Vintage Toys & Tech Photos 156
savetz writes "Here's a fun site: Consumer Reports magazine's vintage photo gallery, in which you can see photos from when the magazine reviewed electric toasters in 1956, in-car record players in 1961, radio sunglasses in 1966, and other good stuff. Don't forget about the flaming Nerf ball."
just me? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:just me? (Score:1, Funny)
Re:just me? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:just me? (Score:5, Interesting)
Sonic Blaster, 1966
The Mattel Agent Zero M Sonic Blaster 5530 fires compressed air with a deafening blast. Our measurements top out at 157 dB-above a level that can do permanent damage to the hearing of an adult. We rate the toy Not Acceptable.
W00T!
Re:just me? (Score:2)
Re:just me? (Score:2)
It's still just as loud now as it was when new... what I can hear of it through the tinnitus that's plagued me since 1966.
Don't Buy Crap. (Score:5, Interesting)
I love it. My 1954 Maytag A-504 washing machine. It's been cleaning dirty underwear for 48 years, and all it's ever asked for is a drivebelt.
Carrying on the tradition:
The moral?
If you buy good quality stuff once, it will last you your lifetime. And just because something may be old (ie, most of this stuff is older than I am), it doesn't make it irrelevent. What does a new dishwasher do that my old Maytag won't? Nothing. And the old Maytag looks really cool installed in a modern kitchen!
So, when my washing machine's 48-year-old rubber belt finally broke, I went to the local Maytag store and bought a new belt at the parts counter. Spent $10 on the belt, then the manager came running out after me. He rented my washing machine from me - paid me good money, provided me with a new washer while mine was there, and tried to buy it outright - so that he could stick it in the showroom that fall.
Unfortunately, you can only try so long to continue to use your desktop computer...
Re:Don't Buy Crap. (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, I have started collecting key pieces of computer history (and I know a few other
The problem is that most people think computers are a dated item, the fact is, people once thought that a 1956 Convertible was worthless junk, now a rusted shell of a car will bring 10k. Keep this in mind before you dismiss their possible future value (particularly look for the ones that people consider to be particularly worthless as there will be far fewer of these available in future and they will most likely be the more valuable among the systems that are available for almost nothing today)
Re:Don't Buy Crap. (Score:1)
Re:Don't Buy Crap. (Score:4, Interesting)
Most are. Most PC software can still run under the DOS window of 2K/XP, except for those games that don't have any speed control and were responsible for the "TURBO" buttons on a lot of XT and AT class machines. And they have better hardware. Most XT through 486 systems have zero collectible value, and aren't usually worth the trouble to set up, unless they're already running and doing duty as a word processor or something. But they've got no soul.
I know someone who long ago set up a forms generation system for his practice, using Wordstar and its Mailmerge. I'm just as amazed now as I was then that he could make that work. He's gone through about four or five PCs since that original Sanyo 550, and even more printers, and that vintage software still kicks ass for him. But he doesn't go out of his way to run it on a 286.
Most of those old PC clones have no style whatsoever. All of the old 8-bitters they killed off had some kind of interesting design and didn't look like a nondescript beige box. The original TRS-80 design with the computer built into the keyboard unit was brilliant... at least until they needed to add floppy disks. The Commodore PET had that '70s retro-futuristic look, and the VIC-20 and C-64 went with the original TRS-80 look because they figured out how to make an expansion cable bus, even if it was dog slow.
Only Apple has kept the faith by constantly trying to come up with interesting designs. Sure, they've have their share of beige boxes along the way, but even some of those have made a point of looking different, like the Mac II series, and the current "flip-out" cases. And they've had their beige-box stinkers too, like the 8100, where you have to pull out the motherboard (which means all the cards too) to add RAM.
Re:Don't Buy Crap. (Score:2)
I have a 133MHz AMD 5x86 (basically a faster 486) with 32MB of RAM. For a good eight years it ran OS/2 and functioned as an in-house news server. In that incarnation, it easily got uptimes in the 30-50 day range. It now runs NetBSD 1.5.2 and functions as an in-house DNS/DHCP/NIS/SMTP/IMAP server and easily gets 60+ day uptimes. Just because it's old doesn't mean it's less reliable.
I find it's just the opposite, in fact. This machine is using the original processor, the original memory, and the original power supply. Nothing except the hard drive (a WD Caviar *yuck*) has been replaced since it was bought in 1993. How long do you think these new AMD XP 2800+ or Pentium 4 3GHz that throw out heat like an acetylene torch are going to last?
Re:Don't Buy Crap. (Score:2)
Re:Don't Buy Crap. (Score:2)
Actually, I have started collecting key pieces of computer history (and I know a few other
Yeah. They still work as well as they did the day that they were new; unfortunately, our expectations of their abilities have changed too much.
I still have my own little computer museum, just like I collect 1950s TV sets. But since you come to expect certain things (a hard drive, bitmapped graphics, color, maybe a remote control), they're not really practical for daily use.
That doesn't make them any less a testament to their time or to their construction, it's just that, for the most part, they haven't achieved a vintage status by surviving a daily workload for x number of years.
Re:Don't Buy Crap. (Score:1)
Re:Don't Buy Crap. (Score:1)
Re:Don't Buy Crap. (Score:3, Informative)
built in garbage disposal.
enerygy savings
quiter.
Re:Don't Buy Crap. (Score:1)
True but I'm quite sceptical that the savings in energy really can compensate for the energy required to produce a new machine.
Re:Don't Buy Crap. (Score:2)
built in garbage disposal. enerygy savings quiter.
Horrified dinner guests sitting around in the kitchen as I'm tossing stuff into the faithful old Maytag:
"You can't put that roasting pan in there! There's still a chunk of bone stuck in there!"
I tossed it in, filled the detergent cup full of Cascade or Electrasol - whichever is cheaper of two "premium" detergents, because they both clean damned well - closed the door and hit the "Pots and Pans" button.
The dishwasher filled, the 3/4 hp pump motor started up, and a few seconds later there was a familiar grinding sound. I let the cycle run to the end, and took out the roasting pan: clean. They were impressed.
I think it has a built-in garbage disposal. I have to be very careful to make sure that the cutlery stays where it's supposed to. Try to wash a margarine tub without securing it properly to the racks, and it's gone.
"Energy saving" = ineffective. May consume half the power of a real appliance, but you'll have to wash your stuff 6 times to get it clean. (6x0.5=3 times net energy usage.) It's like those stupid water-saving toilets that choke on a good pile.
However, I will give you quieter. All of my Maytags are very loud. The dryer has a loud fan blowing air through the clothes in the drum. The dishwasher's pump screams when it cavitates at the end of a drain cycle. And the washing machine's spin cycle - before there were any requirements that it should be able to stop within x seconds of opening the lid - spins clothes so fast that you end up with little dots from the inside of the tub embossed into all of your clothing. Thankfully, I seldom need the dryer.
Every machine represents a lot of energy to manufacture, and it should have a good lifespan to make it worthwhile. Furthermore, by doing their jobs more effectively than most modern machines, they're saving energy that way. They clean the roasting pan without a soak in hot water, and they spin a tub of underwear so quickly that they're dry enough to go directly into my drawer.
Energy-Savings stickers may make hausfrau feel good, but I'm more concerned with efficiency.
Re:Don't Buy Crap. (Score:3, Funny)
The new one does not require small nuclear plant to produce enough energy to wash your plates after a dinner.
Re:Don't Buy Crap. (Score:3, Funny)
please don't tell us it's the same underwear you bought 48 years ago when consumer reports recommended it.
What about actual improvements? (Score:2)
Many of the products you mention may do the job as well as they did when new, but their replacements do the job *better* -- either directly (like cleaner clothes) or have a lower impact (use less power/fuel/water, are quieter, less polluting), or offer more features (delayed start, surround sound, more inputs/outputs).
Your snowblower is likely 2-cycle -- loads of pollution (noise & particulate). Your cars are far more dangerous in accident, pollute, get terrible fuel economy and require far more maintenance, not to mention being less enjoyable to drive (vinyl bench seats, AM radios).
Your washing machines undoubtedly are too loud and use too much electricity and water and don't wash as good as their modern counterparts.
Your stereo, while perhaps providing a good output signal, doesn't have enough inputs or outputs for conemporary usage and probably uses more electricity. Your speakers probably have paper cones and can't last forever.
I agree that too much of what is made is crap designed to be thrown out far earlier than it could be designed for. But carefully replacing some stuff every 10 or so years isn't a bad idea, simply to get the improvements in quality and environmental impact.
Re:What about actual improvements? (Score:2)
But what about products that actually are better than their predecessors?
There are few. VCRs have more features but aren't as well built as the VCRs of yesteryear. Computers - you can't seriously claim that your P4 is as well built as an original IBM PC, though it may be several orders of magnitude faster.
In fact, I can't think of anything.
While CAD has been a boon to manufacturing and speeding product development cycles, I'd argue that finite element analysis and other techniques have simply taught manufacturers how to skimp on materials and fasteners everywhere.
Many of the products you mention may do the job as well as they did when new, but their replacements do the job *better* -- either directly (like cleaner clothes) or have a lower impact (use less power/fuel/water, are quieter, less polluting), or offer more features (delayed start, surround sound, more inputs/outputs).Most inexpensive modern appliances lack delayed start.
I don't believe most modern dishwashers handle dirty roasting pans very well. My old Maytag does. Now, the funny thing about cleaning a roasting pan is that it requires lots of hot water and powerful sprays. The Maytag delivers when it's needed. And it cleans the roasting pan. However, because consumers had electric, water and gas bills way back when, the Maytag could run without using its heating element so much, and without three 1/2-hour washes and four rinses - that's dinnerplate mode. 2 washes, 2 rinses. Water about 75C. It might well use more water in both those washes than a modern dishwasher, but incrementally more. ie. Not worth the energy to make a new dishwasher.
Your snowblower is likely 2-cycle -- loads of pollution (noise & particulate).
Uhhh... I'm in Canada. We know snowblowers. I've never seen a two-cycle snowblower. Around here, all snowblowers are 4-cycle with 2-stage blowers.
As it is, the Ariens blew its motor about three years ago - the thing was just worn out. New snowblower of reasonable quality - $500. But my old Ariens chassis was in great shape. So I went to Princess Auto, bought a horizontal crankshaft Tecumseh engine for $200, and bolted it on. Now the Ariens has exactly the same engine as a modern blower.
The only thing the Ariens lacks is dummy guards. You know, those stupid mechanism which are meant to keep Darwin's weaker specimens from putting their hands into running machinery. My reaction is that if you're dumb enough to put your hands into a running snowblower, you deserve to lose them.
Your cars are far more dangerous in accident, pollute, get terrible fuel economy and require far more maintenance, not to mention being less enjoyable to drive (vinyl bench seats, AM radios).The Valiant and Dart are unibody cars. They're designed to collapse in an accident. However, an SUV is built of a body riding on a box-section steel frame which is very difficult to collapse. I'd take the Valiant or the Dart anyday. Sure, they don't have airbags, but airbags are only an incremental improvement in safety.
The Valiant and the Dart are rear-wheel-drive, making emergency maneouvers far more predictable - why do you think cops liked Caprice Classics and Crown Vics so much?
Energy efficiency and pollution: my Valiant and Dart are both powered by the Slant-6 engine. The Slant-6 is a 225 CID (3.7L) OHV inline 6 cylinder engine designed for economy. Both of those cars get ~28MPG highway, respectable for a modern car of their size. The Valiant came with electronic ignition, the Dart was retrofitted with electronic ignition. They don't have catalytic converters or feedback EFI systems, so they're not quite as clean as a modern car under all conditions. But they're well maintained, and according to my friend who runs the local DriveClean shop, they blow as clean on the tailpipe as the typical 1992-model car. Note that the typical 1992-model car probably isn't as well-maintained as these two. How is that possible? The DriveClean allowance for vehicle wear is greater than the (slight but measurable) influence of EFI and a catalytic converter.
In fact, catalytic converters are restrictions on your exhaust system. If you consider the 4-stroke cycle for a second, you can imagine that anything which restricts the flow of exhaust gases out of your engine will waste crankshaft power. Take the catalytic converter off your car and you'll probably find that you get 20% more gas mileage. Sure, you'll be spitting more CO and HC into the atmosphere, but if you've taken any university-level chemistry classes, you'll be able to calculate the equilibrium for CO2/CO in the atmosphere and how long the HC will take to disintegrate. Catalytic converters are feel-good devices that waste energy themselves.
Maintenance? I wash and wax the Valiant and Dart. I check and change their fluids. When something breaks, I fix it. Both have electronic ignition, so I'm not adjusting their points every week. Both run on modern radial tires, cutting the maintenance of bias-ply tires. In fact, the only maintenance I have to do which is above and beyond that of a more modern car, is adjusting the valve lash on their engines. Until ~1980, the Slant-6 had mechanical valve lifters. Takes a few minutes to do every year. No big deal. Oh, and I lubricate the balljoints and tie-rod ends at the same time.
AM radio and vinyl bench seat? Okay. Well, the Dart has an AM radio and a cloth bench seat. A CD player is hidden in the glove box. If you've only ever gone to the local make-out spot with bucket seats, you don't know what you're missing. The Valiant is a Brougham edition, with crushed velour and leather bucket seats, an AM/FM radio, air conditioning, etc. Basically, it's a miniature version of the 1974 Chrysler New Yorker, with an emphasis on comfort and gas mileage (this was the time of the Arab Oil Embargo). It's cushy.
Your washing machines undoubtedly are too loud and use too much electricity and water and don't wash as good as their modern counterparts.Loud, yes. Dries clothes well enough that I don't need to use my dryer very often.
The Maytag A-504's mechanism was retained without significant changes through the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. In fact, you can still buy it today in Maytag's commercial coin-operated washing machines. Apparently, it cleans pretty well. Part of that has to do with the fact that it actually uses enough water to clean well.
As for water usage, all vertical basket washing machines will fill the tub up to the appropriate level. They all use about the same amount of water. Yes, it's more than those silly canted (water-efficient) washers, but if water dissolves dirt, do you really think your clothes are going to be as clean?
Electricity. No. The biggest thing running in the washing machine is the motor. I think you'll find that most washing machines, even today, will have the same requirements to whip a heavy tub of damp clothes back and forth. I don't think the motor will have changed too much. Energy efficiency of the motor? Incremental improvements. Moore's Law has not applied to AC induction motors since about the 1920s. Since then, they've remained mostly unchanged.
Your stereo, while perhaps providing a good output signal, doesn't have enough inputs or outputs for conemporary usage and probably uses more electricity.
It's connected to my computer. That's the only place it's ever used. Do I want 5.1 sound for playing MP3s and listening to KMail's New Mail beep? No.
How's the sound quality? Well, I don't know. I think it's pretty good. Seeing as how I used to do professional sound and lighting for a living - having done audio for The Three Tenors, Garth Brooks and Harry Belafonte among others, I feel like I might be qualified to judge.
As for energy usage, what, you think you're gonna power 5.1 channels for free? No way. This amplifier only has two channels. It's rated for 50W RMS at the output, and therefore consumed about 250W at the input when I crank up the volume. The output stages are NOT class A, so when the volume is lower, the input power requirements are lower.
Your speakers probably have paper cones and can't last forever.As do virtually all good quality loudspeakers. Polypropylene cones might be good for children with car stereos and boom-boxes, but if you go into any good high-end audio store (where you would have found Acoustic Research speakers being sold in the 1970s), you'll find that they're almost all paper.
Sure, the paper cones will eventually die. But they'll be in the same company as Celestions or Klipsche or ElectroVoice speakers. And, like with those speakers, I'll look at their overall condition, and decide whether or not I wish to spend the $200 having them reconed.
I agree that too much of what is made is crap designed to be thrown out far earlier than it could be designed for.
Thank you.
But carefully replacing some stuff every 10 or so years isn't a bad idea, simply to get the improvements in quality and environmental impact.You've got interesting ideas, which I think will change when you've actually seen how much energy goes into manufacturing something.
Re:What about actual improvements? (Score:2)
You must've missed the bit where the OP said he lives in Canada. I somehow doubt that he's unfamiliar with snow. :-)
As for "rust cancer," most of that comes from poor maintenance. I suspect that hosing down a car that's just been driven through streets that are deiced with salt would go a long way toward keeping rust away. If, OTOH, it's sand that's getting put on the roads, you don't have nearly as much of a problem. A couple of winters in Germany didn't harm what ended up becoming my first car...between regular trips to the car wash in the winter and the Germans' use of sand instead of salt on their roads, no rust developed that could be attributed to slushy roads.
Re:What about actual improvements? (Score:2)
As for "rust cancer," most of that comes from poor maintenance. I suspect that hosing down a car that's just been driven through streets that are deiced with salt would go a long way toward keeping rust away.
For sure.
Another part of the problem is that most people think it's a good thing to park their cars in heated indoor garages. As you drive in from 7F to a garage which may be 40F, all the snow melts, and your car has more exposure to saltwater. The expansion and contraction of the car body with the temperature change can also cause tiny cracks in the paint.
Of course, if you keep your car well tuned, it should start even when it's very cold out (lemme tell you about the winter of 1993, -50C in Ottawa, Canada with the windchill, and my faithful little Chevette still started on the first shot). If the car is well maintained, it will start, which renders a reason to keep the car indoors obsolete.
If, OTOH, it's sand that's getting put on the roads, you don't have nearly as much of a problem. A couple of winters in Germany didn't harm what ended up becoming my first car...between regular trips to the car wash in the winter and the Germans' use of sand instead of salt on their roads, no rust developed that could be attributed to slushy roads.Sand is nasty on the car's paint, but nowhere near as corrosive to the steel as salt is. Salt is profoundly evil, but it's still the most practical de-icer out there.
I'd love to see stainless steel car bodies like the DeLorean had, but it's rather difficult to fix dents in those...
Re:What about actual improvements? (Score:2)
Heh, your car doesn't feel the windchill! It was probably only -20F air temp, but that's not bad for getting a car to start first time. My friend in high school had a chevette that started always in the cold, but his '78 Satellite didn't.
Re:What about actual improvements? (Score:2)
Heh, your car doesn't feel the windchill! It was probably only -20F air temp, but that's not bad for getting a car to start first time. My friend in high school had a chevette that started always in the cold, but his '78 Satellite didn't.
True.
There's something about Chevettes that always makes them start when they're really cold.
That cold snap lasted about three weeks, and during that time, all you saw on the road were Chevettes, Caprice Classics and other full-size older GM cars, and 1970s Chryslers. Otherwise, they were barren, not a Toyota to be found.
It turns out the reason is simple. First off, there were very few imported cars because at that temperature, you need *every* cranking amp available from your battery. Japanese cars tend to have those lightweight little steel battery post clamps, which have a higher contact resistance than lead terminal clamps used on domestics. They also tend to have smaller battery to starter leads.
Fords seemed to have the same sorts of problems, caused by the external starter relay and the extra cable length on the starter lead.
I was able to get those running for people by using my big-assed 2-gauge jumper cables (which I made from arc-welding ground wires).
Older Chryslers - like the Satellite - had an electronic or points ignition system using an external ballast resistor to limit the current through the ignition coil. The idea was that you'd need a stronger spark to start the engine, so they used a coil rated for about 6V, and put a resistor in series to limit the current. During starting (short term), the resistor was bypassed and the coil was able to deliver one hell of a spark. When the resistor was very cold, its resistance was very low, and when the battery was heavily loaded with the starter, there was usually enough getting through to fire the coil well enough to spark the plugs and get the engine running. I'm surprised the Satellite didn't run - probably needed a good tune-up! (My own Dart, Valiant and Ram all use *exactly* the same electronic ignition system as the Satellite would have had, they start very well in cold weather.)
As for Chevettes, well, I dunno. Big battery to starter leads on all the Chevettes I've ever seen. Large starter motor, with the exception of the orientation of the mounting ears, it's the same starter which brings Chevy rat motors (big block V8, 7.4L) to life. Small (1.6L) engine would have to mean less drag trying to compress the fuel and air. GM's excellent HEI electronic ignition, with short leads between the HEI module and the ignition coil - probably lots of primary current to fire the coil well. Because of good overbuilt design, the Chevette was the shitbox that could!
Re:What about actual improvements? (Score:2)
You must not live in state that snows. Or not drive in snow. Most vehciles of that vintage have rust cancer in the east coast.
Actually, this is true. I don't winter drive them, I have a disposable Japanese car for that. I figure the Valiant, Dart and my truck could have pleasant semi-retirements.
Having said that, washing and waxing does go a long way toward preventing rust, as does repairing paint chips the moment you notice them. After all, the wax protects the paint which protects the metal... Though I do wash and wax the undersides of my vehicles, I don't get around to it as aftern as I should.
Something to consider, however, is that some cars will naturally rust more than others, simply due to water-trapping designs. And still others (notably Toyotas) are made of such thin sheetmetal that they perforate very quickly. Then, there's paint quality. Paint has improved a lot over the past 20 years. The Valiant and the Dart were blessed by design - the only place where they really rot is the front fenders, which are still readily available. Even the quarter panels on 25-year-old Valiants are seldom as rusty as the quarters on 10-year-old Honda Accords, and that's even with the advantage of better paint on the Honda. Part of the difference is that there are three weep holes in the Valiant's quarters, where most only have one.
On the other hand, when the snow is fresh and the salt truck hasn't been by, I do enjoy taking them out to a nearby parking lot. Especially my Ram with its 7.2L (440 cubic inch, using real SAE units, not that metric crap) V8. Children can play with their front wheel drive cars by pulling on the parking brake... but real men do donuts with raw horsepower to the rear wheels.
(In all honesty, playing with your vehicle in the snow is a good way to learn how to handle it when the weather is bad.)
Re:What about actual improvements? (Score:2)
Bullshit. Try this [google.com] and convince all the people who posted info about their 2-cycles snowblowers that since it doesn't make any engineering sense, their 2-cycle machines don't exist. We owned two 2-cycles ourselves when I was younger.
His cars probably get better mileage then most SUVs on the road, and the check engine light does not come on every 2 weeks needing another trip to the dealer (coworkers volvo wagon).
The slant 6 motor (which I wanna guess is in the two Mopar cars) was reliable and likely more fuel efficient than today's ultramonster SUVs, but it can't hold a candle to comparable sedans today. The Dodge Ram D-350 truck can't be as fuel efficient as comperable-sized trucks with 6s. Unless you want to keep making unfair comparisons, you can't argue that cars of 30 years ago are comparable to today's cars.
Re:What about actual improvements? (Score:2)
They're old enough that they don't even have a "Check Engine" light. My '77 Cutlass Supreme Brougham is the same way. As for mileage, I'm fairly sure my dad's '01 Tahoe gets better mileage (20something hwy. vs. 16-17 for my Olds with similar-sized V8s in both...Vortec 5300 [chevrolet.com] vs. Rocket 350 [442.com]). OTOH, it could use a bit of work to get things running better, and the '70s models were about the worst for mileage...the changes mandated by "clean air" laws threw mileage into the sh*tter for a few years. Earlier vehicles delivered more power and better mileage, but someone concluded that the nitrogen oxides thrown out the tailpipe of a lean-running, high-compression engine were a Bad Thing.
The sunglasses are just AM though... (Score:2)
Re:The sunglasses are just AM though... (Score:3, Interesting)
Dangerous Toys (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Dangerous Toys (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Ahh yes.. (Score:1, Funny)
I guess CU wouldn't approve... (Score:2)
Oh, to be a kid again...
Re:I guess CU wouldn't approve... (Score:2)
Re:I guess CU wouldn't approve... (Score:2)
That has to be the most dangerous and darwin-award-ready description of an orange cannon I've ever seen.
Gasoline works better. Yes, we used to actually use gasoline. And we're still alive and uninjured to tell about it.
BTW, I do not recommend the use of gasoline in Polish cannons.
Re:Dangerous Toys (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Dangerous Toys (Score:2)
N.B. - I read The Onion weekly, in case you were worried for me.
Re:Dangerous Toys (Score:2)
Capsella (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Capsella (Score:1)
Those 2 sets always beat the parts off my Construx. Of course, Construx had the better TV commercials:
You build wild creatures / Wilder than a movie feature!
Fun Times ... Fun Times...
Re:Capsella (Score:1)
Re:Capsella (Score:1)
Ahhh, nostalgia. I think it's time to get a mindstorms set and build some robots.
Re:Capsella (Score:2)
One of these days I need to get a debit card, so I can buy a few kits on eBay.
Flaming Nerf Ball (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Flaming Nerf Ball (Score:2, Funny)
or Bag O' Glass. That was a favorite in my house:
Mr Mainway: Here. Try this one. We call it Bag O' Glass. Kids love it
Reporter: *blink* Its glass. its SHARP.
Mainway: But its glass. kids love it. its shiny. Ya' set it on the table - eh - Bag O' Glass! See. Its shiny
AMATURE PYROTECHNICIAN (Score:1)
I love to see what the temperature tolerances are of certain objects.
As an amature pyrotechnician I have built things that are suposed to catch fire, but never anything that wasn't suposed to catch fire and did. The good thing about that is It's easy to get good results. 8')
Happy Fun Ball! (Score:2)
Accept no Substitutes!
Discontinue use of Happy Fun Ball if any of the following occurs:
* Itching
* Vertigo
* Dizziness
* Tingling in extremities
* Loss of balance or coordination
* Slurred speech
* Temporary blindness
* Profuse Sweating
and my favorite...
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.
Ah, the days of innocence. (Score:2, Funny)
Gaylord, the pup [consumerreports.org]
I wonder where the etymology happened to change that word so much. Still more, I wonder if the original taker of that name really wanted to be known as the master of happyness at the time or not.
Ryan Fenton
Re:Ah, the days of innocence. (Score:3, Interesting)
That this idea seemed ridiculous at the time is another way the world has changed. I imagine most small battery operated toys have similar economics today.
Broom-Hilda (Score:2)
Those were the days... (Score:1, Funny)
Ah crap nevermind, im only 17 years old.
WHERE IS... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:WHERE IS... (Score:3, Informative)
Where else but here [vibratormuseum.com]
Re:WHERE IS... (Score:2)
Now, if this [goodvibes.com] doesn't get you horny, I don't know what will!
Toast.... (Score:1)
My parents own some of these!!! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:My parents own some of these!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Cool, but kinda short... (Score:2, Insightful)
DennyK
Nerf ball on fire sounds silly, but... (Score:4, Funny)
--Yer Sex while flying [tilegarden.com]
Re:Nerf ball on fire sounds silly, but... (Score:2)
Weak! (Score:3, Funny)
Tennis ball, soaked in gasoline, lit on fire--midnight street hockey.
I still remember the demonic banshee sound the flaming ball made as it whizzed past our faces....
{Phil Hartman} Good times, good times. {/Phil Hartman}
Re:Weak! (Score:2)
Re:Weak! (Score:2)
Try this: Cut a hole into a tennis ball, fill with match-heads. Once it's full, bounce it as hard as you can, against something hard. Lofting as high as possible onto asphalt a good bit away from yourself is effective, and pretty safe.
Flaming Nerf Ball? (Score:3, Funny)
And I play their video game.
Read the comic books.
And enjoy their iced coffee.
Real Vintage Toys (Score:3, Interesting)
Old. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Old. (Score:2)
Re:Old. (Score:2)
Flaming Nerf Ball? (Score:5, Funny)
I guess they also condemned:
1. coloring books
2. jigsaw puzzles
3. the hair on childrens heads
Why didn't they just condemn matches?
Re:Flaming Nerf Ball? (Score:2, Insightful)
This is probably good thing. They fire test kids pajamas, too, as well the ought. Probably few things made E.M. doctors sicker than trying to peel melted pajamas off of screaming children
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Flaming Nerf Ball? (Score:2)
You know, I think they also make an ointment for that, maybe Gold Bond?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Flaming Nerf Ball? (Score:1)
Re:Flaming Nerf Ball? (Score:2)
Of course, that might just eliminate the possibility of it being non-carciogenic.
Re:Flaming Nerf Ball? (Score:2)
Re:Flaming Nerf Ball? (Score:2)
Look here, if you expose something to flame then there's probably a decent chance it will burn. The lesson is not to "make everything fireproof," the lesson is to keep your damned kids from lighting stuff on fire! Sheesh.
Re:Flaming Nerf Ball? (Score:2)
Christmas day, after your presents are open your little brother tosses it randomly around the room. It lands on one of mom's candles she thought was safely burning high above where the kids or pets could get to it. The flaming ooze gets on the bookshelf, ignites the garland, which starts the house on fire.
You write your letter to Nerf complaining about their products from the parking lot of the homeless shelter that you can't get into because its full.
Merry Christmas, and thanks for the Nerf toys.
Re:Flaming Nerf Ball? (Score:2)
Anyway, since this has digressed, I will point out that the house would not have burned down if the people had not placed sources of open flame all over the place for the purpose of being "pretty". People with nerf-ball-aged children know better than to set up this potential hazard. (if they don't... well, I would call this "natural selection"). If the kid was throwing around a ball of asbestos, he could knock a candle into the garland, and bingo. Same result, no Nerf ball.
Using the logic of Consumer Report's Nerf Ball decision, we could ban water because when you put cyanide solids in it, you get deadly cyanide gas, or we could ban bath tubs because they allow Hair-dryers to electrocute us.
This logic only begins to make sense when the true source of the problem is too difficult to change, and the intermediary becomes an easier target. For example, we could ban guns because they allow people to kill us. This makes a lot more sense to people because they find banning guns preferable to the task of sorting out how to decide if someone is homicidal. On the other side (to keep this politically balanced), we could ban abortion clinics because they allow women to have abortions. The real "problem" (if you choose to see it that way) is the woman deciding to have an abortion, not the clinic. But the clinic is an easier target to deal with.
I think it is pretty weak that Consumer Reports used Nerf as the target just because the real source of the problem (open flame in peoples households) was not in their grasp.
Ah but they missed (Score:3, Insightful)
How would you like this guy's job? (Score:1)
Boss: Hey Jones, put this superglue on your hand and touch stuff...
Guy: It works..
Boss: Hmm... works too well... we don't like it!
Two words (Score:1)
~S
A car for the price of 100 pens! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:A car for the price of 100 pens! (Score:3, Insightful)
I've got just one word for you: "Plastics"
Re:A car for the price of 100 pens! (Score:1)
flaming nerf ball ? hmmmm, how about.... (Score:3, Funny)
1961 Electronic mag (Score:3, Funny)
They were talking about Japan. The article said that sure, Japan can make $50 television sets, and consumers might like that, but they will be upset if that TV breaks, right? And then the article said sure, those Japanese can make cheap stuff and can manufacture it inexpensively - but where they will never catch up is in being able to engineer quality products that appeal to western consumers!
Ha h, hah. I guess they read that article and sent all their kids to engineering school.
Silly things to test products (Score:2)
Ouch (Score:3, Funny)
One drop of this instant glue formed a bond between man and hammer in five seconds. We called it an instant hazard--and rated it Not Acceptable.
so the Aibo isn't the first robotic dog ... (Score:2)
car record player (Score:2)
It would be twenty years before someone came up with a format to make that idea work. 72 minutes, on one side, and no frickin' needle either.
This From the people (Score:2)
"The trunk isn't big enough to hold a wheelchair."
Tires (Score:2)
Re:In KGB's Soviet Russia... (Score:1)
War the Spy Wars!
Oh get a sense of humor (Score:1)
Oh yeah? (Score:1)
All your base are belong to us!!!
Re:People of the past were stoopid (Score:1)
The types of stores that had these also tended to be the ones that had the x-ray machines to fit shoes. Some of these are still around in small towns where the old store closed and the building wasn't worth clearing out.