potatohead

Yeah, it's confusing. Hard to tell what running through video equipment did, or maybe if they generated that text on an odd pixel... Could that be a double high-res screen and scroll like that?

I've an old T60 laptop I keep around because it's all setup with years of cool development stuff. Soon, I won't need it anymore as I'll have setup all I want on newer machines. It's fan is crap. Replaced it. That one is crap. I don't want to do it again, so... I don't need the machine at full speed. Running XP, it does fine clocked down to a modest and cool rate. But the BIOS wants to see that fan work at boot, and sometimes the fan starts rough, chatters, and the machine will fail. Enter the air can. Yes, I keep one next to the machine, power up, count one, two, spray pfffft into the fan, where it spins up, zzzzip, and the machine boots just fine. After that, who cares if the fan works at all? Runs plenty cool enough.

Cool. I wonder if this was done on a PC with CGA? The artifact colors make sense, particularly the fringing around the text.

That's 280 monochrome. The video is color, and for an Apple, that means having two pixels next to one another minimum is needed to form one white pixel. Individual pixels, on an NTSC color display, will actually show as color pixels, orange, blue, magenta, green. Lots of color patterns are possible too. For this type of display, the effective resolution would be 140 pixels to generate a reasonably artifact free text display as shown in the video. An Apple doing that kind of text, with that shape, etc... would likely be showing more artifacts in the text areas than we see happening in the video.

I don't think this was an Apple. The colors look about right, but the text seems to have better than 140 pixels of resolution associated with it. An Apple could scroll like that if it were not doing much else.

Minter did a great job with T2K. It and AvP are the only reasons I keep a Jag. AvP did not age well, but I think how it was a simulation is worth remembering. T2K is just fun every once in a while.

That is an RF modulator set for the UHF bands, not the VHF TV bands. In short, you use it just like the channel 3 or 4 type modulators that are common, only tune channel 33! Back in the day, this was a great choice as there were few signals in that range. Clean, clear, easy RF. These days, there are signals, but that little modulator has a nice, strong output. I recall it being pretty damn good for a modulator, and it was built for the Apple ][ funky video and generally performs well compared to other modulators. Composite TV input was not common when the Apple ][ series hit the market, though it was very common for the business type monochrome monitors. You can get an RCA cable and plug one end into the connector you showed us, the other can go into an Atari VCS style "Game Box" for use with a TV that has the cable type connector, or the older two screws type.

Man, TEMPEST has to be on some greatest games ever list. Heck, toss in most of the games Eugene Jarvis made. Lots of firsts in his titles, and done on cool hardware for the time. The greatness in TEMPEST is in the depth, how the levels scale, and the overall twitch + strategy factor. That game takes people right to human limits.

A computer game simulation involving politics, media, donations, etc... would be a great simulation type challenge.

@bill Or people will get better at selling direct and or making something of the ways we have to compete with free. Like it was said, if a small increase in buying happens, it can be a big impact.

Yes, they can be invalidated. Honestly, they should never have been granted in the first place. There really isn't any absolute protection, just as there isn't one world government. Right now, given how humans are, I think that's a good thing. Deffo shorter terms. In the US, this is a growing problem keyed to Mickey Mouse. Every time Mickey comes up, so does an extension. Disney can build an empire on the Brothers Grimm, without cites mind you, but nobody gets to build on Disney? Some how that is broken. It's problems like these that need just as much attention as casual infringement does. In fact, that's a nice trade that may well lead to a better state of things. And it's not like the current scenario is bad. The smaller entities need some help, but the larger ones are making lots of money. They just aren't making what they think they should make. Interestingly, that is a market and economics problem as I've put here. The dollars they expect largely aren't there, and who really values things? Markets say things are worth what people will pay for them. Right now, e-books are a very interesting case. Lots of pressure to price them as physical books, but some authors are finding sweet spots, $1.99 being one of them, where they can sell more direct, capture more margin, and do well in volume against the larger houses. Personally, I don't value an e-book the same. If it's DRM free, that's high value and I pay, because I can give it away, transcode it, use it in various ways, annotate it, etc... If it's restricted, that is much lower value. Paper takes labor, and it's robust, and it doesn't take enabling tech, and it's subject to the right of first sale, meaning it's really mine. Very high value.

I don't prefer that model. It is all too easy for it to be abused. Take software patents. Those are permitted in the US but not EU. OSS software would take a big hit if that were unified. I oppose software patents for a lot of reasons. Good to have parts of the world in agreement to compete with others. We can see the impact of things and let options play out.

I will also be brutally honest. I will not trade open computing for improved revenue. Ever. If that means we get less works, or some find it not viable to create, so be it. Happy to help improve, but closed computing is off the table. Costs and risks are too high.

As long as we have open methods, the *IAA groups can just compete with them. Sure, they will see some infringement, but we get ongoing freedom in computing, and we can opt to publish in other ways. Some people are seeing very good success doing that, and I personally want to reward and support it for the future. Having some slack in the system is IMHO necessary. It checks abuse and extortion otherwise possible. This leaves smaller operations with some issues, and it is also important to improve things for them, which is why again we all need to discuss this in frank, accurate terms.

Shawn, you point out the impact of crappy law. Current terms aren't optimal. They run long and in a large fraction of cases too long for people to respect them. A young person today would have a hard time exploring the history of software without some infringement, and a lot of money. As for music, the big message is people want to explore that too, and do so on their terms. Napster ruined FM for a lot of people, who found out how much was really out there. Making back catalog music avaliable is the right thing to do and when it is, people buy. But what of the modern acts? Clear conflict of interest there. Taylor Swift may well be out last platinum act. She says streaming devalues music, and from her and the major labels point of view she is right. But is that the goal? It isn't for me. I love to find niches and scenes and really drill down to their influences and get a lot out of it all. When I can buy right from the artist, or their label works in ways that don't get in the way, it is all a good, high value experience. Other examples abound. When we don't put these things into real, accurate terms, we run the risk of ongoing messes not progress to goals that make sense for everyone more of the time. It won't make sense all of the time, but it can be a lot better than it is now.

@atari8wares: You are on ignore for very good reason. Do not expect a response from me.

Seriously.

Yes. Correct.

@emkay Your analogy is crappy because it fails to speak to information dynamics. And you are not saying what I am. Let's be clear on that. If you really did understand and agree with my post, you would not have advanced that analogy. Re: not thinking about it back in the day. Totally. But we are here now and what we do will impact a lot of things. We need to think about it clearly now, or live with the impact of not doing that. @Jet boot How you feel about it is valid. I get that, and understand. You are not the only one dealing in expensive software and experiencing piracy. Problem boils down to clarit on how we feel vs the actuals in play. I'm speaking to the latter in the hopes of improving on the former.

That's a crappy analogy. Sorry.

+1 lusty wenches

Lessig outlines this in his book "Code", available here via Creative Commons: http://www.lessig.org/books/ We have these means to regulate behavior: Law, norms, money and markets, physics. Each of those has a domain of influence. Good solutions to improving behavior maximize all of those tools. Poor solutions fixate on one or more of the tools, potentially ignoring realities inherent in the others. In this case, the realities of the physics related to physical goods and information aren't being addressed when theft is the simple means for discussion. This will result in law that isn't well respected, and it's important that we do actually render law that makes sense if we are to avoid people abusing / ignoring said law. Why? Because where law fails, social norms, money and markets and physics will trump it. Simple as that. A better state of things begins with accurate and meaningful discussion. My point in this thread. From my point of view, people will do what they will. Law doesn't actually prevent anything. It does present as a remedy or consequence. The strength of law depends on people and how they perceive the law as just and true. Where that isn't in place, people can, will, do violate the law. That is a human reality and no amount of denial will address it. Code can act in an active way, but that's also checked by other people and other code too. Cat 'n mouse. We all know that game well. Norms are perhaps the most important thing here. Norms, say not hurting other people, are very strong. Using the wrong language, accusing people, treating them as if... all contribute to poor norms. Where there are poor norms, people don't care so much, and where they don't care, both law and norms are weak. That too is my point in this thread. I'll frame it this way: Attempting to characterize this as theft to maximize your position is equally poor behavior as infringing is. See how that works? Secondly, what are the general social norms related to that kind of thing? Simple. If we can't have an honest, meaningful discussion, why give any consideration? There is the problem in a nutshell, and again, my point here. In my post above, I communicated the impact of not infringing. And I'm perfectly happy to do that. It's the right thing to do. Frankly, I spend my advocacy time on this topic two ways: 1. Let's get educated on theft vs infringement and what that means and how the dynamics play out. 2. Encourage people to find alternatives and value things properly. Generally, this means buying less, but better, and finding alternatives to infringing and favoring creators who have flexible business models. --Just so we are clear on the position I'm speaking from.

Hey, I've published software myself. And I know the law, and I know the basis for the law, history, etc... And the ugly truth is you are flat out wrong about it. Sorry. My interest here is simple: Get it right so that the dialog leads to policy and law that resonates with physical realities. We will get a better state of affairs that way. If we all continue to get it wrong, this all will continue to be a mess and the costs of that mess and managing it comes out of all our pockets. Bad law is expensive. So is ignorance.

Fixed that for you. The hard, ugly, truth of it is that is an infringing act, not an act of theft. Those actions do not meet the legal test for theft as a criminal matter. This is why we have the word infringe. Those actions do meet the legal test for infringement as a civil matter. Whether or not that actually is a lost sale depends on a whole lot of things. The primary one is demonstrating a sale could have happened. Having funds available and a means to transact need to be in place. Another would be demonstrating the value proposition makes sense. Was the user motivated for a sale? Did they understand the product well enough to actualize the sale? Was the asking price reasonably aligned with their value perception of the product? Secondly, what would impact that? Free trial? Video? Etc...? Another thing which can very significantly impact that is a personal recommendation. Say one of their peers had a great experience and they communicate that successfully to significantly improve value perception. That biases potentials toward sales just as a free trial, demo, video, review, etc... does. Did that occur? From whom? Could be the infringer did it. Interesting isn't it? And that can happen in lots of ways too. "Here, come over to my house and play this thing!" "This game was great, but I"m done. Here's the disc." (Major league gaming is harming itself by discouraging this one, IMHO) "Look at this I checked out from the library." "My game has an invite. You can play too." And so on. My comments above about mind share are valid for infringing acts, as well as non infringing ones, as well as permitted acts, but not authorized by the creator, as in fair use. This could be the library, for example. Or a trade among people who the work was sold to. Now, compare and contrast works that are highly controlled in ways that limit these activities with those where those activities are built in, authorized, or just possible due to the nature of the work. That impacts the value of mind share to the creator and that impacts sales. It's not cut 'n dried here. This too has been shown in court as well as through a lot of studies and we have a lot of data speaking right to the ambiguity in play. There is also the economic realities. The dollars to fund all uses simply do not exist. This means either far fewer uses, or uses priced differently, and or competition for the dollars in all cases. And, again, infringing is wrong. I don't do it either. And I buy works where those things are all possible, avoiding those where it's not. Recognizing how those dynamics actually work is as important as educating people about the realities inherent in the differences between information products and physical goods.

For me, it's simple. Treat me right, price in line with value perception, and I buy with no regrets. Where that's not true I really don't buy, and frankly, there are a ton of things competing at any given time. I'll just buy from somebody treating me right, delivering good value for the dollar. Infringing isn't something I do these days. Frankly, I don't have the time. Where I do have the time, I want good value, no hassles, etc... Here is how that translates for games, music and movies. I bought exactly ONE major league game production in the last 3 years. Due to DLC and the diluted value I saw, my value perception of it is dubious at best. I'm not looking for future purchases very hard. I have bought quite a few $10 or so, small productions. Loved 'em, shared with others, who also buy. Value is high, and I am looking for new purchases. That's how gaming has resolved. Of course, retro for me competes very nicely with modern. I like the closeness of it, often the open nature of it, and it's fantastic to participate technically with few worries. I'm not the norm in that respect, but in terms of general value, I am increasingly the norm. PC gaming via Steam is a very good deal. Prices are modest, and I've got enough options to see good value. Consoles? Not so much for the major league productions. Indie stuff in that $10 range? Sweet. Bring it. Movies? Fuck it. If it's on a nice stream, I'm in. No theaters, no physical media, no DRM downloads. I just don't watch as many movies. This is just great actually. So I pay a subscription, and it's either there or not, no worries. What I'm finding is the Netflix productions, for example, are awesome. Love those, and they are competing with big movies rather nicely. I'm getting high value experience, and I have few worries. Music? If I can buy from the creator, I do that. Download, physical disc, whatever. As long as I get a good quality copy, no DRM so I can put it on my devices and use it as I want to, I'm golden. I've bought exactly zero major league productions in the last 5 years. If it's on a stream, great! I'm in. Same deal. High value, few worries, subscription. After thinking about it some, I have come to the realization I won't fund having cake and eating it too. If you want to sell me something, it's mine. Right of first sale. That means I get to give it to somebody else when I'm no longer in need of it, or I can transcode it, whatever my needs are. If that's not part of the sale, then I consider it a rental, and value it accordingly. This value is much, much lower. One or the other. I really don't feel good about both.