[HN Gopher] The Prince symbol has been salvaged from a 1993 flop...
___________________________________________________________________
The Prince symbol has been salvaged from a 1993 floppy disk
Author : glitcher
Score : 208 points
Date : 2021-11-30 15:13 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (cdm.link)
(TXT) w3m dump (cdm.link)
| ok123456 wrote:
| This was around the time Prince was sending out cease and disease
| letters to people hosting Prince midi files.
| ComputerGuru wrote:
| After all that, they uploaded it to the archive as an image
| rather than as a font or vector file!?
| Stampo00 wrote:
| The title is a bit hyperbolic. Although it's cool to secure an
| original diskette and read it, archived versions were already
| available online.
| [deleted]
| jareklupinski wrote:
| yea I wish they went into a bit more detail on _how_ they
| extracted it, so the next person who needs to dump an
| unarchived floppy can follow their steps
| dhosek wrote:
| Part of the dispute Prince was having with the label continues to
| this day and is why Taylor Swift has re-recorded all her albums.
| It is "standard practice" for the label to take ownership of the
| copyright on the recorded material (called phonographic copyright
| and indicated with ) while charging all the costs of recording
| against the artist's share of the royalties which can result in
| an artist owing the label money for a hit record.
|
| Ray Charles was a pioneer in insisting that he own the
| phonographic copyright on his recordings when he moved from
| Atlantic to ABC-Paramount yet this remained something out of
| reach for most artists. Robert Fripp was engaged in a decades-
| long lawsuit against EG to regain control of the phonographic
| copyright on King Crimson material (as well as to recoup
| illegally withheld royalties). Squeeze is another artist who re-
| recorded their albums to reclaim the phonographic copyright.
|
| It's worth noting that Warner Brothers' response to Swift re-
| recording her albums was to update their contracts to prevent any
| other artist from following in her footsteps.
| mikepurvis wrote:
| "It's worth noting that Warner Brothers' response to Swift re-
| recording her albums was to update their contracts to prevent
| any other artist from following in her footsteps."
|
| Is there any indication how this is working for them and their
| artists? I would think given the massive publicity that the
| Taylor Swift effort has received, it would be quite the other
| way, with more artists insisting on getting those rights
| upfront. I know they're typically young and desperate/powerless
| when these things are being negotiated, but I would think the
| "go it yourself" route is if anything more robust now than ever
| before-- no one cares about physical distribution, there are
| many paths to getting your stuff on Spotify and iTunes, and
| most small-time artists I know are doing the
| publicity/engagement side themselves with some combination of
| regular video content on YouTube and streaming mini-concerts.
|
| What can WB or any other major label offer an artist like this
| in exchange for the gigantic ask that is "we own all your stuff
| forever and btw we also own any re-recordings of these songs"?
| Hokusai wrote:
| > with more artists insisting on getting those rights upfront
|
| I doubt that unknown artist can negotiate anything. What you
| are offered is better than nothing. Big corporations abuse
| their position all the time, individuals can not
| realistically opt out. The only option is regulations and law
| enforcement.
|
| > What can WB or any other major label offer an artist like
| this in exchange for the gigantic ask that is "we own all
| your stuff forever and btw we also own any re-recordings of
| these songs"?
|
| Advertisement, legal protection (mainly from themselves),
| access to traditional media, and distribution in general. How
| many artist make it out of the big labels system? There is a
| reason for that.
| mikepurvis wrote:
| "How many artist make it out of the big labels system?"
|
| Lots, particularly if your criteria is "big labels" and not
| just "labels":
|
| https://www.complex.com/pigeons-and-
| planes/2017/07/independe...
| phkahler wrote:
| "Oh, you need to sign over the copyright to us so we can
| legally make and distribute copies." I think that's
| approximately the line of bullshit they give. No, by default
| creators own their copyright and can license that on terms they
| allow. Once you sign that over it's just not your material
| anymore.
| fossuser wrote:
| In the old world the business model made sense, it no longer
| does.
|
| Part of what gets distorted by Taylor Swift and Dave Chappelle
| is the larger context. Similar to VC the vast majority of label
| supported musicians are economic failures. The big winners pay
| for the rest of the failures.
|
| With modern distribution this is mostly a bad deal.
|
| Since the 'Non Fungible Taylor Swift' [0] is really in control
| she can subvert this (until contracts get updated), but
| generally people can just go direct now and do their own
| marketing or negotiate better terms for investment.
|
| I'm not fan of the music labels or how their clinging to an
| outdated business model for decades has set back their market
| cap by probably billions (compare to free to play videogames),
| but the way this is often portrayed by the rare breakout
| artists is similarly warped and one-sided. You never hear from
| the failures the label funded that didn't make it.
|
| [0]: https://stratechery.com/2021/non-fungible-taylor-swift/
| thaeli wrote:
| > compare to free to play videogames
|
| What's the music equivalent of abusive lootbox and gatcha
| mechanics? Those seem to drive a lot of the free-to-play
| profit..
| fossuser wrote:
| In games its give away the game and pay for the skins,
| characters etc.
|
| In music its give away the songs and pay for the merch,
| shows, access to artist, etc.
|
| The market for the latter is huge. The music is the viral
| hook you can use to take advantage of the internet's
| distribution in order to get the attention to create fans
| and drive them towards the other stuff.
|
| With the internet you don't even need to rely on mega-pop
| stars, there's enough people at scale for a lot of niche
| audiences.
| smcameron wrote:
| I don't think it _ever_ made sense. Steve Albini wrote an
| article about how fucked up it all was back in 1993:
| https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-problem-with-music
| chaosharmonic wrote:
| During the Napster era Courtney Love made a similar
| argument that record labels are the real pirates. [0]
|
| https://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/
| bingohbangoh wrote:
| Not entirely related, but one doesn't necesarily use the
| advances as cash in the pocket -- you dump it into assets
| that pay you money (e.g. bonds).
|
| Taken to an extreme, you see David Bowie who floated the
| royalties of all his records as a financial instrument that
| you can buy. [0]
|
| [0]: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bowie-bond.asp
| fossuser wrote:
| I think there's a reasonable argument there, but I can
| understand the model better before the internet (since
| distribution was way harder and more expensive). The terms
| were definitely bad for talent because early talent had no
| leverage before the internet (and couldn't coordinate).
|
| After the internet whatever argument the record companies
| had was way weaker and their unwillingness to update
| (instead attempting to fight everything legally) cost them
| enormous returns.
| dllthomas wrote:
| _" I prove to you that I am bad enough to get into hell,
| because I have been through it! I have seen it! It has
| happened to me! Remember: I was signed for Warner Brothers
| for eight fucking years!"_ - Zappa in '79
| cycomanic wrote:
| What is truly enraging in the story about major music labels
| and copyright is how they essentially pushed through massive
| law changes in many countries making breaking copyright
| crimes (not just civil cases) and going after some file
| sharers with absolutely outrages claims of lost earnings (and
| often won).
|
| At the same time they got caught red handed disregarding
| copyright themselves multiple times (Sony's rootkit which
| used some linux copyright IIRC, or the case of several major
| record labels releasing compilation albums of music without
| artist consent and copyright in Canada are just two
| examples). By their own calculations used against file shares
| the damages should have amounted to billions, but they got
| away with not so much but a slap on the wrist. I wish some
| judge would have really made an example of some of them.
| BrandoElFollito wrote:
| In France they managed to make the country pay for the hunt
| against P2P.
|
| There was a governmental agency (Hadopi) that costed
| millions of euros and due to the stupid law managed to won
| I think one case for 2000EUR.
|
| They got merged into another useless agency and was
| forgotten. I am not sure whether they still exist, nobody
| really cares.
|
| This is how pay of our tax money is spent in France, on
| subsidized sandboxes for politicians.
| fossuser wrote:
| No disagreement with me there, the copyright laws are a
| disaster and have long lost their way from the 'means' to
| "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by
| securing for _limited Times_ to Authors and Inventors the
| exclusive Right to their respective Writings and
| Discoveries. "
|
| The purpose is to incentivize creative works for the public
| benefit with the _limited time_ exclusive rights, not
| retroactively extend copyright years after the death of the
| author to enrich their rights-holders in perpetuity every
| time expiration comes up.
|
| As it is, you can't even make something public domain
| yourself - the best you can do is add a permissive license
| since all rights are reserved by default without
| registration.
|
| But this is getting somewhat off topic.
| chriscjcj wrote:
| If it was part of a font, then I would think that the logo was in
| vector form. (It could have been a bitmap font, of course, but if
| you're sending the font to magazines and publishers, a postscript
| or TueType font would have been more appropriate.) If it did
| exist in the font as a vector based image, it seems strange to
| upload a rasterized version to archive.org. It wouldn't have been
| too hard to upload it as an svg or eps and maintain its quality
| regardless of its size/resolution.
| pavon wrote:
| The article says the Mac version was a bmapfile which is a
| rasterized image format, not vector form. That said, they
| really should have uploaded the original files to archive.org,
| in addition to the conversion to a more common format.
| mmastrac wrote:
| Not snarky at all, but this would be great as an SVG - which
| could then be turned into a proper TTF using the private-use
| area.
|
| EDIT: seems to be available as a TTF here (but apparently under
| 'S' rather than 'P'):
| https://www.dropbox.com/sh/jvj2ss4jfymvir1/AADXW3RWGwgykj1mg...
| marcodiego wrote:
| Hmmm... Prince, not Prince of Persia.
| jonplackett wrote:
| CompuServe. That's a name I forgot I used to know so well!
| AutumnCurtain wrote:
| I still have a freebie shirt they gave me in like 1994. Who
| knew it would outlast them
| fullstop wrote:
| I have a Sun Microsystems shirt from the same era. It still
| fits!
| mnw21cam wrote:
| I was given a Sun t-shirt that had been compressed into a
| surfboard shape at a conference. Unfortunately they gave me
| a size that could probably have fitted three of me in, so
| it got worn a couple of times and then used for painting
| until it wore out.
| scrumper wrote:
| Nice that their legacy lives on, thrives really, in GIFs.
| SavantIdiot wrote:
| This article grossly understates how much Anil Dash adores
| Prince! Anyone who's followed Anil knows it goes quite deep.
| teajunky wrote:
| The name doesn't matter to me. I would like to hear these five
| hundred songs
| dr-detroit wrote:
| Some muppet will give you a million dollar if you say its an NFT
| linsomniac wrote:
| Prince's name change reminds me of that Bit of Fry and Laurie
| police station sketch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nq-
| dchJPXGA
| xg15 wrote:
| This could be solved today with a short application to the
| Unicode consortium and a few OS updates, so I guess we made
| progress :)
| Tijdreiziger wrote:
| Well, no -- that's discussed in the article:
|
| > Parker Higgins investigated whether Prince could be honored
| in unicode with this symbol. (Answer - no, on three counts, as
| it's personal, a logo, and protected intellectual property.)
| rectang wrote:
| From the article:
|
| > _Parker Higgins investigated whether Prince could be honored
| in unicode with this symbol. (Answer - no, on three counts, as
| it's personal, a logo, and protected intellectual property.)_
| xg15 wrote:
| Argh, I'm sorry. And that's why one should always read the
| article fully before commenting...
| ajb wrote:
| Apparently some fans proposed a combining-character
| representation though: http://www.unicode.org/mail-
| arch/unicode-ml/Archives-Old/UML...
|
| T
| dylan604 wrote:
| watch it become part of a future version of fontawesome
| rsynnott wrote:
| The Unicode consortium is generally quite resistant to this
| sort of thing; I think you'd probably have to establish more
| use than just "one person uses this as a name".
|
| Notoriously, they won't even allow Klingon.
| BeFlatXIII wrote:
| No Tengwar, either.
| revolvingocelot wrote:
| >Notoriously, they won't even allow Klingon.
|
| I can't resist, gotta agitate about this. Unicode allocated
| space for the legendarily-untranslated Minoan script _Linear
| A_ , for fuck's sake! Unicode allocated space for fucking
| _Ogham script_ -- not that that 's inappropriate, but it's
| unlikely to be used by the vast majority of people, now or in
| future, simply as a consequence of its antiquity and
| obsolescence.
|
| Of course I'm revealing my 90s-trek power level here, but
| it's seriously puzzling (shading all the way up into quietly
| infuriating) that these dead languages' scripts are welcomed,
| while an, er, conlang that has actual _living speakers_ can
| 't have any of the frankly voluminous Unicodespace. _QI
| 'yaH_!
| DonaldFisk wrote:
| Dead languages and scripts are studied, though. The Unicode
| is there for them so that scholars can type and print what
| was actually written/carved, instead of a Roman alphabet
| transcription. The problem with Klingon is it's a conlang,
| and anyone can design a new script for their conlang and
| demand a Unicode block.
| nathell wrote:
| My pet peeve is U+A66E (CYRILLIC LETTER MULTIOCULAR O, )
| [0], a glyph that had literally been used _once only in
| history_ by a 15-century scribe before making its way into
| Unicode. And when it did, the reference rendering (7-eyed)
| is different from the one originally used by that scribe
| (10-eyed).
|
| [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiocular_O
| malermeister wrote:
| It's even funnier, the one use of the multi-ocular o was
| in a text referring to many-eyed (i.e. multi-ocular)
| seraphims.
|
| Sounds like the only documented use was a visual pun from
| 600 years ago.
| Macha wrote:
| There's also plenty of "ghost" kanji which first appeared
| in a dictionary with no evidence for use and some which
| have been positively identified to a single source as a
| mistaken/sloppy handwritten attempt at a different real
| kanji character.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > a glyph that had literally been used once only in
| history by a 15-century scribe before making its way into
| Unicode.
|
| Your Wikipedia article says "certain manuscripts", not a
| single use. (It does say it is only ever used in one
| specific _phrase_ , though,)
| tata71 wrote:
| Anyone have a curated list of cool Unicode shapes?
| dotancohen wrote:
| The Unicode symbol preceding the topic of discussion,
| "Cyrillic letter Double Monocular O", has a rather
| suggestive shape:
|
| Everywhere I look something reminds me of her...
| dotancohen wrote:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5OQMoSCrqw
| sdenton4 wrote:
| well, that's definitely going into all my future Call of
| Cthlhu games whenever a shggth is mentioned...
| klyrs wrote:
| They better have an i with a heart replacing the dot...
| jfk13 wrote:
| You may be looking for https://www.evertype.com/standards
| /iso10646/pdf/n258a-heartd...
| WorkLobster wrote:
| Personal anecdote, but since Ogham has been available in
| Unicode, I've seen the odd person start being interested in
| it to write out names, exclamations, etc. It feels like a
| small previously-closed gate has been opened for a nice
| little way for people to connect and engage with an old
| part of our culture.
| revolvingocelot wrote:
| Oh, that's wonderful, actually! Between my perception of
| its rarity, and the seeming ability to easily represent
| it with vector graphics of straight lines, I figured it
| was a laudable target but I see that it isn't. After all,
| the idea of a niche script getting more attention because
| of its inclusion in Unicode is exactly what I'm all
| excited about.
|
| I'll happily replace Ogham, in future rants, with that
| fucking multiocular O mentioned in a sibling to the
| parent.
| mumblemumble wrote:
| I am guessing that the big difference here is that ogham
| and linear A are public domain, while Paramount claims
| copyright ownership of Klingon.
| revolvingocelot wrote:
| >Paramount claims copyright ownership of Klingon
|
| Well, _sorta_. Not according to the Language Creation
| Society! From the fallout of the case where Paramount
| /CBS sued the Axenar guys for the temerity to make a fan
| film without paying them for it comes this Washington
| Post opinion [0] (I've added the links found in the text
| at [1] and [2]):
|
| >It seemed a stretch to suggest that the plaintiffs were
| claiming copyright in the Klingon language itself, and
| the court agreed, taking the somewhat unusual step of
| denying LCS's motion to file its brief [1], on the
| grounds that the court didn't have to "reach the issue of
| whether languages, and specifically the Klingon language,
| are copyrightable" in ruling on the case.
|
| >The LCS has declared victory -- at least to the extent
| that the final ruling in the case will not hold that the
| Klingon language is protected by copyright. Its statement
| -- with a translation into Klingon, for those of you who
| read Klingon -- is posted here [2].
|
| The situation doesn't seem as rosy as the LCS' statement
| suggests, but as a consequence, I feel comfortable in
| claiming that Paramount does not currently, successfully,
| claim copyright ownership of Klingon. That said, "not
| getting sued by Paramount in future" is a pretty good
| reason for Unicode to exclude anything.
|
| Tengwar, the script used to write Quenya and Sindarin,
| however...
|
| [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-
| conspiracy/wp/201...
|
| [1] https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzmetJxi-p0VN0t5MWNP
| OTZ4SU0...
|
| [2] https://conlang.org/axanar/#updates
| WorldMaker wrote:
| There is a difference between the copyright standard of
| the language itself (which may not be a copyrightable
| thing, though the court left that for future courts to
| decide in the given case) and the copyright standard of
| custom glyphs used by that language though. The custom
| glyphs themselves to "write" the language are artistic
| design elements usually recognized to have some copyright
| protections as with any works of art. (There's also
| further protections in they way they are often used that
| sometimes trademark protections also may be applied and
| looser defined "trade dress" protections as well.
| Aurebesh, the custom glyphs of Star Wars is pretty
| heavily defended by such protections in commercial
| projects.) Unfortunately, the sources for the Klingon
| glyphs are copyrighted movies and fonts owned or
| commissioned by ViacomCBS and there's not much of an
| argument to be made that they aren't art designs they
| own.
|
| I believe the same applies to Tengwar that too much of
| comes from artistic work written and/or commissioned for
| books still in copyright and owned by Houghton Mifflin
| Harcourt.
|
| Perhaps when more of the copyrights expire on these
| originating works Unicode can revisit them.
| Unfortunately, that's not going to happen soon. (Even
| Tengwar isn't expected to expire until 2044, 70 years
| after JRR Tolkien's death.)
| mumblemumble wrote:
| That, and it sounds like this is only covering a case in
| US copyright law. Unicode potentially has to worry about
| the rest of the world as well.
|
| I can imagine that the Unicode Consortium's general
| feeling on the subject is outside the scope of their
| mission, and that pleasing a sci-fi fandom just isn't
| really worth the potential for headaches, and that it's
| better to let them continue to rely on ConScript.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > >Paramount claims copyright ownership of Klingon
|
| > Well, sorta.
|
| Paramount definitely claims copyright on the "Klingon"
| glyphs from various ST properties that fans have mapped
| to the language described in _The Klingon Dictionary_
| (which is newer than the glyphs), so as far as those
| glyphs and any derivative works are concerned - what both
| the Unicode Consortium _and_ any font makers would be
| concerned with - Paramount's copyrights are a problem.
|
| Whether they own the language beyond that may be a murky
| legal question, but it is also beside the point.
|
| (And, actually, what your source supports is that
| Paramount definitely claims ownership of Klingon, the
| other party in the case disputed it, and the court found
| that they didn't need to decide the issue to resolve the
| case. That is in no way a "sorta" on "Paramount claims
| copyright ownership on Klingon". That a third-party
| seeking to file an amicus brief against Paramount's claim
| on that point chose to do a victory dance because they
| were told to go away because the issue they were
| concerned with was ultimately not material to the
| resolution of the case is...interesting spin, but not
| much else.)
| revolvingocelot wrote:
| >That is in no way a "sorta" on "Paramount claims
| copyright ownership on Klingon"
|
| I see the problem. IANAL, but I take "Paramount claims
| copyright" to mean something legally enforceable; an
| uncontroversial legal right that they are claiming [0].
| As suggested by both parent and the sources further
| above, that matter has yet to be settled, and wasn't
| addressed in the decision. The statement "Paramount
| claims that it has the copyright to the Klingon language"
| I wholeheartedly agree with (and disagree, obviously, on
| the ability of Paramount to claim copyright on a
| collaborative intellectual effort between James Doohan,
| Marc Okrand, and others, both due to nerd fervour and a
| bunch of hand-waving about the intersection of IP and
| morality that are beyond the scope of this tangent).
|
| [0] Possibly this is due to the ubiquity of the phrase
| "copyright claim", deployed to describe the monetization
| of someone else's intellectual property. The uh claimant
| is presumed to have a legal right to the material being
| claimed, but it's not clear that Paramount has that legal
| right.
| xg15 wrote:
| Ok, my takeaway is that the question "can you copyright
| languages in the US copyright system?" currently sits at
| "maybe".
|
| But we're at least sure you can't patent "a procedure for
| producing ATP using O2 as catalyst and energy source",
| right?
|
| Right?
| DonaldFisk wrote:
| Voynichese script is public domain but there's no Unicode
| for that either. You can get a font for it though, but
| people studying the Voynich Manuscript usually make do
| with a transcription based on the Roman alphabet + Arabic
| numerals (e.g. EVA). Unlike Linear A (or Ogham), there's
| no consensus that Voynichese means anything, and there's
| only one book written in it.
| Finnucane wrote:
| Having been involved in archival projects including archaic
| scripts, I can tell you that academics feel a similar that
| the Unicode consortium seems to be prioritizing rafts of
| new emojis over texts that would be useful to academics.
| Let alone trekkie fanservice. Just use the PUA, if you
| really feel that strongly about it.
| rsynnott wrote:
| AIUI emoji are a different working group to languages
| (also I _think_ languages of academic interest might be a
| different group to languages in current use).
| dangerbird2 wrote:
| Also, how are we read Shakespeare in the original Klingon
| on the internet?
| rsynnott wrote:
| So I think the main excuse at the time was that people
| usually use latin for Klingon. Which honestly feels like a
| bit of a chicken and an egg problem to me...
| revolvingocelot wrote:
| Exactly! The Latin character set is used precisely
| because _Klingon fonts aren 't standardized_!! Nnh!
|
| *hits inhaler*
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Notoriously, they won't even allow Klingon.
|
| Copyright issues seem to be a big factor there.
| jhallenworld wrote:
| Their thinking is too small.. I mean why shouldn't everyone
| on earth be able to have their own personal symbol? The
| technical challenge does not seem that insurmountable.
|
| Also it's a business opportunity along the lines of the star
| name registry.
| notpachet wrote:
| Prince's struggles with Warner bore other wonderful fruit, as
| well. Emancipation, Prince's first album after casting off the
| metaphorical shackles of Warner, is a superb album. It has 36
| songs and spans 180 minutes, to give you a sense of the amount of
| artistic freedom that Prince must have been feeling at the time.
| Highly recommended listening for any casual Prince fan who wants
| to expand their knowledge of his repertoire. The man was an
| unqualified musical genius.
| e40 wrote:
| He was also way ahead of the curve connecting directly with
| fans. He had a BBS/forum/something that a friend of mine who
| was a huge Prince fan was a member of. As a member, they got
| early access to new tracks. I don't remember how much it was,
| but my friend loved it.
| Wingman4l7 wrote:
| David Bowie was a pioneer in this space as well -- he had his
| own ISP, BowieNet:
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jan/11/david-
| bow...
| elb2020 wrote:
| I personally like his stuff from before Diamonds and Pearls,
| mostly. After that I think he got further and further removed
| from his original funk roots, and I think he sort of drifted
| off into a sea of wishy-washy new age stuff that he never fully
| re-emerged from. I know his later stuff will, still, be
| endorsed by hardcore fans, but I do not think it's for the
| casual listener.
| pvaldes wrote:
| Losing it would be a minor problem, when could had been redone
| easily in metafont from any of the millions of singles of the
| most beautiful girl in the world available.
|
| We have a scientific symbol yet for the representation of both
| sexes, hermaphrodyte. Is in unicode yet (if I'm not wrong) so
| there is not a real need to use this. Would start a war for every
| artist and band in the planet asking for their personal symbol in
| unicode. Rolling stones tongue should be for example. Is as much
| iconic than the trumpet key, if not more.
| bob332 wrote:
| Lol sex is binary, anyone who thinks otherwise is utterly
| delusional
| 1-more wrote:
| Limor Fried continues to be a hero.
| uncletammy wrote:
| I came across Limor's Minty MP3 player when I was young, broke,
| and looking for an open alternative to an ipod. It was back
| before Adafruit existed as a web store. Minty was just an open
| PCB design hosted on a single page with a parts list and a link
| to a forum where people would help each other source parts and
| assemble the thing.
|
| I have very fond memories of this because it changed the
| trajectory of my life. It showed me how powerful a tool the
| internet could be for organizing people around ideas, many of
| which sought to improve people's lives through free and open
| technology.
|
| The other thing this experience did was to make me feel safe
| tinkering with hardware and electronic circuits. Consumer
| devices had felt like mystical black boxes that could never be
| understood, much less re-created by me. After Minty, I was
| empowered to take things apart and learn how they worked. I
| grew an appetite for technical knowledge that hasn't slowed
| down to this day.
|
| EDIT: Found a capture. It's slightly different than I remember
| it but it's a nice little snapshot of Adafruit's origin story.
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20050215023236/http://web.media....
| habitue wrote:
| I guess add one more falsehood programmers believe about names:
|
| - People's names aren't a non-unicode symbol that a person made
| up just to refer to themselves
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-11-30 23:02 UTC)