http://hackaday.com/2016/05/29/dragging-teletypes-into-the-21st-century/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+hackaday%2FLgoM+%28Hack+a+Day%29&utm_content=FeedBurner+user+view
29 May
2016
29 May
'16
7:29 p.m.
http://hackaday.com/2016/05/29/dragging-teletypes-into-the-21st-century/?ut…
--
The contents of this e-mail and any attachments are intended solely for the use of the
named
addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. Any unauthorized
use,
copying, disclosure, or distribution of the contents of this e-mail is strictly prohibited
by
the sender and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the
sender
immediately and delete this e-mail.
29 May
29 May
8:02 p.m.
On Sun, 29 May 2016, wulfman wrote:
http://hackaday.com/2016/05/29/dragging-teletypes-into-the-21st-century/?ut…
--
The contents of this e-mail and any attachments are intended solely for the use of the
named
addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. Any unauthorized
use,
copying, disclosure, or distribution of the contents of this e-mail is strictly
prohibited by
the sender and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the
sender
immediately and delete this e-mail.
Did you have anything to say about it?
Or are you just dumping a URL on us?
8:15 p.m.
New subject: http://hackaday.com/2016/05/29/dragging-teletypes-into-the-21st-century
On 5/29/2016 7:02 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2016, wulfman wrote:
That might be confidential, Fred.
Wulf: this link would have worked as well :
"http://hackaday.com/2016/05/29/dragging-teletypes-into-the-21st-century"
Tangent: is it true as written that
*all* "teletypes speak 5-bit ITA2 code
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baudot_code#ITA2>"?
- J.
http://hackaday.com/2016/05/29/dragging-teletypes-into-the-21st-century/?ut…
--
The contents of this e-mail and any
attachments are intended solely for
the use of the named addressee(s) and
may contain confidential and/or
privileged information. Any
unauthorized use, copying,
disclosure, or distribution of the
contents of this e-mail is strictly
prohibited by the sender and may be
unlawful. If you are not the intended
recipient, please notify the sender
immediately and delete this e-mail.
Did you have anything to say about it?
Or are you just dumping a URL on us? 
9:52 p.m.
New subject: http://hackaday.com/2016/05/29/dragging-teletypes-into-the-21st-century
On 5/29/2016 5:15 PM, js at cimmeri.com wrote:
Wulf: this link would have worked as well :
"http://hackaday.com/2016/05/29/dragging-teletypes-into-the-21st-century"
Tangent: is it true as written that *all* "teletypes speak 5-bit ITA2
code <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baudot_code#ITA2>"?
I actually need
to figure if I can use such a setup to be a terminal for
systems with current loop I/O. I have a Microdata 1600 with an
integrated TTY port for the console device, and I'd love to have an
adapter which had USB serial (and for what it's worth, actual RS232
serial levels to a connector.
This is from what I see attempting to run a TTY from a system.
As to the second, the tangent the author puts in is wrong, I don't know
if an ASR33 can run 5 level easily, but all I've ever used are ascii 8
bit machines.
thanks
Jim
10:09 p.m.
New subject: http://hackaday.com/2016/05/29/dragging-teletypes-into-the-21st-century
On 05/29/2016 08:52 PM, jwsmobile wrote:
On 5/29/2016 5:15 PM, js at cimmeri.com wrote:
>
> Wulf: this link would have worked as well :
> "http://hackaday.com/2016/05/29/dragging-teletypes-into-the-21st-century"
>
>
>
> Tangent: is it true as written that *all* "teletypes
> speak 5-bit ITA2 code
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baudot_code#ITA2>"?
No, certainly
not. There are ASCII (7-bit) and other
varsions that probably spoke EIA code.
I actually need to figure if I can use such a setup to
be
a terminal for systems with current loop I/O. I have a
Microdata 1600 with an integrated TTY port for the console
device, and I'd love to have an adapter which had USB
serial (and for what it's worth, actual RS232 serial
levels to a connector.
This is from what I see attempting to run a TTY from a
system.
As to the second, the tangent the author puts in is wrong,
I don't know if an ASR33 can run 5 level easily, but all
I've ever used are ascii 8 bit machines.
ASR33 is an 8-bit machine.
Jon
11:14 p.m.
New subject: http://hackaday.com/2016/05/29/dragging-teletypes-into-the-21st-century
On 05/29/2016 07:09 PM, Jon Elson wrote:
ASR33 is an 8-bit machine.
The 5-level machine is a 32. Used lots for sending Telex and whatnot
back in the day. Conversion between 7-level and 5-level is a bit
messy; the LTRS/FIGS thing.
--Chuck
30 May
30 May
12:29 a.m.
New subject: http://hackaday.com/2016/05/29/dragging-teletypes-into-the-21st-century
On 29 May 2016 at 20:15, js at cimmeri.com <js at cimmeri.com> wrote:
Tangent: is it true as written that *all*
"teletypes speak 5-bit ITA2 code
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baudot_code#ITA2>"?
As Ed, Jon, and Chuck said; no not *all* teletypes speak 5-bit code.
The "most common" machines in the classic computing community of the
Model 33 family (ASR and KSR) speak 7-bit ASCII 1963 with a parity bit
(either marking parity, or even parity; usually).
The 5-bit equivalent to the Model 33 is the Model 32, as Chuck
mentioned. Similarly, there are other ASCII machines, the Model 35
family, for one is absolutely beautiful; it's based on the mechanisms
of the older (and tank-like) Model 28 family. In fact if I recall what
was said on the Greenkeys list, the Model 35 parts all have the same
names as their corresponding Model 28 parts, except with an '8' in the
name. But ask an actual expert.
Also, just to be slightly nit-picky, many 5-bit code speaking Teletype
machines made in/for the US speak the similar, but not quite the same
USTTY code. It only differs in the figure shift, where the bell and
apostrophe characters swap places (bell is on J in the standard, S in
USTTY), WRU (figure shift of D) is replaced with a normal printing
character (dollar sign), and the "national use" characters of F, G,
and H are defined as the excalamation mark, ampersand, and number
sign. The remaining figure shift characters are completely compatible
(and the letter shift doesn't differ at all).
Hence why in the ACPs that deal with teletype communications the
acceptable characters for use include only those which are held common
between the two versions of ITA2 and USTTY. And also why the bell code
for Flash precedence messages is <FIGS>JJJJJSSSSS<LTRS> (so that no
matter if the message ends up in Europe or the US, the machine's bell
will ring). (See: ACP-127(G), paragraph 137.e.)
Also, being I'm a process engineering student: The article makes it
seem like current loop signalling is a weird dead interface standard;
it's not. Current loop isn't that confusing a thing to deal with. We
still use it for whenever we need to have electrical signalling that
is more noise resistant or goes a longer distance than voltage level
signalling. Problem is that current loop converters cost way too damn
much. Also, unlike the generic "RS-232C on one end, 20mA current loop
on the other" converter boxes that are dumb as a bag of hammers, the
board in question has some active electronics for conversion "stuff";
which makes the board infinitely more cool.
Cheers,
Christian
--
Christian M. Gauger-Cosgrove
STCKON08DS0
Contact information available upon request.
11:52 a.m.
New subject: Typeface resembling 1403
Jeff Kellem created a typeface similar to that of the 1403.
https://1403.slantedhall.com/
http://6equj5.surge.sh/
It is not free.
He does not claim that it matches, "inspired by".
29 May
29 May
8:20 p.m.
I figured some of you might have had an interest. Excuse me if i was wrong.
On 5/29/2016 5:02 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2016, wulfman wrote:
--
The contents of this e-mail and any attachments are intended solely for the use of the
named
addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. Any unauthorized
use,
copying, disclosure, or distribution of the contents of this e-mail is strictly prohibited
by
the sender and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the
sender
immediately and delete this e-mail.
http://hackaday.com/2016/05/29/dragging-teletypes-into-the-21st-century/?ut…
--
The contents of this e-mail and any attachments are intended solely
for the use of the named
addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged
information. Any unauthorized use,
copying, disclosure, or distribution of the contents of this e-mail
is strictly prohibited by
the sender and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended
recipient, please notify the sender
immediately and delete this e-mail.
Did you have anything to say about it?
Or are you just dumping a URL on us?
8:30 p.m.
On Sun, 29 May 2016, wulfman wrote:
I figured some of you might have had an interest.
Excuse me if i was wrong.
WITH a sentence or so of commentary.
An email with NO content other than a URL and an impersonal signature,
but no personal description, and with a subject line of the URL looks
more like a malware offer than a mention of interesting content.
We need SOMETHING to indicate that it is from YOU, rather than from
crypto-locker. (and not just "Click on this!")
Do you trust Thunderbird to reliably block those kinds of emails?
8:31 p.m.
Did you have anything to say about it?
Or are you just dumping a URL on us?
Oh come on. He didn't do anything wrong. The link is clearly on-topic
and directly relevant to our hobby.
Yeesh.
8:48 p.m.
>>
http://hackaday.com/2016/05/29/dragging-teletypes-into-the-21st-century/?ut…
> Did you have anything to say about it?
> Or are you just dumping a URL on us?
On Sun, 29 May 2016, Evan Koblentz wrote:
Oh come on. He didn't do anything wrong. The link
is clearly on-topic and
directly relevant to our hobby.
Yeesh.
1) It was formatted as a malware offer, not as a discussion item,
with NO apparent human generated content.
Am I the only one here who receives emails that consist of malware links?
2) I am not reading my email in a web browser. It is not much difficulty
to copy the URL into a browser, but I'd like a mention of what it is
before being told to "go there".
It only takes a few words to explain why we would be interested in it,
and some sign that it is from our friend, not a bot generated spoof to
get people to a hijacked site. (ransomware upped the stakes on such
things)
9:17 p.m.
You either have a stick up your ass, are too stupid to know the
difference between a malware link and a real link OR
both.
Now go back to your worrying about the 0.00001% of links that contain
malware.
On 5/29/2016 5:48 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
--
The contents of this e-mail and any attachments are intended solely for the use of the
named
addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. Any unauthorized
use,
copying, disclosure, or distribution of the contents of this e-mail is strictly prohibited
by
the sender and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the
sender
immediately and delete this e-mail.
>>
http://hackaday.com/2016/05/29/dragging-teletypes-into-the-21st-century/?ut…
>>
> Did you have anything to say about it?
> Or are you just dumping a URL on us?
On Sun, 29 May 2016, Evan Koblentz wrote:
Oh come on. He didn't do anything wrong. The
link is clearly on-topic
and directly relevant to our hobby.
Yeesh.
1) It was formatted as a malware offer, not as a discussion item,
with NO apparent human generated content.
Am I the only one here who receives emails that consist of malware links?
2) I am not reading my email in a web browser. It is not much
difficulty to copy the URL into a browser, but I'd like a mention of
what it is before being told to "go there".
It only takes a few words to explain why we would be interested in it,
and some sign that it is from our friend, not a bot generated spoof to
get people to a hijacked site. (ransomware upped the stakes on such
things)
9:43 p.m.
On Sun, 29 May 2016, wulfman wrote:
You either have a stick up your ass, are too stupid to
know the
difference between a malware link and a real link OR
both.
Now go back to your worrying about the 0.00001% of links that contain
malware.
I'm glad to hear it.
OK, initially, I was glad that you've never encountered it.
But, your current rude behavior changes that, to being glad
that you have that perception of it.
9:54 p.m.
I did not start the fire.
On 5/29/2016 6:43 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2016, wulfman wrote:
--
The contents of this e-mail and any attachments are intended solely for the use of the
named
addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. Any unauthorized
use,
copying, disclosure, or distribution of the contents of this e-mail is strictly prohibited
by
the sender and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the
sender
immediately and delete this e-mail.
You either have a stick up your ass, are too
stupid to know the
difference between a malware link and a real link OR
both.
Now go back to your worrying about the 0.00001% of links that contain
malware.
I'm glad to hear it.
OK, initially, I was glad that you've never encountered it.
But, your current rude behavior changes that, to being glad
that you have that perception of it.
10:23 p.m.
brilliant :) thanks
On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 8:54 PM, wulfman <wulfman at wulfman.com> wrote:
I did not start the fire.
On 5/29/2016 6:43 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2016, wulfman wrote:
--
The contents of this e-mail and any attachments are intended solely for
the use of the named
addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information.
Any unauthorized use,
copying, disclosure, or distribution of the contents of this e-mail is
strictly prohibited by
the sender and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient,
please notify the sender
immediately and delete this e-mail.
You either have a stick up your ass, are too
stupid to know the
difference between a malware link and a real link OR
both.
Now go back to your worrying about the 0.00001% of links that contain
malware.
I'm glad to hear it.
OK, initially, I was glad that you've never encountered it.
But, your current rude behavior changes that, to being glad
that you have that perception of it.
11:46 p.m.
Top posting because....
It takes two (at least) to start it, and you certainly played your part.
While it is not "forbidden" to just post a URL without any explanation, it
would be a good idea to include something with it so that we know if we want
to click on it or not. Otherwise, it's going to just be skipped by a lot of
people that might have had an interest but weren't interested in going there
blindly.
Regardless of if one agrees with fred or not, I think he stated his concerns
without being rude. Let's keep the namecalling and rudeness out of it.
Nuff said.
J
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of wulfman
Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2016 8:55 PM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Subject: Re:
http://hackaday.com/2016/05/29/dragging-teletypes-into-the-21st-century/?utm
_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+hackaday%2FLgoM+%28H
ack+a+Day%29&utm_content=FeedBurner+user+view
I did not start the fire.
On 5/29/2016 6:43 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2016, wulfman wrote:
--
The contents of this e-mail and any attachments are intended solely for the
use of the named
addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. Any
unauthorized use, copying, disclosure, or distribution of the contents of
this e-mail is strictly prohibited by the sender and may be unlawful. If you
are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and
delete this e-mail.
You either have a stick up your ass, are too
stupid to know the
difference between a malware link and a real link OR both.
Now go back to your worrying about the 0.00001% of links that contain
malware.
I'm glad to hear it.
OK, initially, I was glad that you've never encountered it.
But, your current rude behavior changes that, to being glad that you
have that perception of it.
30 May
30 May
4:10 a.m.
I think it depends on if you are already aware of the existence and purpose
of the hackaday web site. Having had one of my projects published there I am
aware of the site and wouldn't hesitate to click that link. On the other
hand, if I wasn't aware of the hackaday site I might think differently, the
word "hackaday" also has unsavoury connotations to some, so an explanation
would have been helpful...
.. lastly the latest bunch of malware I have seen post realistic looking
documents with real phone numbers from real people, horrible....
Dave Wade
G4UGM
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Jay West
Sent: 30 May 2016 04:47
To: 'General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts'
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Subject: RE:
http://hackaday.com/2016/05/29/dragging-teletypes-into-the-21st-
century/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%
3A+hackaday%2FLgoM+%28Hack+a+Day%29&utm_content=FeedBurner+user+
view
Top posting because....
It takes two (at least) to start it, and you certainly played your part.
While it is not "forbidden" to just post a URL without any explanation, it
would
be a good idea to include something with it so that we
know if we want to
click
on it or not. Otherwise, it's going to just be
skipped by a lot of people
that
might have had an interest but weren't interested
in going there blindly.
Regardless of if one agrees with fred or not, I think he stated his
concerns
without being rude. Let's keep the namecalling and
rudeness out of it.
Nuff said.
J
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of wulfman
Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2016 8:55 PM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
<cctalk at
classiccmp.org>
Subject: Re:
http://hackaday.com/2016/05/29/dragging-teletypes-into-the-21st-
century/?utm
_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+hackaday
%2FLgoM+%28H
ack+a+Day%29&utm_content=FeedBurner+user+view
I did not start the fire.
On 5/29/2016 6:43 PM, Fred Cisin wrote:
the use
On Sun, 29 May 2016, wulfman wrote:
--
The contents of this e-mail and any attachments are intended solely for You either have a stick up your ass, are too
stupid to know the
difference between a malware link and a real link OR both.
Now go back to your worrying about the 0.00001% of links that contain
malware.
I'm glad to hear it.
OK, initially, I was glad that you've never encountered it.
But, your current rude behavior changes that, to being glad that you
have that perception of it.
of the named
addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information.
Any
unauthorized use, copying, disclosure, or distribution
of the contents of
this e-
mail is strictly prohibited by the sender and may be
unlawful. If you are
not the
intended recipient, please notify the sender
immediately and delete this
e-mail.
11 Jun
11 Jun
4:41 a.m.
Handy link. I have need of exactly that interface myself and didn't want to
design my own.
29 May
29 May
11:02 p.m.
You either have a stick up your ass, are too stupid to
know the
difference between a malware link and a real link OR
both.
There are a lot of ways that malware links can slip through.
My eyes are getting old and failing, so that some m's and look like n's.
or
There is a smudge on my screen, so that some k's look like h's.
or
Its 4:30 AM, I am plowing through email, and all the characters are
starting to blur.
Malware authors count on some of these situations coming up, with some
smart people with stickless asses falling into them, clicking,
and...well, maybe someone's day gets ruined. Remember, malware authors
expect very low yields, so even my somewhat outlandish examples might
be fruitful.
Basically, posting lone URL's like you did is really bad form in this
age - even on lists of trusted friends (which this is not!). I can
total respect Fred's issue.
In the future, please state the subject clearly.
--
Will
10:28 p.m.
If rockets ran on butthurt, we be colonizing Mars. And I'd have some
awesome candidates for the first round.
On May 30, 2016 09:32, "Evan Koblentz" <cctalk at snarc.net> wrote:
Did you have anything to say about it?
Or are you just dumping a URL on us?
Oh come on. He didn't do anything wrong. The link is clearly on-topic and
directly relevant to our hobby.
Yeesh.
11:38 p.m.
Special shout-out to the two well-meaning buttercups who emailed me off
list to mansplain me about how to conduct myself in an arena that appears
to have the emotional stability of a brain-damaged toddler.
On May 30, 2016 11:28, "Jason Scott" <jason at textfiles.com> wrote:
If rockets ran on butthurt, we be colonizing Mars. And
I'd have some
awesome candidates for the first round.
On May 30, 2016 09:32, "Evan Koblentz" <cctalk at snarc.net> wrote:
Did you have anything to say about it?
Or are you just dumping a URL on us?
Oh come on. He didn't do anything wrong. The link is clearly on-topic and
directly relevant to our hobby.
Yeesh.
11:49 p.m.
Keep it friendly. The last few posts on this do not comply.
Last warning....
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Jason Scott
Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2016 10:39 PM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Subject: Re:
http://hackaday.com/2016/05/29/dragging-teletypes-into-the-21st-century/?ut…
Special shout-out to the two well-meaning buttercups who emailed me off list to mansplain
me about how to conduct myself in an arena that appears to have the emotional stability of
a brain-damaged toddler.
On May 30, 2016 11:28, "Jason Scott" <jason at textfiles.com> wrote:
2963
days inactive
2976
days old
22 comments
14 participants
participants (14)
-
captainkirk359＠gmail.com -
cclist＠sydex.com -
cctalk＠snarc.net -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
dave.g4ugm＠gmail.com -
elson＠pico-systems.com -
jason＠textfiles.com -
js＠cimmeri.com -
jwest＠classiccmp.org -
jws＠jwsss.com -
tdk.knight＠gmail.com -
tony.aiuto＠gmail.com -
wdonzelli＠gmail.com -
wulfman＠wulfman.com