I thought that TIFF-within-PDF meant that PDF was essentially
a wrapper around the TIFFs, but I could be wrong.
--
You are correct. This is exactly how Eric Smith's tumble program
behaves. It is just a wrapper for jpgs and tiffs.
>from a self documenting sense, it makes no sense...
when someone can pick up a logic description and understand it WITHOUT having to figure out what each sytmbol means in the context of the usage, then it is simply more understandable. If I picked up something that had two binary numbers wiht a PLUS sign inbetween, I would not assume that it meant OR, only if you would dig further does the PLUS sign make sense. If you simply said OR, then there is no confusion and it is self documenting. I think Sellam was trying to make this point with regards to symbology.
I agree with Sellam about the insanity part... The symbols are arbitrary and WORK as long as you have your language description at hand.
-----Original Message-----
From: "Dwight K. Elvey" <dwight.elvey(a)amd.com>
Sent: Sep 28, 2004 3:07 PM
To: cctalk(a)classiccmp.org
Subject: Re: Relay computers - OR functionality
>From: "Vintage Computer Festival" <vcf(a)siconic.com>
---snip---
>
>None, I just felt like pointing out that whoever decided to use the plus
>sign for OR was most likely insane.
Hi
Actually from a mathematical sense, it does make sense. The
OR operation can be mapped to the plus operation and the
AND operation can be mapped to the multiply operation. One
finds that when doing this, many mathematical rules correlate
nicely. That is why it was done. Rules like associative and
communicative make sense. It wasn't just wild insane mad men.
When one understands the reasoning fully, one can except
the choices made. It is just that in your schooling, you
were never exposed to much Boolean algebra. That is too bad
because so much of what we do with computers requires a
level of understanding of how it works.
Dwight
Does anyone here use ImageMagick to produce their PDF files of old
documentation? I've got some scanned documentation here in TIFF format
which I need to munge into a PDF file using 'convert'.
Question is, will that result in loss of quality, or will the data for
each frame be stored in the resulting PDF file using exactly the same
colour depth and size of each input image? (I don't care if it uses a
different compression, providing it's non-lossy)
Last thing I want to do is store important data in a PDF file, only to
find that it drops the quality - and so at a future time I can't get
data of the input quality back out again!
cheers
Jules
On Sep 29 2004, 18:02, Michael Sokolov wrote:
> Pete Turnbull <pete(a)dunnington.u-net.com> wrote:
>
> > You're thinking of TIA 568,
> > where pair 1 is 4+5 (blue), pair 2 is 3+6 (green), pair 3 is 1+2
> > (orange) abnd pair 4 is 7+8 (brown)
>
> No, pair 2 is orange and pair 3 is green (always), but TIA 568A and
> 568B differ on whether orange pair 2 should go on 3+6 leaving 1+2
> for green pair 3 (568A) or vice-versa (568B). Everyone uses 568B.
Oops, yes, you're correct. Orange *is* always pair 2.
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Network Manager
University of York
My SB-180 hasn't seen power in about 18 years. I could read the EPROM
for you if you need a copy. I don't think that I have a ROM listing.
This guy may have it:
http://scott.squidliver.net/sb180/sb180-software.html
--tom
At 03:55 PM 9/29/2004 -0400, Cini, Richard wrote:
>Hello, all:
>
> Does anyone on the list have a source listing (either original or
>reconstructed) to the Circuit Cellar SB-180 monitor ROM? I did something
>stupid to it a while back and I think I blew something on the board. Now,
>when it boots up, instead of the banner I get what appears to be a
>diagnostic code in binary. The documentation package I have neither has a
>listing of the codes nor the ROM listing itself, and efforts to contact the
>original author to have failed.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
>Rich
Hello, all:
Does anyone on the list have a source listing (either original or
reconstructed) to the Circuit Cellar SB-180 monitor ROM? I did something
stupid to it a while back and I think I blew something on the board. Now,
when it boots up, instead of the banner I get what appears to be a
diagnostic code in binary. The documentation package I have neither has a
listing of the codes nor the ROM listing itself, and efforts to contact the
original author to have failed.
Thanks in advance.
Rich
>From: "David V. Corbin" <dvcorbin(a)optonline.net>
>>>> >>>
>>>> Can you create self modifying code in any high level
>>>> language, the kind of code where the application program
>>>> actually changes it's own instructions?
>>>>
>>>> I know in C it is possible to pass an address of a function
>>>> to a function, that's not really what I mean.
>>>>
>
>Actually this is (sort of) becoming more common. One exciting feature of a
>new platform by the software vendor who shall not be named, is that the
>compiler is actually part of the runtime. This means that any program can
>write source code to a string (or other structure) and compile and execute
>it!!!!!!
>
Hi
It was possible to do in early BASIC's that allowed a machine
code subroutine calls. One input the code as data and then called
it. Both LISP and Forth have the ability to, by program, compile
code and then execute it. It is done more often in LISP.
This is a different form of self modifying.
Dwight
On Sep 27 2004, 22:17, Tony Duell wrote:
> > Good news: You could even make an Ethernet/Twinax single jack, if
you're
> > not running faster than 100Mbps ethernet, as they run 1/2 & 3/6 for
their
> > pairs -- just use 4/5 for twinax.
> >
> > Bad news: *Most* pre-built cables don't follow the standard as to
where the
> > twisted pairs should be - most just go 1/2 - 3/4 - 5/6 - 7/8 - and
that's
> > bad for both Ethernet & twinax. You'll wanna punch down and/or
build your
> > own cables if you're going to do this.
>
> What?!?!?
>
> I've made the odd 10baseT patch lead, and I was always careful to get
1/2
> as a pair and 3/6 as another pair (I think the other 2 pairs were 4/5
and
> 7/8, but it;s been a long time..) Fiddling the wires into the RJ45
was a
> pain, but I assumed it was necessary....
>
> And you're telling me commercial cables get it wrong.
I've hardly ever seen a commercial standard Cat3 / Cat4 / Cat5 /Cat5e
cable that was miswired with split pairs. Telephone cables wired to
the old USOC standard are different[1], but not usually fitted with
RJ45 plugs, and flat cables are obviously not twisted pairs. Tony, I
wouldn't have any qualms about buying commercial cables. If you do
want to wire your own, the standard order (for TIA568B, which is the
most common scheme) is white+orange, orange, white+green, blue,
white+blue, green, white+brown, brown.
[1] They're not paired as 1+2, 3+4, etc either. The first pair is the
centre pins, the second pair is the two pins either side of centre, and
so on, working outwards.
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Network Manager
University of York
p-code never compiled down to native calls... .NET does
-----Original Message-----
From: emanuel stiebler <emu(a)ecubics.com>
Sounds a hell like p-code, few years later ;-)
Pete Turnbull <pete(a)dunnington.u-net.com> wrote:
> You're thinking of TIA 568,
> where pair 1 is 4+5 (blue), pair 2 is 3+6 (green), pair 3 is 1+2
> (orange) abnd pair 4 is 7+8 (brown)
No, pair 2 is orange and pair 3 is green (always), but TIA 568A and
568B differ on whether orange pair 2 should go on 3+6 leaving 1+2
for green pair 3 (568A) or vice-versa (568B). Everyone uses 568B.
MS
