The Other Side of Midnight - Richard C. Hoagland - Live Chat Thread

[chefist]

My concern is not about wine, though interesting. But would they work in my old pellet guns? Would N2 bring more power or number of shots? What about in an old seltzer bottle- more slapstick face spraying action with N2 canisters than CO2? Thinking more, now, a one-shot flame-thrower contraption? Or would that result in explosion? Hmmm.

The real, not ideal, gas law applies here. You want the gas molecule to take up the least amount of space once compressed. Therefore, practically, you would want to use highly compressed helium in the gun.  However, you will need a stronger gas cartridge/capsule and gun, and you will need to reduce the diameter of firing orifice.  You can keep the same diameter if you want, and the projectile will go further. However, you will lose the longevity that you are seeking.

[Dr. MD MD]

Very interesting, to say the least, seeing as how the first peripheral for the Altair wasn't a mouse, a keyboard, or a printer, but a radio. 

It seems a chap by the name of Steve Dompier (proud owner of serial number four) was programming his Altair (which was done in octal by flipping tiny switches on the front panel) and happened to have a radio playing nearby.  When he flipped the "run" switch to execute the program, his radio started emitting tones; these tones were generated by radio frequency interference from the computer caused by the timing loops in the program.  Fascinated, he figured out what tones approximated notes on the musical scale and, after eight hours, had written a program that produced music (or as Dompier put it, "music; of a sort").

To help put this event into perspective, Dompier was doing all this in 1975, a time when there were no pocket-sized computers, no ready-made desktop computers, and relatively few computers of any kind.  If you were a scientist or engineer working from home, you might be lucky enough to have a dumb terminal on your desk allowing you to access a mainframe your employer owned.  Assuming you were one of fortunate few, your employer was not likely to allow you to write programs for fun.  For the most part, if you wanted access to a computer, you had to work for the government or the kind of corporation that was large enough to have the money to buy one.  Needless to say, with computers being so rare (and so expensive), you did what they wanted you to do with it, not what you wanted to do with it.

What I'm getting at is this: 40 years ago, the idea of owning your own computer, to do with as you wished, was a tremendously exciting and compelling one.  What made the Altair so important was that, for the first time ever, anyone who had $400 could send away for a complete kit that would allow them to build their own.  Indeed, enough people were excited by the thought of owning their very own computer to bring MITS' bank account from a negative balance to $250,000 in less than a month.  In 1975, a quarter of a million dollars was serious money and that was income generated by the mere idea of the Altair, shipments of which would not actually begin for some time.

So Steve Dompier not only had a computer of his own, he now had a computer he could program to play music.  For anyone looking on at the time, it must have been like watching Blériot climb into the cockpit to cross the English Channel in 1909.  Needless to say, when he showed up at his local computer club to give a demonstration, the room was very, very quiet.

Through the miracle that is the Internet, you, the reader, are now going to get a chance to sit in that same room and hear what the members of that computer club heard 42 years ago:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EPmWvqZ0Rw

Daisy was, of course, the first piece of computer-generated speech synthesis and it had been played in a demonstration at Bell Labs a decade and a half earlier.  This occasion in 1975 was different: this was someone playing music on their own computer, not a computer someone else owned that could only be accessed in a laboratory.  For the people sitting in that room, their world was changed forever.

And the Altair story did not stop there.  Soon there were third-party companies offering peripherals for the Altair, peripherals that allowed it do things such as:

Take pictures (just like that smartphone in your pocket does today):

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f6/Cromemco_Cyclops_Camera_%281976%29_2.jpg

and process video:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a3/Dazzler_-_Cromemco_Color_Graphics_Interface_%281977%29.jpg/800px-Dazzler_-_Cromemco_Color_Graphics_Interface_%281977%29.jpg

Most important of all, the Altair showed the world that there was money to be made, not only in building computers, but also in building devices to plug in to those computers those allow them to do the things that private individuals (not governments, not corporations) wanted them to do.

It goes without saying that Apple Computer made considerable contributions to the personal computer industry and I did not write any of this to make light of those contributions   Rather, I wrote this in aid of pointing out that Apple Computer was riding a wave that was started by the Altair, that's all.

It's true that, despite my best efforts so far, "footnote" might still seem appropriate to anyone in 2017 who wants to sum up the Altair's contribution to personal computing in a single word.

However, when I mention that Steve Dompier's demonstration took place at the third meeting of the Homebrew Computer Club, that the first meeting of the HCC was convened to demonstrate a working prototype of the Altair, and that Steve Wozniak is on record as saying he found that first meeting of the HCC so moving it inspired him to build the Apple I*, perhaps it is possible that a different word entirely might suggest itself to anyone looking to describe the Altair and the impact it had on the world of 1975 that helped to make the world of 2017 possible.

(Maybe; I hope so.) 



*iWoz p. 150: "After my first meeting, I started designing the computer that would later be known as the Apple I. It was that inspiring."

I don't want to diminish the work you put into this post but I know all that. I've literally read most of the books on the subject and seen all the movies and TV shows about it. Pirates of Silicon Valley dramatizes it quite well (that's Woz's personal favorite on the subject). It's just that no one considered it a "personal computer." In fact it was Apple who also coined that term in their early advertising campaigns for the Apple II. Most people called them microcomputers before that. Yes, the Altair was probably the first commercially available computer but they were for people who had the electronics know how to be able to rig up an interface for it and also the programming knowledge to be able to use once that was done. Almost anyone could use an Apple II with some brief instruction. Anyway, this all started because Hoagland, in talking about the computer revolution, mentioned Jobs and Gates but totally overlooked Woz, the guy who actually built the Apple II in his bedroom and even before he did that he had worked it all out in his head and on paper. If anyone's responsible to the computer revolution it's that guy.

[zeebo]

....Hoagland, in talking about the computer revolution, mentioned Jobs and Gates but totally overlooked Woz, the guy who actually built the Apple II in his bedroom and even before he did that he had worked it all out in his head and on paper. If anyone's responsible to the computer revolution it's that guy.

A possibly very interesting show, which will probably never happen, would be on early contributors to computer tech who rarely get acknowledged such as the pioneers of: 1) the first microchips/CPUs, 2) the C programming language (still the foundation of all kinds of system/application programming today), 3) network hardware and protocols (first for LANs, then later for the internet), and 4) relational databases (based on theoretical math in the 70's and still omnipresent today).  All of these are sort of invisible tech underlying our modern information systems but are kind of taken for granted.  I'm sure there's tons more I left out.

[Dr. MD MD]

A possibly very interesting show, which will probably never happen, would be on early contributors to computer tech who rarely get acknowledged such as the pioneers of: 1) the first microchips/CPUs, 2) the C programming language (still the foundation of all kinds of system/application programming today), 3) network hardware and protocols (first for LANs, then later for the internet), and 4) relational databases (based on theoretical math in the 70's and still omnipresent today).  All of these are sort of invisible tech underlying our modern information systems but are kind of taken for granted.  I'm sure there's tons more I left out.

Indeed! 


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJDv-zdhzMY

[21st Century Man]

A possibly very interesting show, which will probably never happen, would be on early contributors to computer tech who rarely get acknowledged such as the pioneers of: 1) the first microchips/CPUs, 2) the C programming language (still the foundation of all kinds of system/application programming today), 3) network hardware and protocols (first for LANs, then later for the internet), and 4) relational databases (based on theoretical math in the 70's and still omnipresent today).  All of these are sort of invisible tech underlying our modern information systems but are kind of taken for granted.  I'm sure there's tons more I left out.

Can't forget AlGore.  He invented the internet after all. lol

[Nobody]

I don't want to diminish the work you put into this post but I know all that.

Oh, that's all right.    I had a deal of fun writing it and who knows?  It is always possible that someone else might have gained something (if only a cheap laugh) from reading it.  This being the Internet, it is difficult to gauge the effect of what one writes upon others.

(In person, of course, it is possible to gaze upon them with beady-eyed expectation.) 

Anyway, this all started because Hoagland, in talking about the computer revolution, mentioned Jobs and Gates but totally overlooked Woz, the guy who actually built the Apple II in his bedroom and even before he did that he had worked it all out in his head and on paper.

In a way, you can't really blame Hoagland, as Jobs was always the public face of Apple; Woz was content to be an engineer and leave it at that.  I had always known that Woz was reluctant to leave HP, but I did not learn until recently that Jobs actually had Woz's friends and relatives phone Woz and pressure him to leave HP to form Apple because Woz was so reluctant to take that step.

(Apparently, it was a relative that convinced Woz he could start a new company and still remain an engineer that finally tipped the balance.  Wow.)

Anyhow, yes, Hoagland overlooking Woz was a great pity.  I have always respected Steve Jobs inasmuch as he got results.  However, he seemed to have a penchant for treating people badly, too, so I can't say I've ever been a fan.  At the risk of sounding naïve, I have always wondered if he could have accomplished just as much, if not more, if he had been more considerate of others.

On the other hand, perhaps the Steve Jobs of the world are necessary in order to help us better appreciate the Steve Wozniaks.

[Nobody]

A possibly very interesting show, which will probably never happen, would be on early contributors to computer tech who rarely get acknowledged such as the pioneers of: 1) the first microchips/CPUs...

That would make for a good programme.  I'm just not sure it would provide Hoagland with the sort of scope for indulging in his usual feverish ramblings flights of fancy that he seems to demand when choosing a topic. 

Have you considered shooting him an email, if only to see whether you get a response?

[Jackstar]

This being the Internet, it is difficult to gauge the effect of what one writes upon others.

Nobody cares how others feel.

[Dr. MD MD]

Oh, that's all right.    I had a deal of fun writing it and who knows?  It is always possible that someone else might have gained something (if only a cheap laugh) from reading it.  This being the Internet, it is difficult to gauge the effect of what one writes upon others.

(In person, of course, it is possible to gaze upon them with beady-eyed expectation.) 

In a way, you can't really blame Hoagland, as Jobs was always the public face of Apple; Woz was content to be an engineer and leave it at that.  I had always known that Woz was reluctant to leave HP, but I did not learn until recently that Jobs actually had Woz's friends and relatives phone Woz and pressure him to leave HP to form Apple because Woz was so reluctant to take that step.

(Apparently, it was a relative that convinced Woz he could start a new company and still remain an engineer that finally tipped the balance.  Wow.)

Anyhow, yes, Hoagland overlooking Woz was a great pity.  I have always respected Steve Jobs inasmuch as he got results.  However, he seemed to have a penchant for treating people badly, too, so I can't say I've ever been a fan.  At the risk of sounding naïve, I have always wondered if he could have accomplished just as much, if not more, if he had been more considerate of others.

On the other hand, perhaps the Steve Jobs of the world are necessary in order to help us better appreciate the Steve Wozniaks.

Oh sure, without Jobs Woz would've been content to give away the plans to the Apple II at their computer club and keep working at HP. Jobs perfectionism and obsessive compulsive nature is what drove that company. It hasn't been quite as good without him. I can't find it right now but I know there's a documentary or an interview out there where someone tells a story about how Woz was about to take his ball and go home before they actually formed the company because he got fed up with Jobs for some reason and then Jobs went and pleaded and broke down crying in front of Woz's parents.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGXujeBHrcE

[Dr. MD MD]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47ehNQIfHGs

[Nobody]

Jobs perfectionism and obsessive compulsive nature is what drove that company. It hasn't been quite as good without him.

Speaking for myself, I will be greatly interested to see where Apple is a half-decade from now.

I can't claim to have paid particularly close attention to their current product line-up, but offhand, it seems that everything Apple currently offers (with the exception of the Apple Watch) was developed under Jobs.  It isn't clear to me whether Tim Cook has been a great innovator in the six years or so he has been at the helm.

If he hasn't, the deficiency will likely start to manifest itself in the next few years (of course, it may already have started to show and I simply haven't been aware of it).

I can't find it right now but I know there's a documentary or an interview out there where someone tells a story about how Woz was about to take his ball and go home before they actually formed the company because he got fed up with Jobs for some reason and then Jobs went and pleaded and broke down crying in front of Woz's parents.

If you do happen to come across this, can you please post it? This sounds like an intriguing "what if" in Apple history. 

[Nobody]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47ehNQIfHGs

Thank you for posting that clip.  While I was somewhat familiar with the first West Coast Computer Faire in terms of date and place, I had no idea that an encounter had taken place between Jobs and Bill Gates during the event.

At first, I thought the chap who wrote Pirates might have taken a bit of "creative licence" there, but he seems to have been a stickler for accuracy.  Apparently, every event in the film is based on the recollections of two or more people.

Even so, I was rather surprised by Gates' reaction as depicted in the film.  Sure, he's the world's wealthiest man now, but even in 1977 Micro-soft (as was) had already been in business for two years whilst Apple was just getting underway; suit or no, Jobs was still a relative nobody at the time. 

If Gates took getting only a brief acknowledgement from him that badly, his ego was far more delicate than I ever would have thought.   

[Jackstar]

Even so, I was rather surprised by Gates' reaction as depicted in the film.  Sure, he's the world's wealthiest man now, but even in 1977 Micro-soft (as was) had already been in business for two years whilst Apple was just getting underway; suit or no, Jobs was still a relative nobody at the time. 

I don't find it plausible to imagine that all these dorks were not simply all working for DARPA.

[Dr. MD MD]

I don't find it plausible to imagine that all these dorks were not simply all working for DARPA.

Well, Woz's dad was an electrical engineer for some defense corporation. So, needless to say he shared whatever retro engineered alien tech he had access to with his son. 

[astroguy]

I was asked whether what Richard claimed about crater-based model ages is correct, and technically it is:  We assume a model chronology (# craters per time) and base ages on counts versus that chronology.  The chronology is based on radiometric dates from Apollo samples.  If the cratering rate is significantly different within the asteroid belt or on another body in the solar system, then the moon-based model would not apply, and the ages would be wrong.  This is why in published work the ages should always be stated as "model ages" because they require that chronology model.

In astrophysics, this is done, too, such that people will refer to the z-shift (redshift) of a distant object and then use a model for the expansion of the universe to give the physical distance.  We do the same thing in craters, reporting the crater spatial density and then the model-based age.

Of course, Richard would like to change things by factors of millions or billions with crater-based ages, which is incredibly unlikely given what we know about things in the solar system.

[Nobody]

Well, Woz's dad was an electrical engineer for some defense corporation. So, needless to say he shared whatever retro engineered alien tech he had access to with his son. 

That's right: no Roswell, no Apple.




( )

[Juan]

I hope Hoagie talks about the new planet/mothership scientists now think lurks at the outer edge of the solar system.

[Jackstar]

he shared whatever retro engineered alien tech he had access to with his son. 

Most fathers would.

That's right: no Roswell, no Apple.

( )

[K_Dubb]

I was asked whether what Richard claimed about crater-based model ages is correct, and technically it is:  We assume a model chronology (# craters per time) and base ages on counts versus that chronology.  The chronology is based on radiometric dates from Apollo samples.  If the cratering rate is significantly different within the asteroid belt or on another body in the solar system, then the moon-based model would not apply, and the ages would be wrong.  This is why in published work the ages should always be stated as "model ages" because they require that chronology model.

In astrophysics, this is done, too, such that people will refer to the z-shift (redshift) of a distant object and then use a model for the expansion of the universe to give the physical distance.  We do the same thing in craters, reporting the crater spatial density and then the model-based age.

Of course, Richard would like to change things by factors of millions or billions with crater-based ages, which is incredibly unlikely given what we know about things in the solar system.

Thanks!  Uncle Hoagie not a complete nut.

[astroguy]

Thanks!  Uncle Hoagie not a complete nut.

Even complete nuts can have brief moments of lucidity.

[Morgus]

Looks like Hoagie finally has gotten somebody to update his OSOM website now to show the guests for his upcoming new shows tonight and tomorrow at:
https://www.theothersideofmidnight.com/

[Nobody]

Thanks!  Uncle Hoagie not a complete nut.

I am not letting him out of the attic, if that's what you're suggesting.

[Nobody]

Looks like Hoagie finally has gotten somebody to update his OSOM website now to show the guests for his upcoming new shows tonight and tomorrow at:

Speaking of tonight (and in some places, this morning) and tomorrow: are there very many here who listen to Hoagland on Saturday, but not on Sunday?

[paladin1991]

Speaking of tonight (and in some places, this morning) and tomorrow: are there very many here who listen to Hoagland on Saturday, but not on Sunday?

I can't listen to Hoagy on Sunday.  It's against my religion.

[=Schlyder=]

Braaaps... get fucking Michelle off the fucking line. Jesus tapdancing Christ it's 10 minutes into the fucking show. WTF?

[Dyna-X]

Shabbos is over at sundown Saturday, so I hear him both days.

[ShayP]

Cheers all!    Braaps and mega-dildos as well. 

Is this any good tonight?  Late to the party...

[SciFiAuthor]

Is this any good tonight?  Late to the party...

Meh ....

[CronkitesGhost]

tremendous guest booking  Hoagie  :

[ShayP]

Meh ....

Understood and appreciated.