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

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

Expand Messages
  • Neil Cherry
    ... And remember, always mount a scratch monkey! ... -- Linux Home Automation Neil Cherry ncherry@linuxha.com http://www.linuxha.com/
    Message 1 of 19 , Apr 24, 2013
      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 2 of 19 , Apr 24, 2013
        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 3 of 19 , Apr 24, 2013
          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 4 of 19 , Apr 24, 2013
            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 5 of 19 , Apr 24, 2013

              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 6 of 19 , Apr 24, 2013
                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 7 of 19 , Apr 24, 2013
                  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 8 of 19 , Apr 24, 2013
                    -------- 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 9 of 19 , Apr 24, 2013
                      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 10 of 19 , Apr 24, 2013
                        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 11 of 19 , Apr 24, 2013
                          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.