Here is another scan from a different location:
http://www.imsai.net/download/IEEE_696_1983.pdf
I hope this may help.
smp
- Original Message -
On 12/20/2015 12:40 PM, Mouse wrote:
If so, 1983+95 = 2078 when it'll be public domain,
Jurisdiction-dependent. Not everywhere is crazy enough to follow
the USA's disney clause (though the Berne Convention does have some
possibly-relevant reciprocal recognition clauses).
What little I've been
On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 1:40 PM, Mouse wrote:
> What little I've been able to find on this in a few minutes indicates
> that "author's lifetime + 70" is more common than anything + 95.
In some (many?) jurisdictions that use author's lifetime + 70, for
works of "corporate" authorship the term is 9
> If so, 1983+95 = 2078 when it'll be public domain,
Jurisdiction-dependent. Not everywhere is crazy enough to follow the
USA's disney clause (though the Berne Convention does have some
possibly-relevant reciprocal recognition clauses).
What little I've been able to find on this in a few minutes
At 03:04 PM 12/20/2015, Eric Smith wrote:
>The problem has been solved.
Is the solution available online?
Dale H. Cook, Roanoke/Lynchburg, VA
Osborne 1 / Kaypro 4-84 / Kaypro 1 / Amstrad PPC-640
http://plymouthcolony.net/starcity/radios/index.html
I asked:
> Does anyone have a scan of the IEEE-696 (S-100) standard that has NOT
> been run through OCR
The problem has been solved. Thanks!
On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
> Does IEEE consider this to be copyrighted material?
Of course they do.
> Have you contacted the folks at IEEE for a copy?
It's withdrawn, so IEEE doesn't sell it. Most likely IHS Global
Engineering Documents does.
Not to put too fine a po
On 12/20/2015 11:13 AM, Eric Smith wrote:
On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Chuck Guzis
wrote:
There's another one here also, but I assume it's also an OCR
victim: http://www.z80.eu/dos65/DOS-65_IEEE_Standard_696_Guide.pdf
That's interesting, and thanks for pointing it out, but it isn't the
s
On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Chuck Guzis wrote:
> There's another one here also, but I assume it's also an OCR victim:
> http://www.z80.eu/dos65/DOS-65_IEEE_Standard_696_Guide.pdf
That's interesting, and thanks for pointing it out, but it isn't the standard.
Has same OCR problems. See figure 16 on page 38.
On 12/20/2015 04:02 AM, Tor Arntsen wrote:
On 20 December 2015 at 07:25, Eric Smith wrote:
Is this it? (1983)
http://www.pestingers.net/PDFs/Other_computers/IEEE%20696%20S-100%20Bus%20Specs.pdf
That's the one that's been screwed up by OCR.
What about this one? Except for the front page
On 20 December 2015 at 07:25, Eric Smith wrote:
>> Is this it? (1983)
>> http://www.pestingers.net/PDFs/Other_computers/IEEE%20696%20S-100%20Bus%20Specs.pdf
>
> That's the one that's been screwed up by OCR.
What about this one? Except for the front page and possibly the very
beginning, it seems t
> Is this it? (1983)
> http://www.pestingers.net/PDFs/Other_computers/IEEE%20696%20S-100%20Bus%20Specs.pdf
That's the one that's been screwed up by OCR.
On 12/19/2015 07:57 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
Does anyone have a scan of the IEEE-696 (S-100) standard that has
NOT been run through OCR to screw up the typography (and even some of
the illustrations)?
I'm *not* looking for the draft, only the final standard.
Is this it? (1983)
http://www.pest
Does anyone have a scan of the IEEE-696 (S-100) standard that has NOT
been run through OCR to screw up the typography (and even some of the
illustrations)?
I'm *not* looking for the draft, only the final standard.
15 matches
Mail list logo
