The Kaypro 10 was a portable, not a laptop.
The last time I saw anything like it, a friend got one for free, and was going to convert it into a portable PC. I don't think he ever did anything with it though. That's probably for the best.
If you ask the drive to read out the whole flash.
The maybe the firmware would have to go to the platter to get the real image.
Or the malware could regenerate the un-attacked version.
For instance: If it's a patch that loads into an otherwise cleared-to-known-vallue region it can detect that region while reporting flash content and report the cleared value, instead. Add a couple other tiny regions where it saved (or alread knew) the previous contents where it "sank it's hooks" and you can't tell it's there from its replies to dump requests.
JTAG seems safer.
Yep. JTAG, in principle, could be corrupted. But it would require substantial hardware support that almost certainly isn't there (yet!)
Which is why I always laugh my ass off at all these people who use PGP to sign things and put a hash on the same website you download it from
That's why you SIGN the hash. Then only the public key needs to be published by a different route.
And it doesn't HURT to publish it on the web site as well: Then someone tampering by substituting a different public key sets off alarm bells when that differs from the public key obtained from another site or by another path. Blocking that makes man-in-the-middle more complex: The attacker has to have essentially total control of the path to the victim and be able to recognize and substitute the public key whenever it shows up. One slip-up and somebody may raise the alarm.
Meanwhile: Even if publishing hashes on the same site may not provide additional security against MITM, it DOES let you check the download wasnt corrupted in transit (in ways other than malicious substitution). With modern protocols that's less of a problem these days than it used to be, but a check would be comforting.
... blue and brown. Just now, I opened the Washington Post link on my 24" screen in a sunlit room, and it was clearly white and gold.
Though the sensations are vastly different, brown is really dark yellow. The underlying color of that part of this dress seems to be very near the perceptual boundary (probably just on the yellow side of it). This picture seems to have the dress in a non-obvious shadow, so when it is viewed by someone whose visual system doesn't adequately pick up the shadowing and compensate, it crosses the boundary and appears light brown rather than dark yellow.
Another perceptual oddity is that a very slight bluish tinge to white makes it appear "whiter than white", especially in sunlight or other strong lighting. (I suspect this works by mimicing the differential response of the various color sensors in the eye when exposed to very bright light, though blue may also "cancel out" a bit of the yellowing of aging cloth.) Laundry products up through the 1950s or so included "bluing", a mild blue dye for producing the effect. (It fell out of use when it was replaced by a fluorescent dye that reradated energy from ultraviolet as blue, making the cloth literally "brighter than white" {where "white" is defined as diffuse reflection of 100% of the incoming light}, and which, if mixed with detergent products, would stick to the cloth while the surficant was rinsed away.) I suspect some of the "blueish is brighter" effect is going on here.
When I view the picture straight-on on my LCD display, the light cloth on the upper part of the dress appears about white and the image appears somewhat washed out. Meanwhile the lower half has a bluish tinge. So I suspect the cloth is actually nearly-white with a bit of blue. (Viewed off-axis it's very blue, but the other colors are over-saturated and/or otherwise visibly off-color. So off-axis viewing makes it look more blue and this probably adds to the controversy.)
Another color-perception issue is "teal", a color between blue and green. There are paint formulations of this color that give the sensation of "distinctly blue with a greenish tinge" to some people and "distinctly green with a bluish tinge" to others, even under the same lighting and viewed from the same angle. (I'm in the "slightly-bluish-green" camp.)
The first place I encountered this was on the guitar of the filksinger Clif Flint. (On which he played _Unreality Warp_: "... I'm being followed by maroon shadows
Perhaps they should be asking for a ".google" gTLD, for that purpose, instead of trying to monopolize a generic identifier.
I was about to suggest the same, but with ".goog", to make it shorter. (Can't think of a less-than-three-letter symbol that points to them as strongly.)
(It's also their stock ticker symbol, so maybe it's not such a good idea - it could cause a land rush and litigation from all the other publicly traded companies.)
If it makes you feel better, I vaguely remember working with MFM drives. It's been long enough ago where I don't remember anything about how they work.
I think I used this one. Looks like just about the same thing. It's probably identical inside.
The most ancient laptop I ever touched was a Compaq 386/16 with a 20MB 3.5" 1/2 height IDE drive. It sounds pretty much like the same, or probably the piece of crap I had was a predecessor. I do remember it was clearly a 20MB drive though. I swapped it for a regular desktop 40MB IDE that we had in the shop.
Everything I found about that series says it's IDE. I couldn't find anything specifically saying the physical size, but I suspect it was a 3.5" drive. I seriously doubt it was RLL, MFM, ESDI, or anything more exotic. So he's wasting everyone's time asking rather than just opening it up and seeing "ooh, a IDE drive." Even if it was, he could go find some combination of adapters to use it. Anyone who's worked with stuff long has a box full of adapters and cards for exactly this. Well, I did ditch all my ancient cards on eBay a few years ago.
I'd be surprised if the drive even spins though. Most of the time when I go to try ancient hardware, the drives don't spin, or spin enough, even though the owner remembers that it was working when they shut it off.
Lets see... What would they say? This is the one-sided conversation, since it doesn't matter what you say anyways.
"Ok, we can accept that estimate."
"Ya, ya, ya, whatever."
"We'll have that information to you by the start of the project."
"The information isn't ready yet, we'll have that by the time you need it."
"I thought we had that to you already. We'll have to check with the information source."
"The PMs have some changes."
"Here's the information, but there are some small changes."
"No, those are small changes, they won't impact the timeline."
"No, you can't have more time, we already made commitments."
"The PMs have some changes."
"What do you mean you won't have it in on schedule? You agreed with the initial estimate."
"You're going to stay here until it's done, I don't care how long it takes."
"I don't care that you've been in the office 30 hours straight, this is your fault."
"We're hiring an off-shore company to help you with the project. Get them up to speed."
"The PMs have some changes."
"Since we have the off-shore team, we need to cut your department back."
"I read an article saying Java is the future. Redo it in Java."
"What do you mean we're waiting on the off-shore company?"
"We fired the off-shore company. You're good, you can get it done in time."
"Ok, hire more people into your department, but we're only offering half the salary, and no more bodies."
"Why is this project so far behind? Don't you know what you're doing?"
"The PMs have these changes."
"Why aren't you done? We're weeks from the deadline!"
"You didn't meet the deadline. Don't you know deadlines are firm. We have commitments."
"I don't want excuses, I want results."
"You and your idiot team are fired. Get out of my building."
[2 months later]
"We need you to come back and finish the project. We need it by next Monday, that should be plenty of time."
"Here's all the new specs. They should be easy to do."
"What do you mean total rewrite, it's only a few chances. You are an idiot. Get out."
[1 month later]
"We need you to come back and finish the project. We need it by" {click}
"We need you to come back and finish the project. We need it by" {click}
"We need you to come back and finish the project. We need it by" {click}
"Why do you keep hanging up on me?" {click}
He was a wise man...
For me, no. I do macro work in Excel that can't be replicated in LibreOffice. I assume many other people as well. I know it CAN be done, but when you need a specific tool there is no denying that Office is simply the best productivity suite.
When Linux has a worthy Office competitor.
Until then, people will always want Windows (yes, I know you CAN get away without Office but for practicality people actually do like it). And even then... Windows isn't as bad as it was when Linux was so advocated for. It is stable, boots fast, and is relatively easy to use. Yeah, Windows 8 is a trainwreck but Windows 10 looks very good, and DirectX is a very good API.
I have a problem when people who are under the influence go out and interfere with non-intoxicated society.
That is not and never has been one of pot's effects. You're describing alcohol, not pot. Why not outlaw beer? Sorry, dude, but your stand is illogical, irrational, and ignorant.
I've heard of similar things. For example, this guy sending air, water, and sugar.
As long as you have the right safety labels, there shouldn't be a problem. The guy in the above link screwed up with the "Rocket Fuel" label.
If they were sending a mill, why did they say "It's a machine for making guns"? IT could have been labeled as coming from "GG Machine Works", and if they needed a declaration of contents it's just "a CNC machine."
I can't even think of the countless things I've shipped. Usually I'm only asked on International shipments for the customs declaration. If I explain what's in them, it's too complicated, so they just put "computer parts" or "tools".
I've received some things that surprised people, like ammunition (legally marked and shipped as such, handled by UPS), a truck front axle, and all kinds of weird smaller things.
Coincidentally, I saw this JE this morning right after seeing a report on CBS's morning news program that said that marijuana is by far the least dangerous of all recreational drugs. They found the most dangerous was alcohol, followed by heroin, followed by cocaine. I did a quick search, it doesn't look like they've posted it to their web site.
I've found an incredible amount of misinformation about marijuana. This article says "Those who might remember pot from the 70s - the marijuana grown and sold in Colorado today is up to 10 times stronger."
The difference isn't strength of the pot, it's how its potency is measured and how pot is and was sold. They take the pot, grind up the entire bag and test it.
Today, pot is grown indoors so it has no seeds, and only the buds are sold. In the seventies, they put the whole plant; stems, seeds, leaves and all. Leaves are far less potent than buds, stems have very little THC and seeds have none at all, and the seeds are heavy. I saw pot in the '70s that the seeds were more than half the weight of the bag. So grinding up the whole bag would indicate that it's 10 times stronger, when stoners always threw the stems and seeds away and usually saved the bud for the weekend.
The best pot I ever smoked was in Thailand in 1973-4.
Now, even if pot wasn't the safest of all recreational drugs, even if it were the deadliest, how does your neighbor getting stoned affect you or society at large?
There's a chapter in a book that was required reading in a college history class in the late '70s that shows how incredibly moronic prohibition is. Alcohol and Al Capone
Look at Mexico and Columbia. Prohibition is purely stupidly evil.
You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred. -- Superchicken
