whats.all.this.brouhaha.com/2007/05/07/always-mount-a-scratch-monkey-the-real-story/ FWIW, last month I was
          Message 4 of 19 , Apr 24, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            Neil Cherry <ncherry@...> writes:

            >On 04/24/2013 08:55 AM, Brian Schenkenberger, VAXman- wrote:
            >
            >> http://www.nickh.org/silly/opcodes.txt
            >>
            >> --
            >> VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG
            >>
            >> Well I speak to machines with the voice of humanity.
            >
            >And remember, always mount a scratch monkey!

            ;)

            For those that don't understand it:

            http://whats.all.this.brouhaha.com/2007/05/07/always-mount-a-scratch-monkey-the-real-story/

            FWIW, last month I was up in old DEC country for an HP Connect function.
            I spoke with the DEC field engineer responsible for the "Scratch Monkey"
            incident. Since his hame was elided from the text at the above URL, I'll
            assume that he doesn't want to be known for this, so I'll not mention his
            name here. Perhaps, after a few beers next "festivus", you could pry his
            name from me. :)

            --
            VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG

            Well I speak to machines with the voice of humanity.
          • Neil Cherry
            ... Let him be, I m pretty sure it wasn t intentional and he had to feel pretty bad at the time of the incident. I m pretty sure he s caught enough hell even
            Message 5 of 19 , Apr 24, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              On 04/24/2013 09:17 AM, Brian Schenkenberger, VAXman- wrote:
              > Neil Cherry <ncherry@... <mailto:ncherry%40linuxha.com>> writes:

              > >And remember, always mount a scratch monkey!
              >
              > ;)
              >
              > For those that don't understand it:
              >
              > http://whats.all.this.brouhaha.com/2007/05/07/always-mount-a-scratch-monkey-the-real-story/
              >
              > FWIW, last month I was up in old DEC country for an HP Connect function.
              > I spoke with the DEC field engineer responsible for the "Scratch Monkey"
              > incident. Since his hame was elided from the text at the above URL, I'll
              > assume that he doesn't want to be known for this, so I'll not mention his
              > name here. Perhaps, after a few beers next "festivus", you could pry his
              > name from me. :)

              Let him be, I'm pretty sure it wasn't intentional and he had to feel pretty bad
              at the time of the incident. I'm pretty sure he's caught enough hell even in the
              pre-WWW.

              Hmmm, let me archie that for you ... (doesn't quite have the same wring to it
              does it? ;-) ).

              --
              Linux Home Automation Neil Cherry ncherry@...
              http://www.linuxha.com/ Main site
              http://linuxha.blogspot.com/ My HA Blog
              Author of: Linux Smart Homes For Dummies
            • Vince Fleming
              Anyone remember these old Unix jokes (that no longer work...) http://www.jokes2go.com/lists/list27.html My favs: $ rm God and $ cat food in cans ;)
              Message 6 of 19 , Apr 24, 2013
              • 0 Attachment

                Anyone remember these old Unix jokes (that no longer work...)

                 

                http://www.jokes2go.com/lists/list27.html

                 

                 

                My favs: 

                 

                $  rm God

                 

                and

                 

                $  cat "food in cans"

                 

                ;)

                 

                 


                From: midatlanticretro@yahoogroups.com [midatlanticretro@yahoogroups.com] on behalf of Neil Cherry [ncherry@...]
                Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 9:57 AM
                To: midatlanticretro@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: Re: [midatlanticretro] More info on the latest TV prop deal -- show identified!

                 

                On 04/24/2013 09:17 AM, Brian Schenkenberger, VAXman- wrote:
                > Neil Cherry <ncherry@... <mailto:ncherry%40linuxha.com>> writes:

                > >And remember, always mount a scratch monkey!
                >
                > ;)
                >
                > For those that don't understand it:
                >
                > http://whats.all.this.brouhaha.com/2007/05/07/always-mount-a-scratch-monkey-the-real-story/
                >
                > FWIW, last month I was up in old DEC country for an HP Connect function.
                > I spoke with the DEC field engineer responsible for the "Scratch Monkey"
                > incident. Since his hame was elided from the text at the above URL, I'll
                > assume that he doesn't want to be known for this, so I'll not mention his
                > name here. Perhaps, after a few beers next "festivus", you could pry his
                > name from me. :)

                Let him be, I'm pretty sure it wasn't intentional and he had to feel pretty bad
                at the time of the incident. I'm pretty sure he's caught enough hell even in the
                pre-WWW.

                Hmmm, let me archie that for you ... (doesn't quite have the same wring to it
                does it? ;-) ).

                --
                Linux Home Automation Neil Cherry ncherry@...
                http://www.linuxha.com/ Main site
                http://linuxha.blogspot.com/ My HA Blog
                Author of: Linux Smart Homes For Dummies

              • David Riley
                ... As others have noted, that description is incorrect, which makes me maybe a little less enthused about the show. Good chance their copywriters aren t as
                Message 7 of 19 , Apr 24, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Apr 24, 2013, at 8:15 AM, "Wesley Furr" <wesley@...> wrote:

                  > "As a note, the series' unusual name is derived from a term for a computing
                  > code specifically designed to destroy a machine's CPU."
                  >
                  > Really? Never heard of such a thing! That alone doesn't bode well in my
                  > mind... Unless of course there actually was at some point in history a
                  > machine that could be physically damaged by code alone...in which case, I
                  > sit corrected.

                  As others have noted, that description is incorrect, which makes me
                  maybe a little less enthused about the show. Good chance their
                  copywriters aren't as up on the lingo, though. An HCF opcode was
                  one that, intentionally or otherwise, trapped a processor in a
                  tight loop that was unrecoverable except by reset. If it was an
                  intentional opcode, it was usually for e.g. factory testing (just
                  incrementing the PC forever or something else with a diagnostic
                  purpose). If it was unintentional, as was the case with a few
                  early micros that used a PLA-based state machine instead of ROM
                  microcode, it was just a not-very-programmed area of the PLA that
                  had unexpected results.

                  Either way, it generally never resulted in the destruction of
                  anything unless there was some peripheral on the board (or off it)
                  that reacted poorly to random data writes. That definitely did
                  happen on occasion, but it was rare.

                  Seeing the phrase, though, does make me optimistic, however they
                  might have treated it in the promo copy.


                  - Dave
                • DuaneCraps
                  The wikipedia entry explains the reference .The writers must be geeks. I remembered from somewhere. I think it was an old BYTE article.
                  Message 8 of 19 , Apr 24, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    The wikipedia  entry explains the reference .The writers must be geeks. I remembered from somewhere. I think it was an old BYTE article.
                     
                     
                    Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 10:52 AM
                    Subject: Re: [midatlanticretro] More info on the latest TV prop deal -- show identified!
                     
                     

                    On Apr 24, 2013, at 8:15 AM, "Wesley Furr" <mailto:wesley%40megley.com> wrote:

                    > "As a note, the series' unusual name is derived from a term
                    for a computing
                    > code specifically designed to destroy a machine's
                    CPU."
                    >
                    > Really? Never heard of such a thing! That alone doesn't
                    bode well in my
                    > mind... Unless of course there actually was at some
                    point in history a
                    > machine that could be physically damaged by code
                    alone...in which case, I
                    > sit corrected.

                    As others have noted, that description is incorrect, which makes me
                    maybe a little less enthused about the show. Good chance their
                    copywriters aren't as up on the lingo, though. An HCF opcode was
                    one that, intentionally or otherwise, trapped a processor in a
                    tight loop that was unrecoverable except by reset. If it was an
                    intentional opcode, it was usually for e.g. factory testing (just
                    incrementing the PC forever or something else with a diagnostic
                    purpose). If it was unintentional, as was the case with a few
                    early micros that used a PLA-based state machine instead of ROM
                    microcode, it was just a not-very-programmed area of the PLA that
                    had unexpected results.

                    Either way, it generally never resulted in the destruction of
                    anything unless there was some peripheral on the board (or off it)
                    that reacted poorly to random data writes. That definitely did
                    happen on occasion, but it was rare.

                    Seeing the phrase, though, does make me optimistic, however they
                    might have treated it in the promo copy.

                    - Dave

                  • B. Degnan
                    ... show identified! ... computing ... my ... I ... Dave, I don t know if you ve noticed, but sometimes TV shows are kind of dumb. No, really. I never
                    Message 9 of 19 , Apr 24, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment
                      -------- Original Message --------
                      > From: "David Riley" <fraveydank@...>
                      > Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 11:19 AM
                      > To: midatlanticretro@yahoogroups.com
                      > Subject: Re: [midatlanticretro] More info on the latest TV prop deal --
                      show identified!
                      >
                      > On Apr 24, 2013, at 8:15 AM, "Wesley Furr" <wesley@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > > "As a note, the series' unusual name is derived from a term for a
                      computing
                      > > code specifically designed to destroy a machine's CPU."
                      > >
                      > > Really? Never heard of such a thing! That alone doesn't bode well in
                      my
                      > > mind... Unless of course there actually was at some point in history a
                      > > machine that could be physically damaged by code alone...in which case,
                      I
                      > > sit corrected.
                      >
                      > As others have noted, that description is incorrect, which makes me
                      > maybe a little less enthused about the show. Good chance their
                      > copywriters aren't as up on the lingo, though.
                      <snip>

                      Dave,
                      I don't know if you've noticed, but sometimes TV shows are kind of dumb.
                      No, really. I never watch tv shows though, so what do I know.
                      b
                    • David Riley
                      ... Well, yeah. I was just excited when I saw the title of the show, since it s definitely a somewhat obscure term if you don t work with 80s micros much, so
                      Message 10 of 19 , Apr 24, 2013
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On Apr 24, 2013, at 11:42 AM, "B. Degnan" <billdeg@...> wrote:

                        > Dave,
                        > I don't know if you've noticed, but sometimes TV shows are kind of dumb.
                        > No, really. I never watch tv shows though, so what do I know.

                        Well, yeah. I was just excited when I saw the title of the show, since it's definitely a somewhat obscure term if you don't work with '80s micros much, so I figured someone was part of the "in" crowd on their creative team. I don't watch "real" TV at all, mostly because 95% of it is worthless, but we do watch a few shows through Netflix (I will gladly pay $8 a month to not watch commercials ever again).

                        Most of the shows we do watch are AMC shows (Mad Men, Breaking Bad), which turn out to actually be pretty good, so I'd give this one a fair chance of being OK. I'll probably have to wait a while to watch it, though, because they don't usually come out on Netflix or DVD/BluRay until about a year later.

                        Still, something to look forward to. I mean, it's gotta be better than Big Bang Theory (which I did like at first, but which I find increasingly less interesting).

                        - Dave
                      • Bill Dromgoole
                        The Motorola M56000 digital signal processor chip has legal instructions that are considered as Insane . One is a parallel move instruction that writes the x
                        Message 11 of 19 , Apr 24, 2013
                        • 0 Attachment
                          The Motorola M56000 digital signal processor chip has legal instructions that
                          are considered as "Insane".
                          One is a parallel move instruction that writes the x register and the y register
                          to the same location.
                          The data book states that XDB and the YDB bus drivers may be damaged and
                          permanent damage to the chip may result.

                          See Motorola manual DSP56000UM/AD Rev 1 Appendix A.9.5 Insane instructions.
                          On page A-260 of my copy.

                          Later on Motorola said that it would not damage the chip but that the results of
                          execution are indeterminate.
                          https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!msg/comp.sys.next/5Bxs94tydJI/EdbFYWvNBz4J

                          BillDrom

                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: "Wesley Furr" <wesley@...>
                          To: <midatlanticretro@yahoogroups.com>
                          Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 8:15 AM
                          Subject: RE: [midatlanticretro] More info on the latest TV prop deal -- show
                          identified!


                          > "As a note, the series' unusual name is derived from a term for a computing
                          > code specifically designed to destroy a machine's CPU."
                          >
                          > Really? Never heard of such a thing! That alone doesn't bode well in my
                          > mind... Unless of course there actually was at some point in history a
                          > machine that could be physically damaged by code alone...in which case, I
                          > sit corrected.
                          >
                          > But...they still have my attention! Will be interesting to see how it
                          > goes...
                          >
                          > Wesley
                          >
                          >
                          > -----Original Message-----
                          >
                          > On Apr 23, 2013, at 10:35 PM, Evan Koblentz wrote:
                          >
                          >> The new show is called "Halt and Catch Fire" about fictional early
                          >> 1980s techies.
                          >
                          > With a name like that, I'm already interested.
                          >
                          >
                          > - Dave
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > ------------------------------------
                          >
                          > Yahoo! Groups Links
                          >
                          >
                          >
                        • Dave McGuire
                          ... ROFL! But yes. This is precisely why I ve not had TV reception capability at home for something like fifteen years. ;) (who the hell has that much free
                          Message 12 of 19 , Apr 24, 2013
                          • 0 Attachment
                            On 04/24/2013 11:42 AM, B. Degnan wrote:
                            >>> "As a note, the series' unusual name is derived from a term for a
                            > computing
                            >>> code specifically designed to destroy a machine's CPU."
                            >>>
                            >>> Really? Never heard of such a thing! That alone doesn't bode well in
                            > my
                            >>> mind... Unless of course there actually was at some point in history a
                            >>> machine that could be physically damaged by code alone...in which case,
                            > I
                            >>> sit corrected.
                            >>
                            >> As others have noted, that description is incorrect, which makes me
                            >> maybe a little less enthused about the show. Good chance their
                            >> copywriters aren't as up on the lingo, though.
                            > <snip>
                            >
                            > I don't know if you've noticed, but sometimes TV shows are kind of dumb.
                            > No, really. I never watch tv shows though, so what do I know.

                            ROFL!

                            But yes. This is precisely why I've not had TV reception capability at
                            home for something like fifteen years. ;) (who the hell has that much free
                            time?!)

                            -Dave

                            --
                            Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
                            New Kensington, PA
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.