Re: Brin: Fight The Future: Encrypted Screws

[Davd Brin]

--- The Fool:
> It just seems to me that you've spent more time
> searching (you said
> you've been looking for more than two years) for the
> 'right' interpreter
> than you say will spend 'learning' and 'using' the
> interpreter. 

Yes, you keep explaining to us the remarkable way that
things "seem" to you.  I find it all the more
remarkable that you would openly display your reality
handicaps in this way.  But it's your choice.

Um... let me try to explain.  When I have tried to
find something for two years, that does not mean I
have been doing so FULL TIME!  Frustrating enquiries
can -- (dig it) -- be in small packets.

 >It also
> seems like you've spent a lot more time whining


Yes, it certainly is clear that it "seems" so to you. 
Your desperation to find cause to offer insult has
fully justified your nickname.  In fact, my rapid
appraisal and acceptance of Chipmunk makes this
delusion of yours quite pathetic.



> about how bad all of the
> various interpreters are, than you will spend using
> the 'right' one you
> eventually find.  It seems to me you probably could
> have saved a
> considerable amount of time just showing him how to
> do the same thing
> with pencil and paper--without all the hassle.

Yes, thank you for using the word "seems" so well to
display your handicaps at perception.  I will now
continue using pencil and paper, and segue (as
planned) into coding.  And while ciriticism is the
only known antidote to error, yours  (having received
more heed from me than it deserved) has been
spectacularly dumb.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Brin: Fight The Future: Encrypted Screws

[The Fool]

Final post.

> From: Davd Brin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> These remarks are really rather amusing.  You continue
> to lecture at me obvious things, based on assumptions
> that are false in every conceivable way.

It just seems to me that you've spent more time searching (you said
you've been looking for more than two years) for the 'right' interpreter
than you say will spend 'learning' and 'using' the interpreter.  It also
seems like you've spent a lot more time whining about how bad all of the
various interpreters are, than you will spend using the 'right' one you
eventually find.  It seems to me you probably could have saved a
considerable amount of time just showing him how to do the same thing
with pencil and paper--without all the hassle.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Brin: Fight The Future: Encrypted Screws

[Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten]

The Fool wrote:
Imagine that TV's have technology that tracks eye movements and records
the reflection in your eyes (they already have technology that can figure
out what you are looking at solely from reflections on eyes).  Now
imagine that you cannot disable this big-brother device without disabling
the TV completely.  Now imagine that in order to get the TV to show you
the programming you want, the device must first record you watching
twenty minutes of advertising propaganda, and that the TV won't show you
the programming you want to watch unless you do watch all twenty minutes
of the propaganda first.  Now extend this to everything that the TV
shows, all programming, all games, all DVD movies, everything.  All these
things described are likely to come about over the next few years.  Most
of the technology I just described is in development.
 

Glad there are still such low tech devices as books. Unless the chair 
will object to letting me sit down that is, in which case I'll go to the 
hammock in my garden or use the bed ;o)


If all these things will happen eventually there will be that *one* 
clever entrepeneur who will grab a big market share by simply marketing 
a device that isn't as restrictive for less cost, or who will crack a 
code. and market that. It's been happening as long as there was 
technical development. As long as industry has been trying to force 
consumers into a single brand strangle bond, there have been clever 
businessman who tried to profit by offering ways out of that exclusiveness.

Lawyers, fighting contracts with unfair exclusiveness clauses.
Hackers, cracking programming codes.
Engineers, reverse engineering popular things, rebranding them.
Manufacturers, manufacturing cheaper then original parts.
Software engeneers offering cheaper software that does the same as the 
expensive original but at lower cost.
DVD region code cracks.
Illegal copies.
etc.

Untill now the human mind has always devised counter measures toward too 
restrictive conditions. It's a challenge many will take up, even in the 
future. Every system can be abused, every system can be dismantled, 
every system can be outmanouvered, every cleverly devised system can be 
replaces with something less complicated.

As for monopolies, if there is a market for it a monopoly will be 
broken. It might take time, sometimes it might take a lot of time but in 
the end it always happens. Even MS has to watch their back now and again.

Sonja :o)
GCU: Puzzles and new ideas
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Brin: Fight The Future: Encrypted Screws

[Davd Brin]

These remarks are really rather amusing.  You continue
to lecture at me obvious things, based on assumptions
that are false in every conceivable way.

I know very well the levels of computer understanding
possessed by my kids.  I am familiar with the
technologies and fully capable of programming a VCR...
or an IBM 360 in Fortran IV.  I have started my own
software company, innovating with Flash and neural-net
agent systems, and will soon hold a software patent
with 114 claims.

The goal of teaching my children the relationship
between mathematical algorithms and effects upon a
screen would seem eminently desireable and obvious. 
So obvious that I find it hilarious that you assume
your lack of comprehension is MY problem. Never
considering the possibility that it is yours.

As for QBasic, I never claimed that it did not work,
only that its approach was obtuse, its tutorials badly
written and cause-effect hard to follow. I feel no
need to spend 30 hours learning an unnecessarily
complex system within which I plan to work (with my
son) for less than ten.

 If that proves me to be cybernetically ignorant by
your standards, I am complacent with the fact that you
believe whatever it is that you believe.  The sheer
transparency and usability of Chipmunk Basic proves
that the thing I desired was possible.  I can proceed
now, with minimal fuss, to achieve reasonable goals,  

That is enough to show that my long search is (1) at
an end and (2) completely and blithely indifferent to
your unneccessary and silly criticism.

Pursue this if you wish, but please remove the Brin:
annotation from the subject line.



--- The Fool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> > From: Davd Brin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > 
> > --- The Fool said: I > Still don't> understand why
> Dr.
> > Brin has Difficulty with Qbasic. > It seems very
> much
> > > like he's expressing the meme: "things were
> better
> > > in the past, a golden> age" that he himself
> rails
> > against so much.  
> > 
> > Well now ain't that sweet.  An' seein' as how it
> bears
> > no relationship to actual objective reality, ain't
> it
> > creative, too?
> > 
> > In fact, I simply wanted to show my son the
> > relationship between math and the location of the
> > myriad dots on a computer screen.  By letting HIM
> > create a program that uses an algorithm to achieve
> > results, I hope to demystify computers and coding
> and
> > show that it all comes down to lines of code.
> 
> You _still_ haven't, shown, proven, or explained why
> or how Qbasic
> doesn't work in the way you want.  I know from years
> of experience, when
> I myself was a child learning these same very things
> on my own, that
> Qbasic does them, very simply.  I was able to run
> the code you posted in
> less than ten seconds after receiving your message. 
> It worked.
>  
> > You may choose to interpret this as "the past is
> > better".  But since, as you say, this is
> diametrically
> > opposite to my philosophy, an honorable approach
> might
> > have been to take that interpretation and
> contemplate
> > the wise words: "I might be mistaken."
> 
> Perhaps, but I know from firsthand experience that
> children are smarter
> than parents give them credit for.  They learn how
> to use new
> technologies very easily.  My parents were VCR
> blinking 12:00 people. 
> But when I was four I figured out how to program the
> VCR, set it's clock,
> etc.  It's seems you are trying to find an
> interpreter that you yourself
> can use, instead of an environment where the child
> can learn these
> principle optimally.  You aren't thinking outside
> the box.  It's not just
> the algorithms your child should be learning, but
> also how to use the
> programs themselves for himself.  If your child knew
> how to use Qbasic
> for himself, how much easier would it be to teach
> him the basic
> algorithms?
> 
> ___
> http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
> 

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Brin: Fight The Future: Encrypted Screws

[The Fool]

> From: Davd Brin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> --- The Fool said: I > Still don't> understand why Dr.
> Brin has Difficulty with Qbasic. > It seems very much
> > like he's expressing the meme: "things were better
> > in the past, a golden> age" that he himself rails
> against so much.  
> 
> Well now ain't that sweet.  An' seein' as how it bears
> no relationship to actual objective reality, ain't it
> creative, too?
> 
> In fact, I simply wanted to show my son the
> relationship between math and the location of the
> myriad dots on a computer screen.  By letting HIM
> create a program that uses an algorithm to achieve
> results, I hope to demystify computers and coding and
> show that it all comes down to lines of code.

You _still_ haven't, shown, proven, or explained why or how Qbasic
doesn't work in the way you want.  I know from years of experience, when
I myself was a child learning these same very things on my own, that
Qbasic does them, very simply.  I was able to run the code you posted in
less than ten seconds after receiving your message.  It worked.
 
> You may choose to interpret this as "the past is
> better".  But since, as you say, this is diametrically
> opposite to my philosophy, an honorable approach might
> have been to take that interpretation and contemplate
> the wise words: "I might be mistaken."

Perhaps, but I know from firsthand experience that children are smarter
than parents give them credit for.  They learn how to use new
technologies very easily.  My parents were VCR blinking 12:00 people. 
But when I was four I figured out how to program the VCR, set it's clock,
etc.  It's seems you are trying to find an interpreter that you yourself
can use, instead of an environment where the child can learn these
principle optimally.  You aren't thinking outside the box.  It's not just
the algorithms your child should be learning, but also how to use the
programs themselves for himself.  If your child knew how to use Qbasic
for himself, how much easier would it be to teach him the basic
algorithms?

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Brin: Fight The Future: Encrypted Screws

[Davd Brin]

--- The Fool said: I > Still don't> understand why Dr.
Brin has Difficulty with Qbasic. > It seems very much
> like he's expressing the meme: "things were better
> in the past, a golden> age" that he himself rails
against so much.  

Well now ain't that sweet.  An' seein' as how it bears
no relationship to actual objective reality, ain't it
creative, too?

In fact, I simply wanted to show my son the
relationship between math and the location of the
myriad dots on a computer screen.  By letting HIM
create a program that uses an algorithm to achieve
results, I hope to demystify computers and coding and
show that it all comes down to lines of code.

You may choose to interpret this as "the past is
better".  But since, as you say, this is diametrically
opposite to my philosophy, an honorable approach might
have been to take that interpretation and contemplate
the wise words: "I might be mistaken."

db


Well
> the past wasn't better.
>  Qbasic does everything I heard him complain about,
> and without
> downgrading or getting another old nearly useless
> computer.  Furthermore
> their is plenty of human help you can get for free
> anytime by using
> Usenet.  I fixed the syntax error in the code he
> posted, launched Qbasic,
> pasted the code in, and guess what?  It ran.  But,
> unfortunately, it
> seems the good Dr. thinks that the technology of an
> Apple II is better
> than the technology of a modern computer, or even a
> 1990 MS-DOS 6.2
> computer.
> 
> ___
> http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
> 

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Brin: Fight The Future: Encrypted Screws

[The Fool]

> From: Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> The Fool wrote:
> > 
> > > From: Davd Brin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >
> > > > There are many freely and easily  available
> > > > compilers in many
> > > > languages so this doesn't really disturb me.   I've
> > > > heard Yet Another
> > > > Basic is good (though I haven't used it myself):
> > > > http://www.yabasic.de/
> > >
> > > I shall try ybasic, thanks.
> > >
> > > But after the horror of trying xbasic and qbasic and
> > > all the others, I do not expect much success.  All
> > > were created by techies who suffer from
> > > techie-disease... an absolute assumption that
> > > everyboddy who downloads their compiler will instantly
> > > and miraculously know how to use it.  The manuals are
> > > gibberish. There is nothing at all resembling a simple
> > > place to write line by line code and simply typr
> > > "run".
> > 
> > Visual basic does everything you describe except 'run', because
modern
> > interpreters are not essentially acting as a command line operating
> > system, they just interpret code.  The way VB does it is better: it's
> > simpler, it's more intuitive, and it work the way 99% of all modern
> > programming environments work.  You push a VCR button (play) to run,
> > pause, or stop code execution.  The same way a...VCR works.  The same
way
> > most electronic devices work.
> 
> Yeah, well, some people took to command lines, and are a lot happier
> using command lines than GUIs.  I realize such people are in the
> minority, but if you don't understand that there is such a minority and
> that they get frustrated with GUIs because the command line is just a
> lot more *logical* (but maybe less intuitive for the majority) and that
> they operate more on logic than intuition, you're going to make them
> unhappy by dismissing their preferences.
> 
> Sort of like the car dealer who totally lost the sale with my mother
> when she expressed a preference for a manual transmission (she has
> never, ever, ever driven an automatic, narrowly dodging *that* bullet
> last summer) and responded to her with a smile, saying, "Oh, most women
> really prefer an automatic," as if what SHE, the individual, wanted and
> didn't want was totally beside the point.
> 
> (Figure out where people's lines are drawn, and don't cross them.  DB
> has laid out the location of his line, and you're trying to push him to
> the other side of it when he just won't go there.)

Programs just aren't written that way anymore.  Operating system
functions are now done by...the operating system.  I Still don't
understand why Dr. Brin has Difficulty with Qbasic.  It seems very much
like he's expressing the meme: "things were better in the past, a golden
age" that he himself rails against so much.  Well the past wasn't better.
 Qbasic does everything I heard him complain about, and without
downgrading or getting another old nearly useless computer.  Furthermore
their is plenty of human help you can get for free anytime by using
Usenet.  I fixed the syntax error in the code he posted, launched Qbasic,
pasted the code in, and guess what?  It ran.  But, unfortunately, it
seems the good Dr. thinks that the technology of an Apple II is better
than the technology of a modern computer, or even a 1990 MS-DOS 6.2
computer.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Brin: Fight The Future: Encrypted Screws

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 07:45 PM Thursday 8/12/04, Dave Land wrote:
On Aug 12, 2004, at 5:25 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 04:51 PM Thursday 8/12/04, Julia Thompson wrote:
Sort of like the car dealer who totally lost the sale with my mother
when she expressed a preference for a manual transmission (she has
never, ever, ever driven an automatic, narrowly dodging *that* bullet
last summer) and responded to her with a smile, saying, "Oh, most women
really prefer an automatic," as if what SHE, the individual, wanted and
didn't want was totally beside the point.
I suspect that at that point she really wished she had an automatic . . .
True, but some women prefer the unmistakable message that the sound of a
pump-action sends.

Presumably they do not expect to have to clean up the results . . .

-- Ronn!  :)
"Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot remain in the cradle forever."
-- Konstantin E. Tsiolkovskiy
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Brin: Fight The Future: Encrypted Screws

[Dave Land]

On Aug 12, 2004, at 5:25 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 04:51 PM Thursday 8/12/04, Julia Thompson wrote:
Sort of like the car dealer who totally lost the sale with my mother
when she expressed a preference for a manual transmission (she has
never, ever, ever driven an automatic, narrowly dodging *that* bullet
last summer) and responded to her with a smile, saying, "Oh, most 
women
really prefer an automatic," as if what SHE, the individual, wanted 
and
didn't want was totally beside the point.
I suspect that at that point she really wished she had an automatic . 
. .
True, but some women prefer the unmistakable message that the sound of a
pump-action sends.
Dave
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Brin: Fight The Future: Encrypted Screws

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 04:51 PM Thursday 8/12/04, Julia Thompson wrote:
Sort of like the car dealer who totally lost the sale with my mother
when she expressed a preference for a manual transmission (she has
never, ever, ever driven an automatic, narrowly dodging *that* bullet
last summer) and responded to her with a smile, saying, "Oh, most women
really prefer an automatic," as if what SHE, the individual, wanted and
didn't want was totally beside the point.

I suspect that at that point she really wished she had an automatic . . .

-- Ronn!  :)
"Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot remain in the cradle forever."
-- Konstantin E. Tsiolkovskiy
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Brin: Fight The Future: Encrypted Screws

[Dave Land]

On Aug 12, 2004, at 2:51 PM, Julia Thompson wrote:
Yeah, well, some people took to command lines, and are a lot happier
using command lines than GUIs.  I realize such people are in the
minority, but if you don't understand that there is such a minority and
that they get frustrated with GUIs because the command line is just a
lot more *logical* (but maybe less intuitive for the majority) and that
they operate more on logic than intuition, you're going to make them
unhappy by dismissing their preferences.
If I may sing another chorus of "All Things Bright and Macintosh," don't
forget that under that practically edible user interface lies a heart of
Unix, with the command line of your choice (ships with at least sh, csh,
bash, zsh, and the default tcsh). With earlier versions of Mac OS, I was
frequently frustrated by the painful process one had to go through to,
for example, rename a batch of files.
Sort of like the car dealer who totally lost the sale with my mother
when she expressed a preference for a manual transmission (she has
never, ever, ever driven an automatic, narrowly dodging *that* bullet
last summer) and responded to her with a smile, saying, "Oh, most women
really prefer an automatic," as if what SHE, the individual, wanted and
didn't want was totally beside the point.
What a goober: the answer, of course, was "If that's what you prefer,
let me order that option for you." Honestly, some people are so stupid,
I wonder how it is that they remember to breathe.
(Figure out where people's lines are drawn, and don't cross them.
Here's a story of someone who operates at completely the other end of
the "how to deal with people" spectrum, when our first son, Kevin, was
at Stanford for surgery to remove a brain tumor, his neurosurgeon, John
Adler, seemed to be working very hard to keep in check what we sensed
was a rich sense of humor lurking just under the surface in check.
Later, when his manner with us lightened and warmed up considerably, we
asked what was behind his earlier reticence. He replied that when he
first meets families with gravely ill kids, he maintains a neutral
demeanor until he sees if it would be appropriate for him to lighten up
with the family. It was one of the most beautiful things I've ever seen.
Sincerely,
Dave
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Brin: Fight The Future: Encrypted Screws

[Julia Thompson]

The Fool wrote:
> 
> > From: Davd Brin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > > There are many freely and easily  available
> > > compilers in many
> > > languages so this doesn't really disturb me.   I've
> > > heard Yet Another
> > > Basic is good (though I haven't used it myself):
> > > http://www.yabasic.de/
> >
> > I shall try ybasic, thanks.
> >
> > But after the horror of trying xbasic and qbasic and
> > all the others, I do not expect much success.  All
> > were created by techies who suffer from
> > techie-disease... an absolute assumption that
> > everyboddy who downloads their compiler will instantly
> > and miraculously know how to use it.  The manuals are
> > gibberish. There is nothing at all resembling a simple
> > place to write line by line code and simply typr
> > "run".
> 
> Visual basic does everything you describe except 'run', because modern
> interpreters are not essentially acting as a command line operating
> system, they just interpret code.  The way VB does it is better: it's
> simpler, it's more intuitive, and it work the way 99% of all modern
> programming environments work.  You push a VCR button (play) to run,
> pause, or stop code execution.  The same way a...VCR works.  The same way
> most electronic devices work.

Yeah, well, some people took to command lines, and are a lot happier
using command lines than GUIs.  I realize such people are in the
minority, but if you don't understand that there is such a minority and
that they get frustrated with GUIs because the command line is just a
lot more *logical* (but maybe less intuitive for the majority) and that
they operate more on logic than intuition, you're going to make them
unhappy by dismissing their preferences.

Sort of like the car dealer who totally lost the sale with my mother
when she expressed a preference for a manual transmission (she has
never, ever, ever driven an automatic, narrowly dodging *that* bullet
last summer) and responded to her with a smile, saying, "Oh, most women
really prefer an automatic," as if what SHE, the individual, wanted and
didn't want was totally beside the point.

(Figure out where people's lines are drawn, and don't cross them.  DB
has laid out the location of his line, and you're trying to push him to
the other side of it when he just won't go there.)

Julia
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Brin: Fight The Future: Encrypted Screws

[The Fool]

> From: Davd Brin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> > There are many freely and easily  available
> > compilers in many
> > languages so this doesn't really disturb me.   I've
> > heard Yet Another
> > Basic is good (though I haven't used it myself):
> > http://www.yabasic.de/
> 
> I shall try ybasic, thanks.
> 
> But after the horror of trying xbasic and qbasic and
> all the others, I do not expect much success.  All
> were created by techies who suffer from
> techie-disease... an absolute assumption that
> everyboddy who downloads their compiler will instantly
> and miraculously know how to use it.  The manuals are
> gibberish. There is nothing at all resembling a simple
> place to write line by line code and simply typr
> "run".

Visual basic does everything you describe except 'run', because modern
interpreters are not essentially acting as a command line operating
system, they just interpret code.  The way VB does it is better: it's
simpler, it's more intuitive, and it work the way 99% of all modern
programming environments work.  You push a VCR button (play) to run,
pause, or stop code execution.  The same way a...VCR works.  The same way
most electronic devices work.

> 
> frustration.  I already know BASIC.

Doesn't sound like it.

> I have books.  I
> have a zillion sample programs that are EXACTLY what I
> want to teach.  Logo looks nice but I do not have the
> time to learn another language and it definitely looks
> "higher" than the algorithm-based level that I have
> wanted to show to my son.
> 
> I want Z=2x, x=1, print Z.

2x doesn't mean anything in basic, you want instead 2*x, as "*" is the
multiplication operator.

You want to use ":" to separate statements.

What about this code:

Z=2*x: x=1: print Z

OR (a better version):

Z=2*x
x=1
print Z

does not work in VB or QB?

'Print Z' will print z on the current form.  However it is possible to
view all variables in the program at the same time in the interpreter
instead.

This will print 0 on the current form (2 * 0).

'Debug.Print Z' will print z to the 'immediate window'.

You can even type 'Z=2*x: x=1: print Z' into the immediate window on a
paused running program and it will do the same thing.

In fact you can get pretty much unlimited amounts of free VB help at the
Usenet newsgroup:
microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Brin: Fight The Future: Encrypted Screws

[Nick Arnett]

Nick Arnett wrote:
I still have at least one, possibly two, PC-8201A "portable" computers, 
which have a BASIC implementation that was the last piece of code Bill 
Gates worked on.  They have 8K of memory, a four or six-line display and 
you use a tape recorder to save your programs... but I think they still 
work.  Would something like that do it?
A page about them:
http://www.web8201.com/
I guess they have 16K... and I think I have one or two 8K expansion 
modules.  IIRC, 8K of memory cost about $150 when I bought it!

Here's a multi-system simulator:
http://simh.trailing-edge.com/
Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Brin: Fight The Future: Encrypted Screws

[Nick Arnett]

Davd Brin wrote:
I want to move a DOT using a simple mathematicall
algorithm.  I have examples in books.  Why can I not
show this to my son?  It is EXACTLY what Bill Gates
and Steve Jobs and Wozniak did.
I still have at least one, possibly two, PC-8201A "portable" computers, 
which have a BASIC implementation that was the last piece of code Bill 
Gates worked on.  They have 8K of memory, a four or six-line display and 
you use a tape recorder to save your programs... but I think they still 
work.  Would something like that do it?

You might also look for an emulator of such a machine.  There are 
emulators for all sorts of old systems around.  I was just reading the 
other day about a PDP-11 emulator, which would run BASIC as you 
describe, once you got past the OS.  I think I still remember a bit of 
RSTS and TOPS-10...

Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Brin: Fight The Future: Encrypted Screws

[The Fool]

> From: Davd Brin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> Alas, qbasic and xbasic were incomprehensible.  In
> trying to 'modernize', they made it impossible to
> figure out how to type a few lines and run them to see
> what happens.

Not really qbasic works very similarly to gwbasic.  The main difference
is that they removed the 'run' command, and replaced it with a menu
option (or f5).  You type in your code and press f5 and...it runs.  Also
use control-Break to break execution.  Not difficult or incomprehensible
at all.  Now if you are stepping through the code line-by-line using
breakpoints, you can use the 'immediate window' at the bottom of the
screen to 'type a few lines and run them to see what happens'.

In case you are wondering the basic interpreter that comes with ms-dos
6.2 is...Qbasic.  And qbasic works in windows just fine.

Furthermore Visual Basic can still do 99% of the things that qbasic /
gwbasic do, you just have wrap the code in functions.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Brin: Fight The Future: Encrypted Screws

[Davd Brin]

Alas, qbasic and xbasic were incomprehensible.  In
trying to 'modernize', they made it impossible to
figure out how to type a few lines and run them to see
what happens.

Ybasic has a friendly-looking intro page. (Thanks).

I shall look it over soon.

meanwhile, everybody thrive.  And visit JibJab.  It
seemed pretty accurate!

db
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Brin: Fight The Future: Encrypted Screws

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 11:13 PM Wednesday 8/11/04, Julia Thompson wrote:
The Fool wrote:
>
> I used AppleBasic on Apple II's and gwBasic on DOS 3 when I was younger.
> And I'm one of the youngest members of brin-l.  I even took a class in
> applebasic in the seventh grade.  I know run.
>
Am I the only one flashing on "And you are no Jack Kennedy"?
Julia
whose father made her take Pascal before any major exposure to Basic

So you might have actually liked S-Basic . . .
I Wrote A Pascal Manual Once: Does That Count Maru
-- Ronn!  :)
"Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot remain in the cradle forever."
-- Konstantin E. Tsiolkovskiy
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Brin: Fight The Future: Encrypted Screws

[Julia Thompson]

The Fool wrote:

> 
> I used AppleBasic on Apple II's and gwBasic on DOS 3 when I was younger.
> And I'm one of the youngest members of brin-l.  I even took a class in
> applebasic in the seventh grade.  I know run.
> 

Am I the only one flashing on "And you are no Jack Kennedy"?

Julia

whose father made her take Pascal before any major exposure to Basic
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Brin: Fight The Future: Encrypted Screws

[The Fool]

> From: William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> On 12 Aug 2004, at 3:20 am, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
> 
> > At 08:49 PM Wednesday 8/11/04, William T Goodall wrote:
> >
> >> On 12 Aug 2004, at 1:55 am, Davd Brin wrote:
> >>> There is nothing at all resembling a simple
> >>> place to write line by line code and simply typr
> >>> "run".
> >>
> >> And 'run' would come to mind for who?

Raises hand.

> >
> > Anyone old enough to know BASIC?
> >
> 
> I'd better point this out to my wife's 87 year old grandmother next 
> time I see her then :) "You're old enough to know BASIC! What do you 
> mean you don't know what run means!"
> 
> Silly!
> 
> "RUN" is a little tiny historical artifact that even when it was 
> current was known by a tiny percentage  of people. Personal computers 
> arrived in the mid 70's, but nobody really had them until the eighties.

> In '84 the Mac GUI came along and  by '94 Windoze had cloned it. 99% + 
> of everyone who ever used a computer used a GUI first and never saw 
> BASIC. Or wanted to.

I used AppleBasic on Apple II's and gwBasic on DOS 3 when I was younger. 
And I'm one of the youngest members of brin-l.  I even took a class in
applebasic in the seventh grade.  I know run.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Brin: Fight The Future: Encrypted Screws

[William T Goodall]

On 12 Aug 2004, at 3:20 am, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 08:49 PM Wednesday 8/11/04, William T Goodall wrote:
On 12 Aug 2004, at 1:55 am, Davd Brin wrote:
There is nothing at all resembling a simple
place to write line by line code and simply typr
"run".
And 'run' would come to mind for who?

Anyone old enough to know BASIC?
I'd better point this out to my wife's 87 year old grandmother next 
time I see her then :) "You're old enough to know BASIC! What do you 
mean you don't know what run means!"

Silly!
"RUN" is a little tiny historical artifact that even when it was 
current was known by a tiny percentage  of people. Personal computers 
arrived in the mid 70's, but nobody really had them until the eighties. 
In '84 the Mac GUI came along and  by '94 Windoze had cloned it. 99% + 
of everyone who ever used a computer used a GUI first and never saw 
BASIC. Or wanted to.

--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
One of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that,
lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination of
their C programs.  -- Robert Firth
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Brin: Fight The Future: Encrypted Screws

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 08:49 PM Wednesday 8/11/04, William T Goodall wrote:
On 12 Aug 2004, at 1:55 am, Davd Brin wrote:
There is nothing at all resembling a simple
place to write line by line code and simply typr
"run".
And 'run' would come to mind for who?

Anyone old enough to know BASIC?

-- Ronn!  :)
"Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot remain in the cradle forever."
-- Konstantin E. Tsiolkovskiy
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Brin: Fight The Future: Encrypted Screws

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 07:55 PM Wednesday 8/11/04, Davd Brin wrote:
> There are many freely and easily  available
> compilers in many
> languages so this doesn't really disturb me.   I've
> heard Yet Another
> Basic is good (though I haven't used it myself):
> http://www.yabasic.de/
I shall try ybasic, thanks.
But after the horror of trying xbasic and qbasic and
all the others, I do not expect much success.

Ever tried S-Basic?  The "S" stands for "structured".  It was someone's 
idea of an illegitimate offspring of Pascal and BASIC.  Frex, you had to 
declare all your variables by type and size at the beginning of any 
program, then write your regular BASIC program . . .


  All
were created by techies who suffer from
techie-disease... an absolute assumption that
everyboddy who downloads their compiler will instantly
and miraculously know how to use it.

Not to mention frex in the case of S-Basic that the INT() function did not 
work normally for negative numbers, meaning that it took forever to make 
those calendar conversion (date <=> JD) routines I was trying to get to run 
on that machine to give correct answers rather than ones that gave results 
which were wrong by a day or two . . .


The manuals are gibberish.

Marketing guy:  "We're shipping the new system next week.  Maybe it's about 
time that we ought to run an ad for a tech writer to write a manual."

(I've been a tech writer.  I don't read manuals either, at least not until 
everything else fails . . . )


There is nothing at all resembling a simple
place to write line by line code and simply typr
"run".
>
> For your son, maybe you'd also want to try teaching
> him LOGO.  I
> googled up a free LOGO version for Windows here:
> http://www.softronix.com/logo.html
Thanks also for that.  But I did try to explain my
frustration.  I already know BASIC.  I have books.  I
have a zillion sample programs that are EXACTLY what I
want to teach.  Logo looks nice but I do not have the
time to learn another language and it definitely looks
"higher" than the algorithm-based level that I have
wanted to show to my son.
I want Z=2x, x=1, print Z.
I want to move a DOT using a simple mathematicall
algorithm.  I have examples in books.  Why can I not
show this to my son?  It is EXACTLY what Bill Gates
and Steve Jobs and Wozniak did.
Maybe that's why they have ensured that no one else can.

For some reason I am tempted to launch a lament over the fact that students 
can't do simple arithmetic without an electronic calculator.

(Me?  There have been times when I've brought my old "Pickett Plank" to 
class and raced the students to the answer . . . )


-- Ronn!  :)
"Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot remain in the cradle forever."
-- Konstantin E. Tsiolkovskiy
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Brin: Fight The Future: Encrypted Screws

[William T Goodall]

On 12 Aug 2004, at 1:55 am, Davd Brin wrote:
There is nothing at all resembling a simple
place to write line by line code and simply typr
"run".
And 'run' would come to mind for who?
I want Z=2x, x=1, print Z.
That is so	 obvious! Damn those computer elitists for their needless 
obfuscation!

--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
Putting an infinite number of monkeys at an infinite number of keyboards
will _not_ result in the greatest work of all time. Just look at 
Windows.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Brin: Fight The Future: Encrypted Screws

[Medievalbk]

 
In a message dated 8/11/2004 1:58:57 PM US Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

> I swear, I CANNOT GET A MACHINE WITH SIMPLE BASIC IN
> ORDER TO TEACH IT TO MY SON!



I'm reminded of the Art Bell time travelor who had to go back in time to get 
an older computer to fix the Y2K problem in his reality.
 
...and those old pencil mark cards made a great way to always have a deck of 
cards that couldn't be confiscated as contraband.
 
Vilyehm

Back in ye olden days
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Brin: Fight The Future: Encrypted Screws

[Davd Brin]

> There are many freely and easily  available
> compilers in many
> languages so this doesn't really disturb me.   I've
> heard Yet Another
> Basic is good (though I haven't used it myself):
> http://www.yabasic.de/

I shall try ybasic, thanks.

But after the horror of trying xbasic and qbasic and
all the others, I do not expect much success.  All
were created by techies who suffer from
techie-disease... an absolute assumption that
everyboddy who downloads their compiler will instantly
and miraculously know how to use it.  The manuals are
gibberish. There is nothing at all resembling a simple
place to write line by line code and simply typr
"run".

> 
> For your son, maybe you'd also want to try teaching
> him LOGO.  I
> googled up a free LOGO version for Windows here:
> http://www.softronix.com/logo.html

Thanks also for that.  But I did try to explain my
frustration.  I already know BASIC.  I have books.  I
have a zillion sample programs that are EXACTLY what I
want to teach.  Logo looks nice but I do not have the
time to learn another language and it definitely looks
"higher" than the algorithm-based level that I have
wanted to show to my son.

I want Z=2x, x=1, print Z.

I want to move a DOT using a simple mathematicall
algorithm.  I have examples in books.  Why can I not
show this to my son?  It is EXACTLY what Bill Gates
and Steve Jobs and Wozniak did.

Maybe that's why they have ensured that no one else can.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Brin: Fight The Future: Encrypted Screws

[Dave Land]

Folks,
First of all, thanks to The Fool for scouting this -- it's an 
interesting
read, and it jibes with the experience I'm having with the radio in my
Honda recently (the battery went dead due to a broken thermostat that
left the electric radiator fan running all night, now the "anti-theft"
radio won't play until I get the security code from a dealer).

Unfortunately, his analysis seems to reason from the conclusion that
greedy corporations will force us to buy products that they alone 
control
and that people will buy 'em anyway.

Imagine ford makes a car, where only ford authorized technicians are
capable of servicing, fixing, diagnosing problems with, or installing 
new
parts.

Ford 'owns' the car, and you use it as long as ford (or the government)
allows you to. Perhaps the next time you stop by the Toyota Car lot 
Ford
will decide to revoke your ability to use your car.
Ummm. So don't buy a Ford.
Intelligent fastening removes the physical link between the tool and
fastener. Designed with actuating mechanisms, intelligent fasteners
feature embedded microchips that control the fastening process through
digital instructions from a remote tool.
(Fool: Enabling The Manufacturer to have a complete monopoly on all
parts, all 'tools' to open, fix, modify, or release, any and all parts 
of
the vehicle.)
That is, until someone hacks the protocol. To some, a lock is an 
invitation
to be picked. First, you'll get spam advertising "Ford screw 
descramblers"
and be able to find them at the flea market. Six months later, you'll be
able to buy "Ford-compatible" smart-screw tools at Pep Boys.

Sensing. Integrated sensors within intelligent fasteners could be
programmed to detect, analyze and report urgent problems. As telematics
progress, fastener information could be transmitted in real time to
service centers, documenting product performance, status, wear and 
tear,
and maintenance procedures. Embedded sensors could signal impending
performance failure of critical parts or assemblies based on wear
parameters.

(Fool: And when a part malfunctions?  They could also have parts that
'Expire' after a certain date, no matter whether they work properly or
not.  And the manufacturer could force you to upgrade whether you want 
to
or not.)
Until, that is, they go out of business because people are too smart to
buy their stupid self-destructing cars.
Customization. Intelligent fasteners could allow easy part change-out 
in
aftermarket customization while giving OEMs greater control of genuine
parts.

(Fool: again like the printer manufactures, this technology is designed
for the express purpose of creating a parts monopoly, where competitors
are not able to make a competing part that work with the vehicle at 
all.)
That's certainly one view of what's going on here. Now, oddly, I'm going
to play the role of corporate apologist. Perhaps it is also possible 
that
they are trying to reduce their service costs from having to deal with
people who try to jerry-rig something together and get it all botched 
up.

I recall spending a lot more time rebuilding the carburetor in a 1976 
Land
Cruiser than it should have taken because some junkyard dog had put an 
F2
carb on an F1 engine...

The intelligent processor controls all fasteners and associated 
activity.
These include activating energy switches, receiving information from
sensors, and communicating with the network to which it is attached. 
The
processor can be configured to provide multiple levels of redundancy 
for
product reliability.

(Fool: What happens when some critical component of these 'intelligent'
fasteners break, like a controlling microchip?  When that happen the 
part
can no longer removed at all (at least not without seriously damaging 
the
part itself and its housing.  What happens when an EMP burst knocks out
all the microchips in all the fasteners?)
So we need to prepare ourselves to fend off an army of Ford vans armed
with EMP 'pinch' devices (a la "Ocean's Eleven") driving around trying 
to
find and foil garage mechanics?

Don't you hate that? You're up to your elbows in grease in the garage,
working on your car, when an EMP burst kills all your screws. And to
make matters worse, the radio goes out, so you don't even get to hear
who won the game. And then you bark your shins on the toolbox as you
try to make your way out of the garage in the dark.
Fastener Operating System
Proprietary electronics embedded in intelligent fasteners are 
controlled
by an operating system consisting of real-time executive input/output
(I/O) drivers. An applications programming interface provides a
connection between the intelligent fastener and application software.

(Fool: What happens when a security vulnerability allows a virus or a
hacker to compromise components?  A virus could be set to release at an
inopportune time, killing the passengers or assassinating someone.)
It sure would make a nice twist to the bomb-under-the-seat that's so
popular in spy and mafia movies, or t

Re: Brin: Fight The Future: Encrypted Screws

[William T Goodall]

On 11 Aug 2004, at 11:56 pm, Bryon Daly wrote:
For example: most DVDs are region-encoded and
can only be played on machines from their native area.
In the UK it is very easy to buy a multi-region DVD player which will 
ignore region-encoding and play any DVD. I bought one from Amazon.co.uk 
last week for £29.99 with free delivery (Yakumo XL2). And it plays VCD, 
SVCD, XSVCD, DVD (-R, +R, -RW, +RW) etc as well. And PAL/NTSC with an 
onboard converter if one's TV isn't dual standard (mine is anyway).

  VHS tapes had
no such restrictions.
Actually thanks to PAL/NTSC and other little TV differences around the 
world tapes mostly wouldn't play outside a region. Of course £30 VHS 
players are PAL/NTSC dual-standard nowadays, but not in the time before 
DVD.

There are many freely and easily  available compilers in many
languages so this doesn't really disturb me.   I've heard Yet Another
Basic is good (though I haven't used it myself):
http://www.yabasic.de/
For your son, maybe you'd also want to try teaching him LOGO.  I
googled up a free LOGO version for Windows here:
http://www.softronix.com/logo.html
LOGO was supposed to be a great educational language. And there is LOGO 
for Lego, to control the robotics stuff. Didn't seem to catch on 
though. I'm not sure if the educational theory behind it (Piaget's 
stuff I recall) is out of favour or for some other reason.

--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
"Mac OS X is a rock-solid system that's beautifully designed. I much 
prefer it to Linux." - Bill Joy.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Brin: Fight The Future: Encrypted Screws

[Bryon Daly]

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 12:41:13 -0700 (PDT), Davd Brin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> But as a contrarian it is my job to ask people to step
> back.  In this case, The Fool needs to ponder whether
> his reaction to centralized control is unique.  Or
> whether, in fact, the future he describes will creep
> out other people, too.
> 
> Enough to ... maybe... reject the future he describes?

My concern is that the broad awareness of/concern for the issues won't
come until it is already too late to reject.  Legislation like the
DMCA was passed (with Democrat and Republican support, signed by
Clinton), with little argument/concern outside of the tech community -
and now we're stuck with it as it's used by companies to squash
competition, and ensure that things like these encrypted screws can't
be bypassed legally.

> Now, undercircumstances like that, how likely is it
> that people will put up with the "We control your
> television set" parts of TF's scenario?

It's incremental and often the loss of owner rights are candy coated
in other benefits so that people are willing to accept the negatives
to gain the benefits.  For example: most DVDs are region-encoded and
can only be played on machines from their native area.  VHS tapes had
no such restrictions.  People put up with it because they want the DVD
advantages and have no real recourse.

And also, the kind of legislation that enforces the "we control your
tv set" is tech-ish and doesn't fly high on many people's radars and
often gets portrayed as, say, anti-piracy laws, where the impact on
legitimate use isn't immediately apparent to most.

> My biggest example is the silent, unnoticed vanishing
> of any programming language from personal computers.
> 
> I swear, I CANNOT GET A MACHINE WITH SIMPLE BASIC IN
> ORDER TO TEACH IT TO MY SON!
> 
> It has taken 2 years, and I hope to get an old pentium
> machine soon with DOS 6.2 and BASIC aboard, so I can
> teach him the fundamentals of moving a dot via a
> simple algorithm.  Silently, unnoticed, this has
> happened and a new generation will be able to make web
> pages and fancy Flash digitals... but without any
> grasp of the line coding underneath.
> 
> Very disturbing.

There are many freely and easily  available compilers in many
languages so this doesn't really disturb me.   I've heard Yet Another
Basic is good (though I haven't used it myself):
http://www.yabasic.de/

For your son, maybe you'd also want to try teaching him LOGO.  I
googled up a free LOGO version for Windows here:
http://www.softronix.com/logo.html

Cheers,
-Bryon
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Brin: Fight The Future: Encrypted Screws

[Jim Burton]

On Aug 11, 2004, at 1:41 PM, Davd Brin wrote:
My biggest example is the silent, unnoticed vanishing
of any programming language from personal computers.
I swear, I CANNOT GET A MACHINE WITH SIMPLE BASIC IN
ORDER TO TEACH IT TO MY SON!
It has taken 2 years, and I hope to get an old pentium
machine soon with DOS 6.2 and BASIC aboard, so I can
teach him the fundamentals of moving a dot via a
simple algorithm.  Silently, unnoticed, this has
happened and a new generation will be able to make web
pages and fancy Flash digitals... but without any
grasp of the line coding underneath.
Very disturbing.

Good 'ole BASIC has gone bye-bye -- there is Visual Basic of course, 
but it's certainly not for children.

There is a free GNU Java IDE that the writers claim to be good for 
teaching  programming. Versions are available for Windoze, Linix and 
OSX

http://judo.sourceforge.net/
Haven't used it myself, but if it can really give kids a good 
foundation in Java, that would be a Good Thing, IMHO

Jim
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Brin: Fight The Future: Encrypted Screws

[Davd Brin]

--- The Fool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Fight The Future: Encrypted Screws
> > Imagine a world where you cannot take apart
> anything, or attempting to
> take apart devices, open computer cases, install 3rd
> party replacement
> parts or modifying an existing device was completely
> banned by greedy
> corporations through technology. 

I do not disagree with the fear expressed here. 
Certainly there are elites -- governmental, corporate,
aristocratic, criminal, technological and so on -- who
will want to accumulate control over our lives in the
manner described.

But as a contrarian it is my job to ask people to step
back.  In this case, The Fool needs to ponder whether
his reaction to centralized control is unique.  Or
whether, in fact, the future he describes will creep
out other people, too.

Enough to ... maybe... reject the future he describes?

We are all tempted to portray ourselves as just about
the only people who can see nefarious plots by
conspiring elites.  But in fact, this is EXACTLY the
theme that pervades nearly every movie and song.  It
is THE primary propaganda message of our era.

Now, undercircumstances like that, how likely is it
that people will put up with the "We control your
television set" parts of TF's scenario?

It is the OTHER part that frightens me... a
deterioration in skill.  

See
http://www.futurist.com/portal/future_trends/david_brin_empowerment.htm
where I talk about the need for average citizens to
take MORE power over their lives, not from nefarious
conspiring elites, but just from the trend toward the
PROFESIONALIZATION OF EVERYTHING.  This may be
undermined by a demolition of needed skills.

My biggest example is the silent, unnoticed vanishing
of any programming language from personal computers.

I swear, I CANNOT GET A MACHINE WITH SIMPLE BASIC IN
ORDER TO TEACH IT TO MY SON!

It has taken 2 years, and I hope to get an old pentium
machine soon with DOS 6.2 and BASIC aboard, so I can
teach him the fundamentals of moving a dot via a
simple algorithm.  Silently, unnoticed, this has
happened and a new generation will be able to make web
pages and fancy Flash digitals... but without any
grasp of the line coding underneath.

Very disturbing.

db


PS I still have thos MEMBERSHIPS TO WORLDCON IN
BOSTON for sale, if anyone is interested.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Brin: Fight The Future: Encrypted Screws

[The Fool]

Fight The Future: Encrypted Screws

Imagine a world where you cannot take apart anything, or attempting to
take apart devices, open computer cases, install 3rd party replacement
parts or modifying an existing device was completely banned by greedy
corporations through technology.  A kind of tamper-proof palladium for
all devices including cars, TV's, and any appliance that uses technology.

Imagine that TV's have technology that tracks eye movements and records
the reflection in your eyes (they already have technology that can figure
out what you are looking at solely from reflections on eyes).  Now
imagine that you cannot disable this big-brother device without disabling
the TV completely.  Now imagine that in order to get the TV to show you
the programming you want, the device must first record you watching
twenty minutes of advertising propaganda, and that the TV won't show you
the programming you want to watch unless you do watch all twenty minutes
of the propaganda first.  Now extend this to everything that the TV
shows, all programming, all games, all DVD movies, everything.  All these
things described are likely to come about over the next few years.  Most
of the technology I just described is in development.

Imagine ford makes a car, where only ford authorized technicians are
capable of servicing, fixing, diagnosing problems with, or installing new
parts.  Imagine that every part of the car was connected in such a way
that it is impossible to open without having a ford authorized technician
open it.  Imagine that when a head light breaks, you have to go to ford
to have them install a new one.  You can't remove the existing one with
out fords permission.  You can't install one made by a competitor (The
car will simply refuse to use it).  You can't even use an existing
perfectly good working head-light taken from another car, from a junk
yard or elsewhere.  Ford would have a perfect monopoly, and cars and car
parts would be very expensive.  Now image that ford makes it so that cars
will no longer work after 5 years, and have to be recycled after that
time period.  Further imagine that ford could for any reason whatsoever
deny any user of their cars the ability to fix their car, or upgrade
their car, or even run their car.  Even Further imagine that the car
always keeps track of your position, speed, and other data, and transmits
this data to ford every hour.  Ford 'owns' the car, and you use it as
long as ford (or the government) allows you to. Perhaps the next time you
stop by the Toyota Car lot Ford will decide to revoke your ability to use
your car.

Think that these scenario's can't happen?  Printers already do a lot of
the things I described in the above paragraph.

Enter The Encrypted Screws:

(My commentary will be in Parentheses.)

-
<>
Intelligent Fastening for Automotive Electronics
 
Automotive OEMs and suppliers share a drive to enhance assembly
efficiency and productivity, reduce time-to-market, produce
higher-quality products at competitive prices, and meet regulatory
standards for mileage, safety and the environment. The industry also must
meet demand for increased vehicle performance, comfort, convenience,
communications and security. 
 
By Seshu Seshasai 
Content and complexity of automotive semiconductor technology for various
uses continue to grow. Allied Business Intelligence predicts that the
worldwide automotive semiconductor market will expand to more than $17
billion annually by 2007, up from $12.3 billion last year. Strategy
Analytics reports that electronic systems will grow to more than 30
percent of typical car cost, vs. today's 20 percent. 
 
Intelligent fastening removes the physical link between the tool and
fastener. Designed with actuating mechanisms, intelligent fasteners
feature embedded microchips that control the fastening process through
digital instructions from a remote tool. 

(Fool: Enabling The Manufacturer to have a complete monopoly on all
parts, all 'tools' to open, fix, modify, or release, any and all parts of
the vehicle.)
 
Fasteners typically account for only 5 percent of vehicle production
costs. Yet using fasteners in assembly systems can reach 40 percent of
production overhead. Intelligent fastening potentially can reduce these
costs through a new approach to automobile production and service. 

Design. Designers can focus on performance requirements of products,
subassemblies and component parts rather than assembly. Joints can be
shifted away from high-force transfer areas, allowing different fastening
options. This new capability could help marry form to function. 

Assembly. Subassemblies in conventionally manufactured products include
arrays of fasteners that dictate sequencing requirements of production,
maintenance and service procedures. With intelligent fasteners integrated
within components, a network of intelligent fasteners c