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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.