First, i lived in what was to become silicon valley (western San Jose, walking distance to Cupertino, not more than 5 miles from Zilog, where Apple started, etc.), not the Australian outback. I built things with that surplus uA741's at age 14 and i was born in 1951, thus 1965 was when it happened. Checking the first availability dates shows 1964 or earlier for 741's locally to me at the time. Check around with other old timers that were in the area at that time on the availability.
:
ote:
org
fer the
ithout
that
ll
was
..
Why? Everything I've come across on the web agrees that Fairchild introduced the uA741 in 1968. Here's another link
The likeliest explanation of your memories is that you have confused something that happened when you were 14 with the experience of buying some surplus uA741's when you were at least 17 - probably 18.
When the uA709 was first introduced in 1965, it sold for some $300 a piece - not the sort of price a 14-year-old would have been paying at a surplus store.
Incidentally, I bought my uA70'9s in Melbourne, Australia, which is as non-outback a part of Australia as you will find anywhere on that continent - Sydney residents may differ, as both Melbourne and Sydney housed a couple of million people at the time - but outback Australia it wasn't.
-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
the
without
that
Maybe in the 'strine outback (all of Australia was the "outback" back then), but not in silicon valley. At 14 my dad had to drive me to the surplus store, at 17 i easily could have drove myself. Shove your preconceived notions of what was happening elsewhere in the world at the time up near mouth (and head, where the sun don't shine). The Internet in general in is no more reliable than USENET let alone Wikipedia. If you want some real laughs compare Internet / USENET history with published (other than Intel's) history with Intel's versions.
:
ote:
e:
ee.org
Unfortunately, you are posting your unreliable memories on the USENET, and since they conflict with my - no doubt equally unreliable - memories, I can chose to regard them as one more example of USENET misinformation.
Incidentally, the last link that I posted turns out to be an exerpt from an article published in the IEEE Journal of Solid State Circuits, written by an Ian Young from Intel. This makes it a scholarly article in a high quality refereed journal, which isn't exactly internet trash.
Try searching the web for "false memory syndrome" - you seem to be exhibiting an example of the condition.
The wikipedia aricle correctly cites Elizabeth Loftus, who is a first rate psychologist.
-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
snipped-for-privacy@ieee.org
I do not even care if your memories are reliable or not, they may well be. Just the same i believe that my memory is still reliable.
No escape that way. If i could of been bothered to keep the pointers, i could point to some really glaringly obvious s*it published in the likes of Cell, Nature, JAMA, APA journal, as well as various refereed publications of IEEE and ACM.
And you bore me. Post to the thread again or not. I will not bother reading it.
:
ote:
e:
rote:
@ieee.org
Oh, really? If I saw obvious s*it in the instrument literature, I sent in a comment. They don't all get published, but if you use google.scholar to search for "A W Sloman" you will find a few that did.
The link I cited doesn't strike me as obvious s*it - it ties up with the other stuff I've found, and my own memories of the period.
Your single anecdote contradicts all of that, and you haven't found a single piece of evidence to support it.
Being shown up as a source of misinformation is unspeakably tedious
That does fit you attitude to evidence that conflicts with your favoured world view. Believing what you want to believe is comforting, but can't be recommended as a royal route to success.
-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required