Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Integrated Circuit Is 50 Years Old Today

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the looks-pretty-to-me dept.

arcticstoat writes "Today marks fifty years since the first integrated circuit, or microchip, was demonstrated by Jack Kilby at Texas Instruments on 12 September 1958. The original chip might not be much to look at, but then Texas Instruments admits that Kilby often remarked that if he'd known he'd be showing the first working integrated circuit for the next 40-plus years, he would've 'prettied it up a little.' The integrated circuit itself was housed in a germanium strip on a glass slide, and it measured 7/16in by 1/16in. With protruding wires, and just containing a single transistor, some resistors and a capacitor, it's a primitive chip by today's standards, but it worked and successfully produced a sine wave on an oscilloscope screen at the demo. Technology hasn't been the same since."

94 of 117 comments (clear)

  1. Gramm'e'r nazis enjoy! by vigmeister · · Score: 3, Funny

    IC your 50 years old...

    --
    Atheist: Buddhist in a Prius
    1. Re:Gramm'e'r nazis enjoy! by Gewalt · · Score: 1

      The IC powers spell check and grammar check software. It has almost completely eliminated the need for grammar Nazis.

      O IC, whel thankz four taht.

      --
      Modding Trolls +1 inciteful since 1999
    2. Re:Gramm'e'r nazis enjoy! by Gewalt · · Score: 1

      The IC powers spell check and grammar check software.

      That would be spelling, not grammar.

      Perhaps you should go get your own phail pail there buddy.

      --
      Modding Trolls +1 inciteful since 1999
    3. Re:Gramm'e'r nazis enjoy! by beadfulthings · · Score: 3, Funny

      You really should get that chip off your shoulder.

      --
      "Here's what's happening. You're starting to drive like your Dad..." - Red Green
    4. Re:Gramm'e'r nazis enjoy! by jDeepbeep · · Score: 1

      You really should get that chip off your shoulder.

      This was so punny I forgot to laugh.

      --
      Reply to That ||
  2. One understatement, comming up!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
    Technology hasn't been the same since.

    Naw, ya think?

    1. Re:One understatement, comming up!! by moderatorrater · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yeah, but they fail to account for the fact that correlation != causation. Technology's been moving along at a fairly rapid pace since the 1800s; perhaps it's just a coincidence that integrated circuits came along around the same time electronics started taking off.

    2. Re:One understatement, comming up!! by RobKow · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're right. Correlation isn't causation. But correlation is nevertheless good EVIDENCE of causation. I'm sick and tired of people parroting "correlation is not causation" every time a correlation is used as evidence for causation.

    3. Re:One understatement, comming up!! by spazdor · · Score: 4, Funny

      correlation != coincidence as well.

      Other coincidences abound, such as the fact that human flight became viable around the same time as the advent of the aeroplane.

      --
      DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
    4. Re:One understatement, comming up!! by cens0r · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And electronics would have really taken off with lots of vacuum tubes.

      --
      Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
    5. Re:One understatement, comming up!! by slackergod · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Indeed!

      I'd add that correlation usually implies that there is some common cause which is a necessary condition of all the correlated events, even if it is not sufficient to cause all of them by itself.

      People frequently loose sight of the fact that all "correlation != causation" is meant to indicate is that the common cause of correlated events is not required to be one the events themselves, but can be some other external event.

      Whether the cause is bias in the measurement, direct/indirect causation, some remotely connected common causation, or whatever.. Correlation hardly _ever_ is simply coincidence.

    6. Re:One understatement, comming up!! by moderatorrater · · Score: 3, Insightful

      First of all, it was a joke, come on people.

      Secondly, correlation is pretty bad evidence of causation without something else backing it up. Correlations happen all the time for many reasons. There are many orders of magnitude more good correlations than there are causal relationships.

    7. Re:One understatement, comming up!! by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Funny

      And electronics would have really taken off with lots of vacuum tubes.

      Maybe not, but think of the Polar Bears. Global warming would have wiped the arctic off the map decades ago if we were still limited to 'valves'. But OTOH, iPods would just sound a lot better.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    8. Re:One understatement, comming up!! by caeled · · Score: 1

      You mean profiling works?

    9. Re:One understatement, comming up!! by zurmikopa · · Score: 1

      Something else to back it up like another correlation?

      How can you determine the cause of *anything* without a correlation?

      It's just that some correlations have more/fewer variables to take into account to determine how much support it should have for a cause.

    10. Re:One understatement, comming up!! by KillerBob · · Score: 1

      Duh. That vac tube powered cell phone is not only a phone, it's a portable furnace!

      --
      If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
    11. Re:One understatement, comming up!! by treeves · · Score: 1

      But you'd need a little red wagon and a long extension cord to enjoy them. Can you imagine a huge magnetic core memory full of mp3's (actually "full of mp3" since one would more than fill it)?

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    12. Re:One understatement, comming up!! by mweather · · Score: 1

      If it's a coincidence, then why has most of the progress since the 50s revolved around the microchip?

    13. Re:One understatement, comming up!! by moderatorrater · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How about an analysis of those variables that have to be taken into account? That's a good way to back up a correlation that isn't in and of itself another correlation. There's experimentation. That's useful. Logic works too. In the case of IC, we can directly trace the history of electronics and determine that IC played a very large part in it.

      Correlations can be used as supporting evidence, but they're weak to the point of ridicule by themselves. I can't believe this is even an argument on a forum of educated people. The scientific method, at its core, is a method used to remove the uncertainty from correlations in the data so that you can say with confidence that either the correlation in the data is a cause and effect relationship or that the experiment was set up improperly. Perhaps, instead of bitching about correlation not being accepted as evidence of causation, you should praise people for having the skepticism that's driven the scientific revolution of the past few centuries.

    14. Re:One understatement, comming up!! by oldhack · · Score: 1

      First of all, it was a joke, come on people.

      Oooooh, I see. Was it a good joke?

      --
      Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    15. Re:One understatement, comming up!! by sgage · · Score: 1

      Everyone who has cancer drinks water.

      Clearly, water causes cancer.

      Sheesh.

    16. Re:One understatement, comming up!! by sploxx · · Score: 1

      Well, a volume of vacuum is lighter than the same volume of air, so just make the parts in your tubes small enough and they'll take off ;-)

    17. Re:One understatement, comming up!! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      correlation != coincidence as well. Other coincidences abound, such as the fact that human flight became viable around the same time as the advent of the aeroplane.

      Triple coincidence; for that's also when the Darwin Award was invented.
           

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    18. Re:One understatement, comming up!! by moderatorrater · · Score: 1

      No. Apparently sarcasm is difficult to catch over the internet, even when someone would preposterously suggest that IC didn't have any effect on technology over the past 5 decades. Oh well.

  3. So what by cromar · · Score: 1, Funny

    At first I thought "so what," but now IC that this is momentous.

    1. Re:So what by Neanderthal+Ninny · · Score: 1

      If we didn't have the Integrated Circuit we wouldn't have laptops (which would be size of refrigerator for same capability as an current laptop), cell phone (remember those "brick car phones" at the beginning of the cell phone era?), and many other things we have take for granted for miniaturization of electronics.

    2. Re:So what by jason.sweet · · Score: 1

      And without integrated circuits, I wouldn't have this opportunity to write

      WHOOSH!

    3. Re:So what by jmhoule314 · · Score: 1

      Slashdot really needs a +1 whoosh and -1 whoosh.

  4. Re:*Sings* by spun · · Score: 1

    Now get off the IC's lawn you kids, and turn down that gosh-darned music!

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  5. Re:*Sings* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    We'll see you in court.

    --RIAA

  6. What did our birthday boy do? by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 4, Informative

    According to this, the IC is a phase shift oscillator which cranked out a 1.3 MHz signal upon application of power.

  7. Uh oh by Bearpaw · · Score: 5, Funny

    From TFA:

    As a new recruit at Texus Instruments he wasnâ(TM)t able to take a two-week leave while his other colleagues were off sunning themselves. Instead, he confined himself to his lab alone where he came up with the idea of fabricating all of a circuitâ(TM)s components with a single block of the same material.

    To commemorate Kilby's accomplishment and stimulate ingenuity, Texas Instruments will be canceling vacations for all of their employees.

    1. Re:Uh oh by ColombianKid · · Score: 1

      Actually..... my girlfriend's dad is an engineer at TI and he's been having a hell of a time trying to get vacation leave this year. (Get accepted, only to have it canceled a week later, varying dates, etc.)

    2. Re:Uh oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      That would serve them right.

      Do you realize that 40% of sick days at TI are taken on Mondays and Fridays?

    3. Re:Uh oh by ReiDragon · · Score: 1

      I have to second that one, from experience.

      --
      PouchPC 2.13ghz C2D, 8gb ram, 9800 GT, 1.5tb, Vista Business.
    4. Re:Uh oh by pgillan · · Score: 1

      I love that joke, but no one ever seems to get it.

    5. Re:Uh oh by Adambomb · · Score: 1

      Hey, I work weekends you insensitive clod.

      28.5%.

      --
      Ice Cream has no bones.
    6. Re:Uh oh by ThJ · · Score: 1

      Woosh straight over my head the first time. I get it now. Thanks!

  8. Gotta... by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

    I, for one, welcome our new^H^H^H^H 50 year old integrated circuit overlords.

    --
    See that "Preview" button?
    1. Re:Gotta... by moderatorrater · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, that reminds me of the theories that we got the integrated circuit off of the alien ship at roswell. So, here's to 50 years of exploiting alien technologies!

  9. Not a bad idea... by orthancstone · · Score: 2, Interesting

    With the hurricane coming to town, their facility seems like a fairly safe space compared to the vacation spots on the beaches in South Texas.

  10. Microchip - aargh by onkelonkel · · Score: 1

    The word "Microchip" is one of those non-technical words that always make my inner geek cringe. If that's a microchip, a regular full sized chip must be about 8 foot long? Right? Why not just call it a chip?

    --
    None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
    1. Re:Microchip - aargh by Feanturi · · Score: 2, Funny

      Why not just call it a chip? Because you don't want to give non-technical people the wrong idea - they don't really go very good with salsa.

    2. Re:Microchip - aargh by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      Because a microchip requires no context to tell you exactly what it is. A 'chip' has all kinds of meanings.

    3. Re:Microchip - aargh by IAmGarethAdams · · Score: 1

      Yum

    4. Re:Microchip - aargh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If that's a microchip, a regular full sized chip must be about 8 foot long

      I like SI too, but it isn't the be-all end-all of word formation. "Micro" is just the Greek word for "small" - it doesn't have to mean "exactly one millionth the size of a regular ...".

      A "microscope" doesn't have to magnify things exactly one million times (most only do 10-400 fold), nor does it need to allow you to see things one micrometer in size (although some can). Likewise "microeconomics" doesn't imply that it deals with things exactly one millionth the size of "regular" economics.

      So microchip doesn't mean "something exactly one millionth the size of a regular chip", nor should it have to. It's "micro" (that is small) compared to the non-integrated circuits which preceded it, and it's a "chip" (a small sliver) of semiconductor. It's a small chip ... a "microchip".

    5. Re:Microchip - aargh by rukcus · · Score: 1

      On the same token, Micronesia isn't a million times smaller than ... Nesia.

      Millipedes don't have a thousand legs either.

      Oddly enough, Megaman is quite smaller than a normal sized man, even tho he is at least a million times more powerful.

    6. Re:Microchip - aargh by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      If that's a microchip, a regular full sized chip must be about 8 foot long? Right? Why not just call it a chip?

      Apparently you were deprived of the Flintstones as a kid.
           

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    7. Re:Microchip - aargh by Alioth · · Score: 1

      The manufacturers of the PIC must really irritate you, they call their entire firm (which makes microcontrollers) Microchip!

      --
      Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
    8. Re:Microchip - aargh by chthon · · Score: 1

      Why not just call it an IC and leave the unwashed masses in the dark ?

  11. Re:*Sings* by gardyloo · · Score: 1

    Now, if only we could get greeting cards to sing that for us...

  12. Jack Kirby? by Bohnanza · · Score: 1

    The same guy who did the Silver Surfer? Coool!

    --

    -----

    Sorry, I'm only a 1336 h4x0r.

  13. Roswell by id09542 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Wow, we have come so far since the discovery in Roswell!!!!!!

  14. Let me be one of the first to say... by bigredradio · · Score: 1

    Thanks Jack.

    --
    Flexible bare-metal recovery for Linux/UNIX
  15. Re:*Sings* by spazdor · · Score: 1

    Your honour, the defendant Mr. Integrated Circuit has engaged in an extremely long, insidious campaign of technological progress designed specifically to undermine our business model. This latest misuse of our birthday song is only the recent end of a consistent pattern of abuse of our interests and rights as culture owners blah blah yackety schmackety.

    --
    DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
  16. Re:*Sings* by Stormwatch · · Score: 2, Funny

    You now owe Time Warner $10,000.

    --
    Circumcision is child abuse.
  17. Re:*Sings* by spazdor · · Score: 1

    what, you mean like a Walkman?
    </conchord>

    --
    DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
  18. For a laugh and some histoorical perspective by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Interesting

    For a laugh and some historical perspective, dig out the datasheet for a 555 timer. It's an ancient chip by any standards, but still extant. The designers were obviously rather proud of how many transistors this chip could replace (something like 25), and the datasheet is clearly bragging about this. In a modern context, this is pretty funny. Of course, designing a chip with that kind of lifespan is braggable.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
    1. Re:For a laugh and some histoorical perspective by Alioth · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's not just the 555 either, although I suppose that's the one still in production in its purest form (the bipolar 555 is still made in quantities of hundreds of millions per year). 74 series is still in wide production (although in CMOS rather than TTL, with versions now capable of handling signals >!GHz), so is 4000 series CMOS (a handy family, while slow, it has a very wide voltage range), and so are more complex things like the Z80 CPU and 6502 - the 'classic' Z80 is still produced in 40 pin DIL (although these days they are all CMOS).

      And not forgetting the good 'ol 741 op amp.

      --
      Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
  19. Happy Birthd.... HEY! by rarel · · Score: 1, Funny

    Don't transistor me bro!

  20. Re:*Sings* by MightyYar · · Score: 1

    You'll never shrink vacuum tubes down small enough to store an electronic copy of a song in a greeting card!

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  21. greatest invention by chipace · · Score: 4, Funny

    I was debating a coworker about the greatest invention of the 20th century, we both agreed that the miniskirt ranks higher than the transistor. It's interesting that they both came out around the same time.

    1. Re:greatest invention by skelly33 · · Score: 1

      While I would not be inclined to disagree, it is worth noting that possibly the most daunting conundrum facing humanity for the twenty first century is the fact that while the number of transistors packed into an IC is approaching infinity, the annual reduction in miniskirt lengths is rapidly approaching zero; we are in desperate need of a global miniskirt paradigm shift to offset this most disturbing reality.

    2. Re:greatest invention by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 1

      transistor: 1948

      Miniskirt: 1968

      I know it was a while ago, but 20 yrs is still kinda large time span.

    3. Re:greatest invention by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      greatest invention of the 20th century, we both agreed that the miniskirt ranks higher than the transistor... they both came out around the same time.

      If they both shrank at the same rate, then it would be merely a dust grain on her [bleep]. Something jammed up the progress.
           

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    4. Re:greatest invention by hero_or_what · · Score: 1

      Higher the Miniskirt, better it is.

  22. Re:*Sings* by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

    Thanks... now you and everyone who read your post owes royalties to the RIAA... :(

    --
    "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
  23. Real Electronics ... by Baruch+Atta · · Score: 1

    Real Electronics you can see. I want my transistors right out in the open, not hiding like some yellow bellied worm. Get them right out there, where I can twittle and twaddle them. Who knows what voltages are insides some of those chips.... I want my radios big 'n heavy. Real techs use 100 watt soldering irons.

    --
    You can only be young once. But you can always be immature.
    1. Re:Real Electronics ... by klmth · · Score: 1

      Please, go ahead. The rest of us will be reaping the benefits of miniaturization.

    2. Re:Real Electronics ... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Real Electronics you can see. I want my transistors right out in the open, not hiding like some yellow bellied worm. Get them right out there, where I can twittle and twaddle them.

      Are you by chance related to the deity who designed the scrotum? Because of it, women can exact revenge in a painful way. Thanks, Jerk!

           

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    3. Re:Real Electronics ... by Baruch+Atta · · Score: 1

      Are you by chance related to the deity who designed the scrotum? Because of it, women can exact revenge in a painful way. Thanks, Jerk!

      Yes, He is my Father. Hence, my name Baruch Atta. Go back to Hebrew school.
      Besides, I am glad that I have scroti. Maybe you should grow a pair.

      --
      You can only be young once. But you can always be immature.
  24. metric system by Gigaflynn · · Score: 1

    Quote: "it measured 7/16in by 1/16in" and that folks is why we use the metric system in the rest of the world

    --
    "Neo, follow the white rabbit"
    "Can i eat the white rabbit?"
    "No, there is no spoon to eat it with"
    1. Re:metric system by ZERO1ZERO · · Score: 1
      Often it is the case where your point would be valid, but come on, if anything using the imperial unit in this case makes it clearer..

      Take the equivelent metric unit representation

      1/16 = 1.875 mm

      7/16 = 11.1125 mm, or say 1.8x11.1 mm.

      One must know what the size of a mm or an 1/16 inch is to make sense of either measurement.

      The imperial measurement it is easy to read that it is 7 time longer than it is wide, i.e quite a thin rectangle. One has to perform mental calcs to get the same info from the metric measurement. Also, the board might actually have been exactly 1/16x7/16 inch therefore to quote in mm would be wrong.

  25. You damn qubits! by szquirrel · · Score: 1

    Get off my lawn!

    --
    Never approach a vast undertaking with a half-vast plan.
  26. If the IC hadn't been invented by slipangle · · Score: 1

    Has anyone done an analysis demonstrating the size and power consumption of a machine equivalent to a modern CPU but composed of discrete components? Or even valves/tubes?

    1. Re:If the IC hadn't been invented by HolyCrapSCOsux · · Score: 1

      I worked out that it would take over 200 relays to make a BCD clock like the one at think geek. 45 per JK flip-flop 1 flip flop per bit, and several carry gates.

      --
      0xB315AA8D852DCD3F3DCA578FD2E0BF88
  27. ah, not quite by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 4, Informative

    The TI invention was not what we would consider an "IC". It had components, but it wasnt practical to mass produce. Not even TI followed up on its development.

    The real practical IC, with photoetched traces on a planar silicon substrate was developed by Fairchild.

    1. Re:ah, not quite by IflyRC · · Score: 1

      The TI invention was not what we would consider an "IC". It had components, but it wasnt practical to mass produce. Not even TI followed up on its development.

      The real practical IC, with photoetched traces on a planar silicon substrate was developed by Fairchild.

      I never realized Morgan Fairchild was so intelligent.

  28. The patentless 555 by 2phar · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Here's an interview with Hans Camenzind, the said desinger of the 555. I thought this part was interesting:

    There are no patents on the 555. Signetics did not want to apply for a patent. You see, the situation with patents in Silicon Valley in 1970 was entirely different than it is now. Everybody was stealing from everybody else. I designed the 555 Signetics produced it, and six months, or before a year later, National had it, Fairchild had it, and nobody paid any attention to patents. The people at Signetics told me they didn't want to apply for a patent, because what would happen if they tried to enforce that patent, is the people from Fairchild would come back with a Manhattan-sized telephone book and say "These are our patents, now let's see what you're violating". It was a house of cards - if you blew on it, the whole thing collapsed.

    1. Re:The patentless 555 by Nathanbp · · Score: 2, Informative

      Here's an interview with Hans Camenzind, the said desinger of the 555. I thought this part was interesting:

      There are no patents on the 555. Signetics did not want to apply for a patent. You see, the situation with patents in Silicon Valley in 1970 was entirely different than it is now. Everybody was stealing from everybody else. I designed the 555 Signetics produced it, and six months, or before a year later, National had it, Fairchild had it, and nobody paid any attention to patents. The people at Signetics told me they didn't want to apply for a patent, because what would happen if they tried to enforce that patent, is the people from Fairchild would come back with a Manhattan-sized telephone book and say "These are our patents, now let's see what you're violating". It was a house of cards - if you blew on it, the whole thing collapsed.

      Actually, that sounds exactly like patents in Silicon Valley right now. Many software companies are gathering defensive patents to countersue with, just like that interview describes. Interesting to see that the practice dates back to early ICs.

    2. Re:The patentless 555 by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Signetics told me they didn't want to apply for a patent, because what would happen if they tried to enforce that patent, is the people from Fairchild would come back with a Manhattan-sized telephone book and say "These are our patents, now let's see what you're violating". It was a house of cards - if you blew on it, the whole thing collapsed.

      Well, it seems somebody since started blowing...
             

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    3. Re:The patentless 555 by 2phar · · Score: 2, Funny

      So I could have said what I said without the said said? Enough said.

  29. Not quite... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    But in a parallel universe where Japanese won the WWII - that might be true.

    Only, the comic is caller Sirver Surfer there.
    Incredible Hurk on the other hand... I don't think he ever made past issue #1.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  30. Kilby Labs by AdamHaun · · Score: 1

    TI's also starting up a new R&D lab in honor of the occasion. The sent out an email inviting employees to apply for positions, but I'm just a product engineer so I don't get to do research. :-(

    --
    Visit the
  31. Re:To quote Jack Kirby: by fucket · · Score: 1

    True, as long as they're a fantastic four bits.

  32. Okay, then, how 'bout this... by slew · · Score: 1

    Okay, if you don't like 20 years, how 'bout this...

    Transistor: 1948

    Bikini: 1946

    Velcro: 1948

    Is that close enough? ;^)

  33. Oblig by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    But does it run Linux?.....okay, Minux? .... Nanix?

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  34. can relat by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Funny

    not be much to look at, but then Texas Instruments admits that Kilby often remarked that if he'd known he'd be showing the first working integrated circuit for the next 40-plus years, he would've 'prettied it up a little.'

    I say teh same about my posts that git modded way up
         

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  35. First Easter Egg? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Hmmm, it's etched with a tiny "Kilby Was Here".

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  36. Re:*Sings* by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Happy Birthday to you. Happy Birthday to you. Happy birthday dear Integrated Circuit. Happy birthday to you.

    On cue, my Dell laptop caught fire like a bigass b-day candle.
         

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  37. Re:obg Star Trek Quote by COMON$ · · Score: 1

    Man that sucks evidentally someone posted this before me, I actually picked this out in the mysterious future because it was perfect but got busy and forgot to submit it quickly.

    --
    CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
  38. Re:*Sings* by KGIII · · Score: 1

    *chuckles* I'm not sure what the mods are up to today but perhaps you're on the list of people who someone dislikes as well? Ah well. At least it is amusing to us.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  39. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  40. Re:obg Star Trek Quote by Bryan+Ischo · · Score: 1

    Well if it makes you feel any betters, yours is the first one I saw, and I enjoyed it.