I remember playing that game when I was young. It cost 10 cents to play a game of bowling on this. The "bowling ball" was a steel puck that you slid down the "alley". Little wire switch triggers on the alley surface detected the puck's path and determined which pins "fell".
What I am hoping is that Disney will realize the amount of money they can make from re-releasing the ORIGINAL episodes 4 through 6. They can do a theatrical release and then on Blu-Ray. I'm keeping my fingers crossed!
I believe that many children that are diagnosed with ADD or ADHD are being labeled as such because of parents that do not teach children to sit down and behave. They take them to the doctor and describe the child's behavior, and the answer is to prescribe medication to modify the behavior. This is not to say that there isn't a real medical condition in some children that may need medication to treat, but I believe that more and more parents and doctors are ready to jump to the conclusion that behavior alone dictates the need for drugs.
Did anyone ever go back to the professor who gave him the "C" grade and ask him what he thought about FedEx? Of course being 40 years ago now he may be gone, but if anyone ever interviewed him it would be interesting to read.
Burt Reynolds had THE classic 70's 'stache. Some other athletes other than Mark Spitz that had upper-lip hair worthy of mention are the 1890's-style waxed mustache of Rollie Fingers (Oakland A's) and Al Hrabosky's Fu-Manchu (St. Louis Cardinals).
And since you have Hitler in your hall of fame lineup, why not add Josef Stalin?
Do I believe in global warming? Absolutely. Do I believe that our current warming trend is caused by mankind? I have seen no proof whatsoever that the warming trend is linked to human activity. Oh there is plenty of speculation about it, but no proof.
When scientists look back at historical evidence of climate around the world, it shows that the Earth in the past has been warmer than it is now, and also colder. These swings in climate occurred long before man occupied this planet, or at least were of numbers that all agree were too small to have any influence at all on the weather. If anyone could offer substantial proof of a link between humanity and the current warming trend, I would certainly rethink my position. However all I read and hear is that humans have more technology and create more carbon dioxide therefore they must be the cause. All too often we hear of studies that show a possible causal link without proof that the two events are linked. This is another such situation. Just because B follows A, it does not prove that A CAUSED B. Anyone who has taken an elementary logic course would understand this.
I had a bottle-cutting kit when I was a child. It came with a bottle-cutting tool and various grits of dry and wet sandpaper to clean up the edge of the cut surfaces.
Back in my generation, we used to record off music from LPs onto reel-to-reel tapes. We would borrow records from others and loan ours in return so they could be copied onto tape. When cassette tapes came out, we used stereos with dual cassette decks to easily duplicate the purchased tapes. When CDs first came out I even made tapes of borrowed CDs.
Why did we do this? Because we didn't have the money to buy that many records/cassettes/CDs in the first place. Believe me, we all just as soon would have gone out and bought originals of everything rather than listen to low-quality copies.
Was any of this illegal or immoral? Possibly. We all figured if you could listen to it on the radio for free, why was it such a crime to record a copy of it? It's not like we were selling the copies to make a profit.
There are a couple of factors that make it seem different today. The first is that in the old days the copies were always inferior to the original. Artists and record companies knew there would always be a market for audiophiles who wanted to buy originals to enjoy the best possible sound quality. In today's digital age, each copy is precisely the same as the original. (We'll skip the discussions of compression -- I am meaning that music can be copied precisely bit for bit.) People who share music don't have the incentive to buy music just to get a clean copy.
The second factor is that years ago the media had a relatively short life. Records and tapes wore out as you played them, and even CDs became worn or scratched as they were used. A percentage of people who bought originals would even buy a second or third copy over time to replace damaged copies of their music media.
The third factor is that there was no practical means of tracking such music sharing in the pre-internet era. Since digital music sharing today is almost exclusively done over the internet, file sharing is easily tracked and documented. It is also now very profitable to pursue people who illegally share music. When a company can be awarded hundreds of thousands of dollars from a person who has illegally downloading a couple of dozen songs, it is no wonder artists, record companies and attorneys are so eager to go after those who illegally download music.
The music industry needs to change the price structure of digital music downloads if it wants to change the way people think about file sharing of songs. Individual songs go for $0.99. If you download all the songs from a given album, you wind up spending at least as much as you would for the physical CD at your local Walmart. The cost of manufacturing the CD includes material and handling costs that music producers don't put into digitally-delivered music. Consumers who understand this simple point are incensed at this pricing scheme.
Maybe the music industry would reduce the piracy of music if they stopped trying to make such enormous profits from digital music?
And since you have Hitler in your hall of fame lineup, why not add Josef Stalin?
"Blinded me with Science" tee, men's XL
The post should say "among three people" instead of "between three people".
Just sayin'...
When scientists look back at historical evidence of climate around the world, it shows that the Earth in the past has been warmer than it is now, and also colder. These swings in climate occurred long before man occupied this planet, or at least were of numbers that all agree were too small to have any influence at all on the weather. If anyone could offer substantial proof of a link between humanity and the current warming trend, I would certainly rethink my position. However all I read and hear is that humans have more technology and create more carbon dioxide therefore they must be the cause. All too often we hear of studies that show a possible causal link without proof that the two events are linked. This is another such situation. Just because B follows A, it does not prove that A CAUSED B. Anyone who has taken an elementary logic course would understand this.
I don't see a whole lot of innovation here.
:P
Why did we do this? Because we didn't have the money to buy that many records/cassettes/CDs in the first place. Believe me, we all just as soon would have gone out and bought originals of everything rather than listen to low-quality copies.
Was any of this illegal or immoral? Possibly. We all figured if you could listen to it on the radio for free, why was it such a crime to record a copy of it? It's not like we were selling the copies to make a profit.
There are a couple of factors that make it seem different today. The first is that in the old days the copies were always inferior to the original. Artists and record companies knew there would always be a market for audiophiles who wanted to buy originals to enjoy the best possible sound quality. In today's digital age, each copy is precisely the same as the original. (We'll skip the discussions of compression -- I am meaning that music can be copied precisely bit for bit.) People who share music don't have the incentive to buy music just to get a clean copy.
The second factor is that years ago the media had a relatively short life. Records and tapes wore out as you played them, and even CDs became worn or scratched as they were used. A percentage of people who bought originals would even buy a second or third copy over time to replace damaged copies of their music media.
The third factor is that there was no practical means of tracking such music sharing in the pre-internet era. Since digital music sharing today is almost exclusively done over the internet, file sharing is easily tracked and documented. It is also now very profitable to pursue people who illegally share music. When a company can be awarded hundreds of thousands of dollars from a person who has illegally downloading a couple of dozen songs, it is no wonder artists, record companies and attorneys are so eager to go after those who illegally download music.
The music industry needs to change the price structure of digital music downloads if it wants to change the way people think about file sharing of songs. Individual songs go for $0.99. If you download all the songs from a given album, you wind up spending at least as much as you would for the physical CD at your local Walmart. The cost of manufacturing the CD includes material and handling costs that music producers don't put into digitally-delivered music. Consumers who understand this simple point are incensed at this pricing scheme.
Maybe the music industry would reduce the piracy of music if they stopped trying to make such enormous profits from digital music?
Food for thought...
"May the Schwartz be with you!"