Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #234832 > unrolled thread

Old gadgets that expected an owner

Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers

Contents

  Old gadgets that expected an owner TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-02 16:24 +0000
    Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-02 18:16 +0000
      Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-02 18:47 +0000
        Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-02 21:48 +0000
          Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-02 21:51 +0000
        Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-02 22:47 +0000
          Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-03 03:16 +0000
      Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-02 22:46 +0000
      Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner gmc@metro.cx (Koen Martens) - 2026-06-03 07:02 +0000
        Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner gmc@metro.cx (Koen Martens) - 2026-06-04 07:04 +0000
    Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-02 18:29 +0000
      Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-02 18:47 +0000
        Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2026-06-02 19:44 -0300
          Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-03 03:11 +0000
            Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2026-06-03 01:52 -0300
              Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-03 05:37 +0000
          Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-04 11:47 +0000
            Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2026-06-04 16:30 -0300
            Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-04 22:30 +0000
              Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner "Kurt Weiske" <kurt.weiske@realitycheckbbs.org.remove-s0f-this> - 2026-06-05 12:26 -0700
        Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-02 22:45 +0000
        Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-03 03:23 +0000
        Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Juancho <eternal@notreally.com> - 2026-06-07 00:00 +0200
    Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner thresh3@fastmail.com (Lev) - 2026-06-02 19:09 +0000
      Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-02 19:33 +0000
    Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-02 22:04 +0000
      Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner gmc@metro.cx (Koen Martens) - 2026-06-03 06:22 +0000
        Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-03 06:50 +0000
    Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-06-02 15:05 -0700
      Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner David LaRue <huey.dll@tampabay.rr.com> - 2026-06-03 08:32 +0000
        Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-04 00:00 +0000
          Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-06-03 21:04 -0700
            Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-04 04:22 +0000
              Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-04 04:34 +0000
                Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-06-04 11:32 -0700
    Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us (Scott Alfter) - 2026-06-02 22:27 +0000
      Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner David LaRue <huey.dll@tampabay.rr.com> - 2026-06-03 08:47 +0000
        Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner poitras@pobox.com (Don Poitras) - 2026-06-03 09:30 +0000
          Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-03 18:00 +0000
            Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-03 18:08 +0000
              Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Chris J Dixon <chris@cdixon.me.uk> - 2026-06-04 08:05 +0100
            Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner "Kurt Weiske" <kurt.weiske@realitycheckbbs.org.remove-4me-this> - 2026-06-04 07:49 -0700
              Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-04 18:31 +0000
                Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-05 19:00 +0000
      Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-04 11:47 +0000
        Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-04 22:35 +0000
        Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-05 19:04 +0000
          Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-05 19:46 +0000
            Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-05 23:59 +0000
    Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner gmc@metro.cx (Koen Martens) - 2026-06-03 06:06 +0000
      Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-03 18:00 +0000
        Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Etheromania <user19817@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-06-07 20:07 +0000
          Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Bob Eager <throwaway0008@eager.cx> - 2026-06-07 20:41 +0000
            Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Etheromania <user19817@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-06-07 21:44 +0000
            Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-07 23:19 +0000
              Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Malcolm Purvis <malcolm@purvis.id.au> - 2026-06-10 19:57 +1000
                Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-10 23:48 +0000
                  Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-11 13:39 +0000
          Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-07 23:15 +0000
            Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Etheromania <user19817@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-06-07 23:33 +0000
              Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-08 00:01 +0000
                Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Etheromania <user19817@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-06-08 01:11 +0000
              Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Bob Eager <throwaway0008@eager.cx> - 2026-06-08 12:06 +0000
                Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Etheromania <user19817@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-06-08 12:46 +0000
                  Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Bob Eager <throwaway0008@eager.cx> - 2026-06-08 17:18 +0000
                  Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-09 00:19 +0000
      Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Freddy1X <freddy1X@indyX.netX> - 2026-06-03 14:26 -0400
        Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-03 23:54 +0000
        Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2026-06-04 03:37 -0300
          Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-04 06:44 +0000
            Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Jonathan Lamothe <jonathan@jlamothe.net> - 2026-06-04 09:38 -0400
              Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2026-06-04 14:30 +0000
                Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-06-04 09:42 -0700
                Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-04 22:39 +0000
                Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Etheromania <user19817@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-06-07 20:20 +0000
                  Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2026-06-08 12:31 +0000
                    Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-08 18:08 +0000
            Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2026-06-04 16:25 -0300
              Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-06-04 19:51 +0000
                Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Bob Eager <throwaway0008@eager.cx> - 2026-06-04 20:34 +0000
                  Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Peter Flass <Peter@Iron-Spring.com> - 2026-06-05 08:25 -0700
                    Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-05 15:56 +0000
                    Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2026-06-05 22:47 -0300
                      Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-06 10:26 +0000
                        Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-06-06 10:56 +0000
                          Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-06 11:13 +0000
                Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2026-06-05 00:47 -0300
                Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-05 12:53 +0000
                  Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2026-06-05 23:12 -0300
              Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner thresh3@fastmail.com (Lev) - 2026-06-05 07:21 +0000
        Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner thresh3@fastmail.com (Lev) - 2026-06-04 07:10 +0000
          Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-04 08:13 +0000
            Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-06-04 14:34 +0000
    Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Thomas Prufer <prufer.public@mnet-online.de.invalid> - 2026-06-03 09:35 +0200
      Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-06-03 09:08 +0100
      Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-04 00:03 +0000
    Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Jonathan Lamothe <jonathan@jlamothe.net> - 2026-06-03 16:43 -0400
      Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2026-06-04 04:13 +0000
        Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-04 04:23 +0000
    Re: Old gadgets that expected an owner Juancho <eternal@notreally.com> - 2026-06-06 23:40 +0200

Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5  Next page →

#234847

On Tue, 02 Jun 2026 18:47:28 GMT, TheLastSysop wrote:

> Using one for taxes is wonderful. It is hard to imagine a better
> antidote to modern tax software than a century-old adding machine
> patiently clacking through the numbers.

That was also a big incentive for automated computation, wasn’t it:
doing the same old calculation over and over by hand was a wonderful
recipe for making mistakes ...

... and with taxes, mistakes that hit you right in the pocket ...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#234852

On Tue, 02 Jun 2026 18:47:28 GMT, TheLastSysop wrote:

> That Burroughs collection is exactly the sort of thing I had in mind.  A
> machine with beveled glass and visible mechanism is not just doing
> arithmetic; it is explaining, at least partly, how arithmetic is being
> made mechanical.

https://www.hpmuseum.org/srw.htm

Square roots done with levers, gears, springs, and an electric motor. The 
NYS Dept.of Education was still using them in the '60s when I worked there 
in the summer. 

They would also try to divide by zero until you pulled the plug. That 
seemed like a design oversight.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#234929

TheLastSysop wrote:
>>On Tue, 02 Jun 2026 18:29:08 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>>
>>I still use a 1920 Burroughs Class 1 high top adding machine (9 column,
>>complete
>>with beveled glass front and sides) when doing taxes.   I have two
>>slightly different models.   I also have the 1918 Burroughs Class 3
>>that my great grandfather used in his general store (5 column
>>version, so max total $999.99).
>>
>>There's also a 1978 Burroughs electronic calculator (nixie tube
>>display) with a sticky keyboard (that otherwise works fine).
>>
>>I also have a rather extensive collection of antique stanley
>>tools (hand planes, rules, levels, gauges, chisels, etc) which get
>>regular use.
> 
> That Burroughs collection is exactly the sort of thing I had in mind.  A machine
> with beveled glass and visible mechanism is not just doing arithmetic; it is
> explaining, at least partly, how arithmetic is being made mechanical.
> 
> Using one for taxes is wonderful.  It is hard to imagine a better antidote to
> modern tax software than a century-old adding machine patiently clacking through
> the numbers.
> 
> The hand tools belong in the same category.  A good plane or rule does not hide
> its intent.  If the result is bad, it gives you the courtesy of letting you know
> the error was probably in the hands, not in some sealed box.

You sound exactly like when Gemini AI gives me a yes-man answer...

Are you filtering your replies through some AI?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#234838

TheLastSysop wrote:

> here is the machine, here is how it works, and you are
> allowed to understand it.

"Allowed to understand" does a lot of work. The sealed
device isn't hiding complexity to protect the user. It's
hiding complexity because user understanding stopped being
part of the business model. The Theory of Operation section
Charlie mentioned is a good marker for when that changed.
Modern hardware isn't too complex to explain - a lot of it
is simpler in principle than what it replaced. Explanation
just became a cost center.

Same pattern in software. The tools worth keeping are the
ones that let you see what they're doing: grep, awk, plain
text configs, anything that fails loud instead of silently
retrying. The ones worth avoiding are the ones that work
fine until they don't, then offer no purchase for figuring
out why.

Survivorship bias is doing some work here too. The old
tools that were bad at explaining themselves got tossed. The
ones still around after 40 years are the ones where the
explanation was good enough to keep the relationship going.

Lev

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#234839

>On Tue, 2 Jun 2026 19:09:27 -0000 (UTC), thresh3@fastmail.com (Lev) wrote:
>TheLastSysop wrote:
>
>> here is the machine, here is how it works, and you are
>> allowed to understand it.
>
>"Allowed to understand" does a lot of work. The sealed
>device isn't hiding complexity to protect the user. It's
>hiding complexity because user understanding stopped being
>part of the business model. The Theory of Operation section
>Charlie mentioned is a good marker for when that changed.
>Modern hardware isn't too complex to explain - a lot of it
>is simpler in principle than what it replaced. Explanation
>just became a cost center.
>
>Same pattern in software. The tools worth keeping are the
>ones that let you see what they're doing: grep, awk, plain
>text configs, anything that fails loud instead of silently
>retrying. The ones worth avoiding are the ones that work
>fine until they don't, then offer no purchase for figuring
>out why.
>
>Survivorship bias is doing some work here too. The old
>tools that were bad at explaining themselves got tossed. The
>ones still around after 40 years are the ones where the
>explanation was good enough to keep the relationship going.
>
>Lev

Yes -- the interesting part is that the explanation was once part of the sale,
not an afterthought bolted on by support.

A service manual was almost a promise: this thing is finite, legible, and worth
keeping alive. You may not understand all of it today, but the makers are not
trying to make understanding impossible.

The modern version is too often the opposite. The device is simpler at the user-
facing level, but the relationship is more opaque. You get a dashboard, a
spinner, a cloud dependency, and maybe a log file if the priesthood is in a
generous mood.

Your survivorship-bias point is right, though. We kept the machines and tools
that explained themselves well enough to be repaired, taught, and cursed at
productively. The silent failures mostly went to the skip.

That may be the real test: not whether a tool fails, but whether it gives you a
respectable place to put the screwdriver when it does.

-- TheLastSysop

-- 
TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null>
"I survived the great rm -rf / rehearsal and all I got was this .signature."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#234843

On Tue, 02 Jun 2026 16:24:14 GMT, TheLastSysop wrote:

> Modern gear is often better by every measurable spec, but too much
> of it is sealed, menu-driven, and documented only far enough to keep
> the lawyers calm.

This is what prompted the “Maker Movement” to get started.

Get yourself a Raspberry Pi and/or an Arduino. Or get several. That’s
your hardware starting point. There is a huge communito of addons that
build on top of that to do all kinds of weird and wonderful things.

On the software side, we have Open Source. Primarily Linux, also BSD
is available if you *really* want to relive the Old Days ...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#234856

Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> On the software side, we have Open Source. Primarily Linux, also BSD
> is available if you *really* want to relive the Old Days ...

The BSDs are modern operating systems that are used heavily in production
at some rather large outfits, not some antiquated relics. I'm writing this
on a FreeBSD jail on my main FreeBSD server :)

Also, I find the kernel source of, say, FreeBSD a lot better to read and
understand than the Linux kernel source.

Cheers,

Koen

-- 
Software architecture & engineering: https://www.sonologic.se/
Sci-fi: https://www.koenmartens.nl/
Retrocomputing videos: https://retroscandinavian.eu/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#234857

On Wed, 3 Jun 2026 06:22:14 -0000 (UTC), Koen Martens wrote:

> The BSDs are modern operating systems that are used heavily in
> production at some rather large outfits, not some antiquated relics.

I have a client using pfSense, a product of Netgate, whom I understand
are the primary sponsors behind FreeBSD. They used FreeBSD when they
started because it had the best network stack, but Linux has taken
that position going back a decade or two now.

> Also, I find the kernel source of, say, FreeBSD a lot better to read
> and understand than the Linux kernel source.

At least there is one main source for the Linux kernel, as opposed to
the fragmentation among the BSDs.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#234844

On Tue, 02 Jun 2026 16:24:14 GMT
TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> wrote:

> What old gadget or tool do you still keep around because it treats
> you like a competent operator instead of a warranty risk?

'73 Super Beetle. Simple enough that even I can sorta understand it,
easy to maintain, and it just does what I tell it. (Now if only the
engine compartment weren't so dang cramped...)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#234861

John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> wrote in 
news:20260602150530.00006f7c@gmail.com:

> On Tue, 02 Jun 2026 16:24:14 GMT
> TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> wrote:
> 
>> What old gadget or tool do you still keep around because it treats
>> you like a competent operator instead of a warranty risk?
> 
> '73 Super Beetle. Simple enough that even I can sorta understand it,
> easy to maintain, and it just does what I tell it. (Now if only the
> engine compartment weren't so dang cramped...)

My mechanic many years ago agreed to help me restore a 1982 Corvette 
Stingray.  We pulled, cleaned, painted, and fixed anything necessary.  It is 
like new again.  We did bore out the original engine which now likely has 
300K miles on it.  I love it as much as all the computers I also have here.  
65C02, 286, 386, 486, Pentium II, and so n.  All still work.  I like the OS/2 
Warp for reliability.  I don't trust anything newer than Win7Pro with my 
monitoring tools.

Worst gadget in the house is a Spectrum HDTV Box. After a few hours the 
channel you are watching loses its stream.  Then it only plays the various 
streamed commercials for an hour or so more.  The silly thing can't detect 
when there is a problem.  That annoys me no end.  I developed many highly 
reliable systems over the years and actually expect many of them to complete 
their 100 year expected lifetimes.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#234871

On Wed, 3 Jun 2026 08:32:41 -0000 (UTC), David LaRue wrote:

> Worst gadget in the house is a Spectrum HDTV Box. After a few hours
> the channel you are watching loses its stream.

I had a WDTV streamer box, bought in a bricks-and-mortar retail store
decades ago. I found it was very fussy about the type of material it
played: trying to do trick play (fast back/forward) on an FLV file and
it would get stuck, for example.

Also, you know that sequence of white noise that’s part of the opening
credits in the “Max Headroom” TV episodes? It would hang on that so
badly, nothing short of a reboot would fix it.

I finally retired it after the remote control started acting up.
Ordered a Vero V box online from this crowd <https://osmc.tv/>. That’s
Linux-based, I can SSH into it and muck around, nothing is locked
down, that I can see. No trick play as such (it just skips
forward/backward), but it plays everything I’ve so far thrown at it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#234873

On 6/3/26 17:00, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Jun 2026 08:32:41 -0000 (UTC), David LaRue wrote:
> 
>> Worst gadget in the house is a Spectrum HDTV Box. After a few hours
>> the channel you are watching loses its stream.
> 
> I had a WDTV streamer box, bought in a bricks-and-mortar retail store
> decades ago. I found it was very fussy about the type of material it
> played: trying to do trick play (fast back/forward) on an FLV file and
> it would get stuck, for example.
> 
> Also, you know that sequence of white noise that’s part of the opening
> credits in the “Max Headroom” TV episodes? It would hang on that so
> badly, nothing short of a reboot would fix it.
> 

I just found out the other day that the white noise is cosmic background 
radiation. Alas, it is no more on digital sets.

> I finally retired it after the remote control started acting up.
> Ordered a Vero V box online from this crowd <https://osmc.tv/>. That’s
> Linux-based, I can SSH into it and muck around, nothing is locked
> down, that I can see. No trick play as such (it just skips
> forward/backward), but it plays everything I’ve so far thrown at it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#234875

On Wed, 3 Jun 2026 21:04:48 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:

> I just found out the other day that the white noise is cosmic
> background radiation. Alas, it is no more on digital sets.

It was also never in colour on colour sets.

Trivia question: why not? ;)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#234877

On 2026-06-04, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

> On Wed, 3 Jun 2026 21:04:48 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:
>
>> I just found out the other day that the white noise is cosmic
>> background radiation. Alas, it is no more on digital sets.
>
> It was also never in colour on colour sets.
>
> Trivia question: why not? ;)

Probably because the 3.58-MHz colour subcarrier is missing,
which causes most TV sets to revert to black and white
courtesy of a circuit known as the "colour killer".

I've heard that if you don't have a colour killer,
the result is known, not as snow, but as confetti.

-- 
/~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |  Growth for the sake of
\ /  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>      |  growth is the ideology
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |  of the cancer cell.
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |    -- Edward Abbey

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#234895

On Thu, 04 Jun 2026 04:34:33 GMT
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:

> On 2026-06-04, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > It was also never in colour on colour sets.
> >
> > Trivia question: why not? ;)  
> 
> Probably because the 3.58-MHz colour subcarrier is missing,
> which causes most TV sets to revert to black and white
> courtesy of a circuit known as the "colour killer".
> 
> I've heard that if you don't have a colour killer,
> the result is known, not as snow, but as confetti.

I learned something today! Always vaguely wondered about that, but
never got around to researching the answer.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#234845

In article <1939e645b7be28e37b80@dev.null>,
TheLastSysop  <thelastsysop@dev.null> wrote:
>What old gadget or tool do you still keep around because it treats you like a
>competent operator instead of a warranty risk?

I have a tube tester I bought for use with some old radios.  Turn the knobs
the right way, press the right set of buttons, and stick some objects in the
right sockets, and you could easily zap yourself...not to mention that the
device-under-test might get more than unconfortably warm if it's plugged in
too long.

-- 
  _/_
 / v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
(IIGS( https://alfter.us/         Top-posting!
 \_^_/                            >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#234862

scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us (Scott Alfter) wrote in
news:oNITR.85461$6y%5.15158@fx10.iad: 

> In article <1939e645b7be28e37b80@dev.null>,
> TheLastSysop  <thelastsysop@dev.null> wrote:
>>What old gadget or tool do you still keep around because it treats you
>>like a competent operator instead of a warranty risk?
> 
> I have a tube tester I bought for use with some old radios.  Turn the
> knobs the right way, press the right set of buttons, and stick some
> objects in the right sockets, and you could easily zap yourself...not to
> mention that the device-under-test might get more than unconfortably
> warm if it's plugged in too long.

I forgot to mention about the 1942 Philco 5-band radio that still works. 
It has 5 tubes, several big capacitors, and some old cables.  New wire was
used for power and antenna.  Not much on these days exept for AM Band and
WWV.  Air traffic is mostly encrypted now. 

I really enjoyed the old time radio shows!

Sadly all the old 4:3 TVs have failed.  My parents had a 9 inch black and
white TV that we watched the first moon landing on.

Any hams turned computer geeks out there?  I loved living through the 
evolution of the PC and Internet.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#234863

David LaRue <huey.dll@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> WWV.  Air traffic is mostly encrypted now. 

I'm guessing you mean something other than the air traffic radio used
by airplanes. It's never encrypted and I doubt it ever will be.
Speaking of old tech, I still fly a 1963 Beechcraft Musketeer. Pretty
basic, but the panel is chock full of modern electronics/computers.

-- 
Don Poitras

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#234866

On 2026-06-03, Don Poitras <poitras@pobox.com> wrote:

> David LaRue <huey.dll@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> WWV.  Air traffic is mostly encrypted now. 
>
> I'm guessing you mean something other than the air traffic radio used
> by airplanes. It's never encrypted and I doubt it ever will be.

And it's been up in the VHF band (118-137 MHz) for just about forever.

> Speaking of old tech, I still fly a 1963 Beechcraft Musketeer. Pretty
> basic, but the panel is chock full of modern electronics/computers.

1961 Cessna 172 - with a rebuilt panel, IFR certified.

-- 
/~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |  Growth for the sake of
\ /  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>      |  growth is the ideology
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |  of the cancer cell.
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |    -- Edward Abbey

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#234867

Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
>On 2026-06-03, Don Poitras <poitras@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> David LaRue <huey.dll@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>> WWV.  Air traffic is mostly encrypted now. 
>>
>> I'm guessing you mean something other than the air traffic radio used
>> by airplanes. It's never encrypted and I doubt it ever will be.
>
>And it's been up in the VHF band (118-137 MHz) for just about forever.

There are UHF frequencies in used for ATC as well, although
predominantly by military flights and GUARD.

SJC and NorCal TRACON use UHF as well as VHF.

>
>> Speaking of old tech, I still fly a 1963 Beechcraft Musketeer. Pretty
>> basic, but the panel is chock full of modern electronics/computers.
>
>1961 Cessna 172 - with a rebuilt panel, IFR certified.

While I've not completed the solo work (and thus no licence),
I've flown in a Cessna 172 and 421 - the latter a fine ride.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers

csiph-web