andree@uokvax.UUCP (01/21/84)
#R:utcsrgv:-304700:uokvax:8300034:000:1366
uokvax!andree Jan 19 22:37:00 1984
/***** uokvax:net.religion / utcsrgv!UUCP / 8:10 pm Jan 10, 1984 */
I understand that the difference is that microfilm is still "writing"
in the conventional sense. A physical copy exists on the medium; and
with some microfilm, you can read it (perhaps not very well) without
any special equipment. Also, the special equipment is really no different
than a pair of glasses. Disk, on the other hand, does not store something
written. It stores a bunch of magnetic impulses which your computer
CONVERTS to print on your terminal.
Dave Sherman
Toronto
--
{allegra,cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo}!utcsrgv!dave
/* ---------- */
Gee, I never expected a response on that topic. The point of what
does/doesn't constitue special equipment is very fine, and many lawyers are
making a bundle off of it (something about what you can/can't copyright).
Given something "really no different than a pair of glasses," some very
fine iron dust, and LOTS of practice, it is theoretically possible to
"read" a disk. What reading is is the problem. I used to be able to read
z80 code in hex dumps (I hope never to get that close to ANY machine
again!), and I used to play a game on a DEC 10 that involved "reading"
an assembler program by watching the front panel lights.
Maybe the thing you're reading has to be detectable in something close
to the visible spectrum?
<mike