You're quite right that most software license agreements decline to warrant
"suitability for any specific purpose," as a matter of the boilerplate, but
DEC sales agreements, not the licenses, specifically dodged the question of
their software doing anything of use at all. In any case, I found that
distasteful and, from the point at which I learned of that, declined ever to
associate myself with any DEC hardware or software again. I doubt that it's
cost me even a dime to do so.
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Ward D. Griffiths III <gram(a)cnct.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Monday, April 05, 1999 10:27 PM
Subject: Re: homemade computer for fun and experience...
>On Tue, 6 Apr 1999, Computer Room Internet Cafe wrote:
>
>> I've yet to see ANY software license that guarantees the software will
>> actually DO anything. Some do guarantee to take up space on a disk.
>> That's about it.
>
>Actually, I've never seen a software license that guarantees to take
>up disk space, though the bit on the outside generally implies you'd
>best have a bunch to spare. Hell, I've only seen one _printed book_
>with a space guarantee, when Robert A. Heinlein in his _Expanded
>Universe_ promised that the book would contain enough pages to hold
>the covers apart or your money back. (Mind you, lots of computer
>documentation would fail _that_ promise if they attempted it, be it
>hardware or software manuals).
>--
>Ward Griffiths
>"the timid die just like the daring; and if you don't take the plunge then
>you'll just take the fall" Michael Longcor
>
> What is it about hamfests that cause otherwise
> sane individuals to get up at the crack of dawn?
>
> Almost every computer involved person I know who
> has any control of their work schedule:
>
> 1) Gets up after the sun has properly warmed the earth
> where they live
> 2) Eats lunch for breakfast
> 3) Eats dinner for lunch
> 4) Has Chinese delivered at 1 a.m. for dinner
> 5) Sleeps till 2 or 3 p.m. on Saturday if at all possible
Like, I imagine, most people on this list, I do not regard myself as sane.
That said, I think the morning is a sadly under-rated time of day. My alarm
clock goes off at 6 am whether I need to go to work or not. I get up any time
between 6.00 and 7.15 on work days, 6.00 and 8.00 on other days. It is not
quite random - if I have been short of sleep lately, or am in the middle of a
good book, I tend to get up later.
And I find it quite hard to do anything remotely involving the brain after 10pm.
Am I really that unusual?
Philip.
<Aircraft Tragedies' shows, big airplanes aren't maneuvrable enough to turn
<while they're skidding. And don't they turn by adjusting the engine thrust
<anyway?
It's so they come to a stop. How else would you bring a 747 at 400,000
pounds from 140+knots to 0 in less than 7000 feet!
Turning is a whole different process.
I feel comfortable discussing this as a pilot on this point.
Allison
In a message dated 99-04-06 02:39:31 EDT, you write:
<< it certainly has me squealing...
At 11:24 PM 4/5/99 -0700, Joseph S. Barrera III wrote:
>... but it sure seems like it, lately. Can't we put the brakes on the ABS
>discussion (as it were :-)? >>
<they always seem to lock up. Well, the pumping action occurs but, at each
<application of the pump, I notice wheel lock-up. There is no stopping.
<
<William R. Buckley
I live in New England and nothing works on ice but ABS works better. If
your sharp and have ice racing experince you MIGHT do better manually.
The average idiot on the road driving a 2.5ton SUV doesn't qualify.
The put ABS on BIG airplanes for a reason and not for the added weight.
Allison
-----Original Message-----
From: Ward Donald Griffiths III <gram(a)cnct.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Tuesday, 6 April 1999 14:16
Subject: Re: ABS - or is it Pure BS
>Computer Room Internet Cafe wrote:
>
>> With all due respect, IMHO, simulators that are not mounted on big
hydraulic
>> jacks and convince you that you are in a real aeroplane are not much chop
>> for anything except perhaps teaching instrument flying, and fairly
limited
>> in that area.
>
>Even those have their limitations. The C5A simulator I used to
>service wouldn't tilt past 25 or so degrees from horizontal, so
>there was no way to practice a barrel roll. (Yeah, the computer
>flight sims will let you do that, but they don't teach you how to
>think with all of your heart's blood pressing on your brain).
Exactly. They also don't teach you to trust your instruments when your
middle ear is trying to convince you that you are flying straight and level
when in fact you are in a descending left spiral. You just don't get the
feedback in your loungeroom.
The best sims in the world can't duplicate that experience, but they are at
least enough to give you an idea. I know that people have been airsick in
the P3 sim at RAAF Edinburgh when they have turbulence dialled in. It's
fairly convincing for most things.
They can't quite duplicate the separation of the wing leading edge when the
aircraft is overstressed, but they can at least reproduce the conditions.
(Real Orions are known to do that, we lost one at Cocos Island a year or two
back that way, not a fault of the aircraft, it was being, ahem, mishandled
at the time.)
>I'll admit I'm not the engineer to build a decent _large_
>aircraft simulator to give that experience -- part of the deal in
>the C5A simulator was the fact that it was a rather large object
>with a bunch of people in the cabin, hard to make that realistic
>sticking the pilot (or navigator or flight engineer) in a closet.
Suspension of disbelief is fairly vital if the simulator experience is to
have much usefullness when related to the real world. It's got to feel real
enough to make you forget it's not an aeroplane, and it's got to behave like
the real aeroplane as much as possible without antigravity assistance.
Cheers
Geoff Roberts
On Tue, 6 Apr 1999, Computer Room Internet Cafe wrote:
> I've yet to see ANY software license that guarantees the software will
> actually DO anything. Some do guarantee to take up space on a disk.
> That's about it.
Actually, I've never seen a software license that guarantees to take
up disk space, though the note on the label generally implies you'd
best have a bunch to spare. Hell, I've only seen one _printed book_
with a space guarantee, when Robert A. Heinlein in his _Expanded
Universe_ promised that the book would contain enough pages to hold
the covers apart or your money back. (Mind you, lots of computer
documentation would fail _that_ promise if they attempted it, be it
hardware or software manuals).
--
Ward Griffiths
"the timid die just like the daring; and if you don't take the plunge then
you'll just take the fall" Michael Longcor
-----Original Message-----
From: Ward D. Griffiths III <gram(a)cnct.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Tuesday, 6 April 1999 12:16
Subject: Re: homemade computer for fun and experience...
>On Mon, 5 Apr 1999, Richard Erlacher wrote:
>
>> I have never had a desire for DEC hardware, mainly because of my distaste
>> (and disdain) for their application of technology, and of course for
their
>> overemphasis on the bottom line, meaning THEIR bottom line. If you read
the
>> fine print, their sales documents specifically deny that they claim their
>> products work. argghhh! I'm GLAD they're gone. THEY were the reason I
had
>> to have terminals around as long as I did.
>
>Ever read a MICROS~1 license agreement? The DEC sales material wasn't
>binding.
I've yet to see ANY software license that guarantees the software will
actually DO anything. Some do guarantee to take up space on a disk.
That's about it.
Cheers
Geoff Roberts
-----Original Message-----
From: Max Eskin <max82(a)surfree.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Tuesday, 6 April 1999 12:27
Subject: Re: ABS - or is it Pure BS
>On Mon, 5 Apr 1999, Allison J Parent wrote:
>
>>It's so they come to a stop. How else would you bring a 747 at 400,000
>>pounds from 140+knots to 0 in less than 7000 feet!
>
>So, why do you need ABS if you are just landing straight?
So that it doesn't :-
1) Beat the hell out of the tyres any more than necessary. ABS tends to
prolong tyre life by reducing damage that occurs during braking, like flat
spots. Aircraft tyres have a hard life at best (0 to 140kts in 1 sec or
so.)
2)On a slippery (read wet/icy) surface, they extract maximum braking
performance without reducing control. Consider the footprint of a 400,000ib
aircraft in comparison to a large truck. The truck has considerably more
rubber per lb of weight on the surface.
The aircraft needs all the help it can get.
Basically, if all runways were clean, dry and provided max braking at all
times, it's probably possible to live without it, but they aren't like that,
so it's very desirable.
Cheers
Geoff Roberts
VK5KDR
