Category Archives: advertising

Games that can (now) Live Forever: 3 in Three

3 (!) years ago, I mentioned a PC game (actually a Macintosh game) called “3 in Three”. Now, because of technological advances, we have a ready-made way of playing it: by emulation!

With some effort and alot of time, you can see things like this:


Misfit vowels sounds like something from elementary school English. Maybe like Number Munchers, but different? Speaking of which, 3 in Three isn’t supposed to be educational, but neither are crossword and the like puzells.


Turds!! – A college student pranque

According to WikipediA, this immage was gotten up and spread about by some Indiana University students many many years Ago (1890). For the better education of the students of to-day, it is transcribed below.

Contains offencive language.

Continue reading

Personal ugly mony

While possibly not the first, unquestionably the biggest collection online of artistically1 defaced mony is the “ugly money” page at Johnny Burritoe, seen here.

I turned up some of my own by accident when I was given the below as change sometime recently.

Continue reading

The TORRID zone

In very old Earth science, the tropical or equatorial area of the Earth was named the “torrid zone”. Evidently Aristotle was responsible for this, if WikipediA is to be believed. Supposedly the heat would be so severe it would be impossible for humans to live there.

Consequently, the Lennox company used the name “The Torrid Zone” for its brand of… air conditioner.

Continue reading

Shoutout to a Philadelphian artist

I found out about Joe Boruchow about three or four years ago in the Philadelphia Inquirer (A serious broadsheet, no relation whatever to the notorious “National Enquirer”) Arts section.

Essentially he cuts out figures of construction paper. Practically, he appears to create entire worlds from the stuff. I highly recommend looking at his site and the backfiles where he has posted these amazing works of true Art.

Full disclosure: I was not paid for this post, or any way involved with him.

Entertaining company names

The origin of the “InExObs” (inexplicable objects) I sometimes blog about had a running series called “Who named the business?” (part 1) where the author would comment on unusual (usually stupid sounding) business names.

Here are two that I’ve patronized, though I don’t think they are stupid, but entertaining:

  • Exuberant software – A dude’s effort to make a “Service Pack” for Windows 98’s seeming myriad patches. No longer updated or very useful, it was a useful tool back in the darker days of Windows 9x. Still the name, which means highly enthusiastic, was memorable in its own right.

  • Resplendence software – A site of Windows utilities. I do recall thinking at the time that the name, which means displaying exceptional beauty, was odd for programs with not so hot user interfaces. Hopefully they’ve gotten better at that.

Be an up to date farmer (in 1963), part 1 of 2

Browzing through old matter, I found a page from a 1963 magazine, the Farm Journal with some handy advices:


A couple of things jump out immediately. First, they had fluorescent light dimmers in 1963? For YEARS I’ve been seeing warnings on dimmer switches I’ve installed that they should never be used on a fluorescent light. Was this really a thing and, if so, what happened to them?

Second, were dimmers really that new in 1963? A dimmer is just a rheostat, which has existed as long as systematic study of electricity has, maybe longer. It’s just a wound coil of wire with a movable contact. In the case of a light dimmer switch, it is usually a circular affair. An industrial example may be seen here.

Another point, potentially hidden, is the price. 16 USD for a dimmer is outrageous today. They are about half that or less for a no-frills rotary dimmer switch, per Home Depot and Lowes. (I’m not linking to them because their websites change so regularly.) Using an economical adjustment for inflation, the highly recommended Measuring worth website, the purchasing power of 16 USD in 1963 is about 124 USD in 2014. That is by no means “inexpensive”, especially for farmers, who are notoriously not high earners.

Finally, the company in question, Hunt, appears to still be around, at least as a brand. It is owned by “Caribe Corporation”, which appears to just be an alternate name of the firm, since I cannot find any other business lines owned by it in a cursory search.