TIS-100: An emulator for a CPU that doesn't exist • Hacker News Board

Re: TIS-100: An emulator for a CPU that doesn't exist

#31

Post by lfowles » Tue, Jun 30, 2015, 4:20 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #26

mondoshawan wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not quite correct. Even out here in CA you still need permission if your employer has an invention assignment agreement.

They ask you to sign those, but the state doesn't permit them to claim inventions done on your time on your equipment. Don't be fooled.

You will still want to work with the company so there is proof that you both agree you are exempt.

Re: TIS-100: An emulator for a CPU that doesn't exist

#32

Post by cmdrfred » Tue, Jun 30, 2015, 4:47 PM UTC

markdeloura wrote: post #28

cmdrfred wrote: post #18

Is this a good way to get started with assembly?

It doesn't have much in the way of a tutorial yet - this PDF might be a better place to grow your understanding of Assembly Language: http://www.drpaulcarter.com/pcasm/

Thanks for the tip.

Re: TIS-100: An emulator for a CPU that doesn't exist

#33

Post by static_noise » Tue, Jun 30, 2015, 5:05 PM UTC

MMIX

Re: TIS-100: An emulator for a CPU that doesn't exist

#34

Post by chetanahuja » Tue, Jun 30, 2015, 5:59 PM UTC

I've been looking for a simple computer/CPU simulator for kids to play on. Something like this http://thlorenz.com/visulator/ is almost there but it's a bit too complex for elementary/middle school level kids to start on. A game would be even better but the one we're discussing here (TIS-100) is basically designed to confuse and challenge rather than illuminate. Suggestions and pointers are extremely welcome.

Re: TIS-100: An emulator for a CPU that doesn't exist

#35

Post by JoeAltmaier » Tue, Jun 30, 2015, 6:27 PM UTC

lfowles wrote: post #31

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They ask you to sign those, but the state doesn't permit them to claim inventions done on your time on your equipment. Don't be fooled.

You will still want to work with the company so there is proof that you both agree you are exempt.

You can't sign your rights away. The company document is void.

Re: TIS-100: An emulator for a CPU that doesn't exist

#36

Post by lfowles » Tue, Jun 30, 2015, 6:54 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #35

lfowles wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You will still want to work with the company so there is proof that you both agree you are exempt.

You can't sign your rights away. The company document is void.

I'm not arguing that. Completely disregarding the void document, you will still want to document _and notify_ the company that your IP is in the exempt category.

I'm assuming the law is similar to Kansas Statute 44-130[0]

(d) Even though the employee meets the burden of proving the conditions specified in this section, the employee shall disclose, at the time of employment or thereafter, all inventions being developed by the employee, for the purpose of determining employer and employee rights in an invention.

[0]: http://www.kslegislature.org/li_2014/b2013_14/statute/044_00...

Re: TIS-100: An emulator for a CPU that doesn't exist

#37

Post by JoeAltmaier » Tue, Jun 30, 2015, 7:37 PM UTC

lfowles wrote: post #36

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't sign your rights away. The company document is void.

I'm not arguing that. Completely disregarding the void document, you will still want to document _and notify_ the company that your IP is in the exempt category. I'm assuming the law is similar to Kansas Statute 44-130[0] (d) Even though the employee meets the burden of proving the conditions specified in this section, the employee shall disclose, at the time of employment or thereafter, all inventions being develope…

Ah! I'm following now. I'm not sure about CA disclosures. I know the Delaware company I'm at now, asked for one.

Re: TIS-100: An emulator for a CPU that doesn't exist

#38

Post by mondoshawan » Fri, Jul 03, 2015, 5:08 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #26

mondoshawan wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not quite correct. Even out here in CA you still need permission if your employer has an invention assignment agreement.

They ask you to sign those, but the state doesn't permit them to claim inventions done on your time on your equipment. Don't be fooled.

What exactly constitutes "your time"? Is there a legal definition for this that appeared recently?

I had a long-drawn out conversation with Chris DiBona about this very question, and the answer is that it's very very murky, and most of the time -- even in California -- the corps can win.