Right! In that case then, where's the tin foil? I need to make a hat!Yes, one could use LoRa etc, but that's being used by government for surveillance implants over your flat, office etc.
Cheers,
Norm.
Right! In that case then, where's the tin foil? I need to make a hat!Yes, one could use LoRa etc, but that's being used by government for surveillance implants over your flat, office etc.
Surely, if someone finds that a Raspberry Pi (or indeed, anything at all) is usable/suitable for "purposes that it shouldn't be" then that's a good thing? As opposed to making someone a moron?Which makes it attract every moron to use it for purposes that it shouldn't be used for.
It sometimes painful to watch some of these "projects".
I was only asking, sorry if I went a little OT there, by asking a question about your posting on this thread. never mid, I'll go back to sleep now and give myself a slap on the wrists.Brane2 wrote:How about taking this in incremental steps ?NormanDunbar wrote: Define, for the sake of your argument, what the Raspberry Pi is not suitable for, because to me, it's a small, single board Linux computer. Computer being the operative word, it's suitable for a multitude of things and while possibly not a complete desktop replacement, it's certainly a fun bit of kit which reminds me of my early computing days with a ZX-81 and a 16K Spectrum. I can even turn LEDs on and off almost at will with it!
Cheers,
Norm.
Start making OT contributions with real value in the theme that you are supposed to moderate and then we'll see where this leads us ?
One thing I learned recently about Sir Clive, once a project is designed and into production, he's off onto the next one, and doesn't really care much at all about what came before.If it works, it would surely delight Sir Clive.
Technology is a tough area since there is need to fix broken things but also a desire to update old things. When I had my own business for the Apple Macintosh, where I basically added QL functionality to the early Mac, I never liked the idea of upgrading my software. I did it once because a distributor asked me to, but mostly I treated it more like art than a commodity. So I understand where Clive is coming from. His mindset was to create the next thing. I think one shortcoming was that his focus wasn't on a single technological area (i.e. computing) but rather on more than that (like transportation). I admired that in him but unlike Steve Jobs, who had laser focus, its not good for business.NormanDunbar wrote:One thing I learned recently about Sir Clive, once a project is designed and into production, he's off onto the next one, and doesn't really care much at all about what came before.If it works, it would surely delight Sir Clive.
It's almost like getting really excited about having kids and then not giving a sh!t about them after they are born, I suppose.
Hope it works, regardless of Sir Clive.
Cheers,
Norm.
I'm in the process right now of installing Windows 7 on my wife's machine that had its disk fail after running for 5 years. On all my installations, the first thing I do is turn updates off. I've never used updates on any of my machines and don't have any compatibility issues (I run the latest version of Chrome as well as other apps with no problem). The nice things about not using updates is you don't eventually experience a system slow down.Brane2 wrote:WRT to avoiding upgrades in SW land, I find this totally unrealistic. Totally incomprehensible to me.bwinkel67 wrote: Me personally, I loved creating the things I did, am still proud of them, and happy people now share them freely, but had no interest in upgrading and updating them constantly (though that's a great business model).
After all these years, I can't think of ONE piece of software that didn't sorely need an upgrade.
Your Win7 example is totally killing your case. How many upgrades and updates did it need ? Countless.
What would happen if it was baked in ROM media that you can't easily change ?
ALL the programs, especially ones that I ever really needed and depended upon were cr*p in first version.
Back OT: this is also the reason why all the new stuff (HW and SW) has to be publicly open for modifications, development and updates.
If someone invests significant time using your program and ties significant data to it, what is s/he supposed to do if/when you decide to pull Clive on them and pursue other avenues ?
It's all in the eye of the beholder. Many things Clive created have very strong support almost 40 years later, so I wouldn't call his work a mess or failure. I get you don't like many things on the QL, but the things you complain about actually draw me to that machine. I found it cool in 1990 when I got it and I find it even cooler now, over 30 years later -- i.e. like the microdrives, thought they were the coolest thing back then when everyone else had 3 1/2 inch floppies, and think they are even cooler now. You can have an argument on this at nausea but in the end its like arguing with someone why vanilla is better than strawberry ice cream...kind of pointless.Brane2 wrote:That _could_ be some ratinoal POV if Clive's things have had actually worked.bwinkel67 wrote: Technology is a tough area since there is need to fix broken things but also a desire to update old things. When I had my own business for the Apple Macintosh, where I basically added QL functionality to the early Mac, I never liked the idea of upgrading my software. I did it once because a distributor asked me to, but mostly I treated it more like art than a commodity. So I understand where Clive is coming from.
There is old saying "Masters make excercizes and excersizes make masters".
As old fighting (Myamoto Musashi?) legends have oobserved, ti takes at least 10.000 painstalking hours to master any art.
If you just go around, making mess of every project and then bailing out, you might be doing more harm than good, to yourself and tho others.
In principle there is nothing wrong in landing on your a** every now and then. To me, not doing that would mean that you are not really stretching your capabilities.
But it can't be endpoint of your every project and your enterpreneurial art shulodn't be feeling the right moment to catapult out of your "life-changing adventures".
FIne, they effed up microdrives etc, who wouldn't ?
But did they ever got them right ?
Had they ever got to the point "OK. We are now comfortably controllign the matter of magnetic recording ?"
HAdf they done that for QL ?
Or C5 ?
Did he EVER reveal anything fundamental about EV transport ?
After C5 debacle, were there some really great leftover ideas and technical solutions that were to be kept for further projects ?
I'm really not trying to piss over his name, especially now, but I feel going the other way and praising his technical accomplishments to the stratosphere would be eoulogizing totally different man.
Also,. how many of those were done by him ?
Seriously, could he redesign part of the Spectrum if his life depended on it ?
There is no grave sin in making mistake or series of mistakes. Development is full of it.
Actually, they are part of the "game terrain".
Quite the opposite IMHO - lying about them in the name of some "sacred" cause is denigrating the whole art.
You have to call a spade a spade here. No way around it.