My first Apple base station was based on a Lucent design that Apple put a graphite-colored plastic enclosure around. Naturally, the Job/Ivs-ian approach to mechanical design did not allow these base stations to have ventilation holes in them, even though they had a comparatively big internal linear power supply and were using a 486 chip.
An Apple product with a 486? Guess I've had my WHOOOOSH moment for the day.:-)
Hmm. Write back when your vision is no longer 20/20, particularly for near-vision. You'll probably get there sooner than you think. Not everybody can or will get Lasik (or even bifocals). Small-screen devices have their purposes and a growing audience, but it is short-sighted (pun unintentional) to imply that users of larger devices are dinosaurs. Unless you propose killing everybody who passes the age of 40, of course.
Right on the money on all counts, except for one thing -- Star Trek (TOS) debuted in September '66. Other than that, you had it right. (There was a weekly Disney program before '61, but it was on ABC and in B&W, IIRC.)
1964 - St. Louis defeated the Yankees -- memorable because (1) St. Louis got there primarily due to the Phillies' end-of-season collapse and (2) it was the end of the Yankees' dominance of the 1950s-early 1960s.
1967 - St. Louis defeated Boston -- memorable because it was Boston's first WS appearance since the 1940s and because of Bob Gibson's pitching performance.
1968 - Detroit defeated St. Louis -- memorable because of the pitching performances of Detroit's Denny McClain (last to win 30 games in a season) and again, even in WS defeat, St. Louis's Bob Gibson.
On a side note, I'll submit that everyone is an atheist, too, including religious folks: there is not just a single god that's ever been posited, after all. If you're a christian, do you believe in Anubis, or Zeus/Jupiter, or Thor? No? Then obviously, you're an atheist as far as the Egyptian, Graeco-Roman or Norse pantheon is concerned, for example. And nobody would see anything wrong with that, or claim that you must not lack belief in any of those deities unless you can prove that they don't exist, for example.
Bumper sticker: "Everybody is an athiest. I just believe in one fewer god than you do."
Then don't ever watch the 1963 movie P.T. 109, in which you could clearly see sunlight glistening on the water in many of the underexposed "night" scenes. Even if one tried for entertainment's sake to accept the old "Ah, they mean for you to think it's moonlight" mindset, the background shots of the sky made that difficult if not impossible. It's a shame because, otherwise, it wasn't a half-bad flick (for its genre) IMHO.
I did a paper on this in graduate school, in the late 1970s. After the initial shock of "OMG, he really means it" wore off, and particularly as the 1962 mid-term election season came along, it broke down more along lines of party/ideology than many remember. Fiscal conservatives (true ones, not the so-called conservatives who, say, rubber-stamp anything the Pentagon wants) definitely never liked the huge cost, even though the deficit wasn't that big a problem at the time. (It was the guns-and-butter approach during the height of the VIetnam War that went wacko in the red-ink department; NASA's costs were a drop in the bucket, even then.) And, yeah, it generally was the "we've-gotta-beat-the-Russians" feeling that carried it to fruition despite the criticisms that did arise, particularly after the Apollo I fire in 1967 made it clear that a lot of corners had been cut -- and suggested strongly that a lot of cronyism had been going on. There wasn't a lot of serious comment about private enterprise doing it, however, because there was no "business case" to be made for it (the eventual price tag was about $25 billion in 1960s dollars). If it were to be done, it would be done by the government.
Like the Coca Cola exec who remarked that he was pretty sure half of his advertising budget was wasted, he just wasn't sure which half.
FWIW, and pointing this out only because I've seen this quote referenced so many times over the years...
John Wanamaker, a 19th century entrepreneur, Lord Leverhulme, founder of consumer goods giant Unilever, and Franklin Winfield Woolworth, the founder of Woolworth's, have all been credited with the quote:
"I know that half of my advertising is wasted. I just don't know which half."
The point of most of these posts' IE6-related comments apparently is that, if the other browsers aren't considered sufficiently secure, there's no way in hell that IE6 could be.
Perhaps you should be more worried that (at least when I'm seeing this) it also got that comment modded as "5, Informative"; if it's able to post its own comments and game the/. moderation system, that's some piece of coding.
Slashdot Mirror
OT but fond memory of baseball great-turned-announcer "Dizzy" Dean, promoting a ballgame he was going to broadcast:
"Fans, don't fail to miss it!"
Here.
An Apple product with a 486? Guess I've had my WHOOOOSH moment for the day. :-)
Hmm. Write back when your vision is no longer 20/20, particularly for near-vision. You'll probably get there sooner than you think. Not everybody can or will get Lasik (or even bifocals). Small-screen devices have their purposes and a growing audience, but it is short-sighted (pun unintentional) to imply that users of larger devices are dinosaurs. Unless you propose killing everybody who passes the age of 40, of course.
Fox entertainment/sports programming != the Fox "News" Channel.
Right on the money on all counts, except for one thing -- Star Trek (TOS) debuted in September '66. Other than that, you had it right. (There was a weekly Disney program before '61, but it was on ABC and in B&W, IIRC.)
But be sure to take his wrench. You never know...
Oblig. M*A*S*H (TV):
Hawkeye: Let's go, "Stinky."
Radar: I knew it.
FTFY
</lawn>
So, Mr. Gingrich, you're not running after all?
Bumper sticker: "Everybody is an athiest. I just believe in one fewer god than you do."
I distinctly remember buying it off a stack at Sam's Club in September, 1995.
My kingdom for mod points! +1
Then don't ever watch the 1963 movie P.T. 109, in which you could clearly see sunlight glistening on the water in many of the underexposed "night" scenes. Even if one tried for entertainment's sake to accept the old "Ah, they mean for you to think it's moonlight" mindset, the background shots of the sky made that difficult if not impossible. It's a shame because, otherwise, it wasn't a half-bad flick (for its genre) IMHO.
I did a paper on this in graduate school, in the late 1970s. After the initial shock of "OMG, he really means it" wore off, and particularly as the 1962 mid-term election season came along, it broke down more along lines of party/ideology than many remember. Fiscal conservatives (true ones, not the so-called conservatives who, say, rubber-stamp anything the Pentagon wants) definitely never liked the huge cost, even though the deficit wasn't that big a problem at the time. (It was the guns-and-butter approach during the height of the VIetnam War that went wacko in the red-ink department; NASA's costs were a drop in the bucket, even then.) And, yeah, it generally was the "we've-gotta-beat-the-Russians" feeling that carried it to fruition despite the criticisms that did arise, particularly after the Apollo I fire in 1967 made it clear that a lot of corners had been cut -- and suggested strongly that a lot of cronyism had been going on. There wasn't a lot of serious comment about private enterprise doing it, however, because there was no "business case" to be made for it (the eventual price tag was about $25 billion in 1960s dollars). If it were to be done, it would be done by the government.
</obligatory 'lawn' comment>
Yo, dawg... Ah, screw it.
Fortunately, the Apple spy doesn't hold his phone correctly, so he can't tell Moscow what he's learned. Whew.
HAW HAW!
FWIW, and pointing this out only because I've seen this quote referenced so many times over the years...
-- Citation
-- Google search
Southwest's current TV spots are focused on how its site is the only place on the Web where you can find its fares.
The point of most of these posts' IE6-related comments apparently is that, if the other browsers aren't considered sufficiently secure, there's no way in hell that IE6 could be.
Perhaps you should be more worried that (at least when I'm seeing this) it also got that comment modded as "5, Informative"; if it's able to post its own comments and game the /. moderation system, that's some piece of coding.
Very nice photos. I can see why pros worry about the competition. :-)