"Fake" XDF disk support works now

What this means is that XDF disk images formatted as 80-track 23-sector-per-track images will work with XDF code that honors that format; however, I've not yet been able to test with "real" XDF disk images (ie, disk images created with DiskDump using the experimental --xdf flag).  "Real" XDF disk images almost certainly need more work (eg, setting all the sector IDs properly), but the groundwork has been laid.

blog/2014/10/23/README.md

@@ -7,11 +7,11 @@ There are also some Debugger improvements; for example, if you turn on "fdc" and
 Debugger using the "m fdc on" and "m int on" commands, all FDC (INT 0x13) software interrupts will be logged,
 including descriptions and register values.
 
-PC-DOS 7.00 still can't be setup from its non-standard 1.84Mb [XDF](http://www.os2museum.com/wp/the-xdf-diskette-format/)
+PC-DOS 7.00 still can't be setup from its specially-formatted 1.84Mb [XDF](http://www.os2museum.com/wp/the-xdf-diskette-format/)
 distribution disk images, "PC-DOS 7.00 (SETUP Disk 2)" through "PC-DOS 7.00 (SETUP Disk 5)", so your best bet is to boot
 from the 1.44Mb "PC-DOS 7.00 (Boot Disk)".
 
-Note that you must use a fairly new 80286 machine configuration, like this [8Mhz IBM PC AT](/configs/pc/machines/5170/ega/1152kb/rev3/),
+Note that you must also use a fairly new 80286 machine configuration, like this [8Mhz IBM PC AT](/configs/pc/machines/5170/ega/1152kb/rev3/),
 in order to use 1.44Mb diskette images; previous models did not support 3.5-inch diskette drives, unless they had been retrofitted
 with a newer [BIOS](/devices/pc/bios/5170/).
 

blog/2014/10/26/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
+JavaScript Negativity
+---
+For those of us coming from the world of C, it's easy to be "negative" about the way JavaScript deals with 32-bit
+integers.
+
+As a newcomer, you quickly learn that JavaScript supports only one numeric data type -- 64-bit floats -- and you groan.
+
+Then you learn that all the "bitwise" operators (**~**, **|**, **&**, **^**, **<<**, **>>** and
+**>>>**) treat their operands as 32-bit integer values and produce 32-bit integer results, and you breathe
+a sigh of relief.
+
+But then you start noticing oddities.  In 32-bit C programming, you can take any 32-bit value,
+such as -1526726656 (which is equivalent to 0xA5000000), mask it with 0x80808080, and get 0x80000000.  However,
+in JavaScript, you actually get -0x80000000, which, sadly, is not equal to 0x80000000.
+
+To verify, type the following into any JavaScript REPL (eg, Node):
+
+	> n = -1526726656
+	-1526726656
+	> n &= 0x80808080
+	-2147483648
+	> n.toString(16)
+	'-80000000'
+
+So the notion that bitwise operators yield 32-bit results isn't exactly right; every result continues to be
+sign-extended into the entire 52 "significand" bits of the underlying 64-bit float.  And it's impossible to simply
+"mask away" those unwanted sign bits, thanks to the fundamental restriction of JavaScript bitwise operators:
+they operate *only* on the low 32 bits.
+
+If you really want 0x80000000 instead of -0x80000000, add 0x100000000:
+
+	> n = (n < 0? n + 0x100000000 : n)
+	2147483648
+	> n.toString(16)
+	'80000000'
+
+This works because JavaScript is perfectly capable of representing 0x80000000 as a positive number.
+But be careful, because as soon as you perform *any* bitwise operation on a value with bit 31 set, even
+something as innocuous-looking as:
+
+	> n |= 0
+	-2147483648
+	> n.toString(16)
+    '-80000000'
+
+Viola: instant negative number!  To continue the fun, now "or" a one into bit 0:
+
+	> n |= 1
+	-2147483647
+	> n.toString(16)
+	'-7fffffff'
+	
+Viola: all low 32 bits have instantly flipped!
+
+Actually, no, this time, I'm pulling your leg.  The low 32 bits of the internal value are exactly what you would
+expect: 0x80000001 (the internal representation would look more like 0xFFFFF80000001).  The toString() method is
+just a little misleading.  As the MDN docs explain, for a negative number, toString() returns the positive
+representation of the number, preceded by a - sign, *not* the "two's complement" of the number.
+ 
+*[@jeffpar](http://twitter.com/jeffpar)*  
+*October 26, 2014*