Typophile - PC MAC PDP-1 - Comments

Due to ex-trim content, (PG

AGL — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 06:41:41 -0700

Due to ex-trim content, (PG RR) Parent Discretion is Advised:

*”* H e a d E x p l o d e s *”*

*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|

PDP-1 MOTION

Flip Switch. ON. Retrieve file. List. Result on screen in black and white. Take notes. Ponder. Course of action. Return . . . Result. Locate printing device. Printing device online. Hummm... hummm... Printing head routine done. Print. Return. Tek-tek-tek-tek-tek . . .
Locate main application. Run. Window pops up. Black and white. Load film cartridge; first, shut light bulbs. Loaded.
Reload previous file. Hover pointer to the beginning. Ponder. Click. Imaging . . . . . . . . . Elapsed time... 00H00H00 24H11M58S. Blinking. End run.
Flip Switch. Bulbs ON. Check resulting celluloid against light background... Follow thru checklist. All checked. “Positive”. Secure run.
Time check. 4:56pm. Remove armor. Flip switch. Bulbs OFF.

Next morning.
Flip switch. Bulbs ON. Locate celluloid. Load onto device. Unlock safe pin. Pull lever slowly to engage. ON... Flip switch. Bulbs OFF.

Projection . . .

*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|

Head explodes

Chipman223 — Fri, 6 Jun 2008 11:53:41 -0700

*Head explodes*

I notice that the visual

DrDoc — Fri, 6 Jun 2008 08:41:14 -0700

I notice that the visual manifestations of these various iconographies are mere shells of their connotative meanings. Each has a similar denotative meaning, that being a computational device meant to increase productivity, but as you mention above, the connotative meanings are greatly different.

This visual representation of reality is an interesting exploration of the postmodernist question of media; we see reality through various media, but reality in and of itself is a medium. The problem then becomes, what is “real” and what is real? How can we define reality, if we can never be sure what is real?

This brings us back to the idea of connotative and denotative meanings. In postmodernism, the denotative meaning of reality is void; we must rely on a connotative meaning. The problem with connotative definitions, however, is that each of us views reality from our own perspective and create our own connotative meanings, which are further distorted because of what we can call the “frame of reference.”

We then have to decide what we can define as absolute. Reality clearly is not; is truth? The answer is no; truth defines itself as the generally accepted happening. Truth and reality, then, are completely separate entities. But what about happening, or “occurrence?” We can agree that there is a such thing as absolute occurrence, though we may not agree upon that absolute.

In examining this enigmatic esoteric representation of a reality distinct from our own, we view it through different frames of reality. There is a visual element, but some instead may see (hear?) the auditory representation. The harsh consonant tones suggest a certain absoluteness and frankness in this expression, but then again almost nothing is absolute.

This conversation is

aluminum — Fri, 6 Jun 2008 06:56:38 -0700

This conversation is pointless unless we ad a C=64 to the mix. ;o)

Well, “if this make any

AGL — Fri, 6 Jun 2008 05:39:00 -0700

Well, “if this make any sense” is still to be determined by the imput-output
PDP-1, MAC and PC may or may not generate.
I would propose that the nuclear point or question is to determine what really happen to P* (PC) and for that I made a picture to depict the trajectory of

PDP-1 MAC PC

I have to point out that the order of appearance starts with PDP-1 and somewhat influences the implosion / disappearance or annihilation of PC, which from that point on becomes only a mirage of itself, which, on a attempt to represent and also with great use of XXI Century instrumentation I was able to magnify, the exact moment of the event, which is now known as

Yet the image or depiction is still too dimmed as to say with certainty what is going to happen in the near future.

Note: * I guess I shouldn’t have used the word “Experiment” because the word in itself would cause “chills”, and for that I ask you to look at the word “Experiment” as if it was/is only a group of letters and not as secondary or tertiary meanings.

Few free to ad more questions or comments. Please, I just ask of you to think in terms of PDP-1 MAC P*(PC) as elements composed of characters, refraining from connections to facts e/or persons.

ps.: I used familiar colors as to keep it in a domestic perspective

Have had no luck with this.

elliot100 — Fri, 6 Jun 2008 02:44:58 -0700

Have had no luck with this. Is “drop(ping)” a clue? Why domestic [US?] brands? What is the significance of the “P*”?

I think this is some weird

DrDoc — Thu, 5 Jun 2008 12:34:24 -0700

I think this is some weird surrealist thread. I like it.

What experiment? This makes

jonathanhughes — Thu, 5 Jun 2008 11:37:06 -0700

What experiment? This makes no sense. What are you trying to achieve here?

I thought no one would

AGL — Thu, 5 Jun 2008 10:00:32 -0700

I thought no one would ’drop’ by to see this. The idea of sound did not occurred to me... that is a very good idea.
Picture PDP-1, MAC and PC as if they were interacting in a ascendent motion and, consequently producing the sounds which are perceived by the viewer. As PDP-1, MAC and PC interact, there could be the tek-tek-tek, just faster, like trreeehhhhhhhhhh produced by a dot matrix printer, which at some point produces the singularity that takes out or annihilate one of the elements of this experiment:

I’m still lost. What?

DrDoc — Thu, 5 Jun 2008 07:46:13 -0700

I’m still lost.

What?

All I hear is a whooshing

Chipman223 — Thu, 5 Jun 2008 06:54:01 -0700

All I hear is a whooshing sound, likely caused by something flying over my head.

To translate for Darrel, “This conversation is really odd.”

01010100 01101000 01101001

aluminum — Thu, 5 Jun 2008 06:41:55 -0700

01010100 01101000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01100011 01101111 01101110 01110110 01100101 01110010 01110011 01100001 01110100 01101001 01101111 01101110 00100000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01101100 01101100 01111001 00100000 01101111 01100100 01100100 00101110

Thanks Concrete for the

AGL — Thu, 5 Jun 2008 05:07:16 -0700

Thanks Concrete for the extra info on PDP-1, and for you guys for ’dropping’ by.

The idea behind PDP-1, MAC and PC is that it is designed so that it conceals its real meaning, or the real names they (mis)represent.

PDP-1 is the idea of a dinosauric ideology;
MAC is the fresh look it inspire and also a model that most of the ’computer word’ would give anything to duplicate;
PC is the paradigm of a failed attempt to capitalize on the ignorance of non-computer users.

When this first come to consideration, I researched for five minutes, looking for the desired hardware. My first option was:

ATARI - PC - MAC

But, the experiment required the use of only domestic brands, to be represented as ’icons’ or pictograms. I also considered it would be best served as images, but that would take precious time to accomplish. That left me with a option which would make the experiment as fast as fast could be. Living me to the minimal approach: Georgia and Align to the left.

That has proven to be the fastest approach.

André

* The above description may change at any time with the reserved option to add a picture and color that could shine some light on this puzzle.

forget mac... I want one of

concrete — Wed, 4 Jun 2008 17:32:57 -0700

forget mac... I want one of those PDP-1.... now that is the future, space efficient... and forget iTunes when you have this

Lyrics to a Kraftwerk song?

Mark Simonson — Wed, 4 Jun 2008 17:04:04 -0700

Lyrics to a Kraftwerk song?

PC MAC PDP-1

AGL — Wed, 4 Jun 2008 03:44:11 -0700

PDP-1 MAC PC
PC MAC PDP-1

PDP-1

MAC - PC
PC - MAC

MAC PC MAC PC
PC MAC PC MAC

PDP-1 MAC
MAC PDP-1

PC PDP-1
PDP-1 PC

PC
MAC

PC MAC MAC
MAC PC PC

PC MAC PC MAC PC MAC
MAC PC MAC PC MAC P*

MAC
PDP-1

PDP-1 MAC PDP-1 MAC
MAC PDP-1 MAC PDP-1

MAC
PDP-1