|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
INTEL as in ROME 1972AD |
Current rating: 0 |
by Steve Bisset
Email: sbisset769 (nospam) hotmail.com (unverified!) |
07 Feb 2005
|
|
Events at INTEL 1972-1974 that I witnessed. |
Intel Circa 1972-74
In the rotunda of King Andrew Grove few shall tread!
Andy was seldom seen, except alas the clean-up tour every Friday. Around the Lab few dared make any humorous signs. One incident of great humor to the troops was much less humor to the Supreme Court of Andy. The Ragweed incident. One day the techs arrived in their lab at 7:50am to find a huge Ragweed occupying a stool in the second Lab bench area. This object, perched well on the stool extended across the entire bench area, blocking the entry by the technicians who’s stations were at the two benches. Everyone was standing around smiling when Les Vadez brought a visitor into the lab area. The visitor, of taller stature than Les, was able to see over the bench tops. His vision centered on the subject ragweed, his mouth formed a question. “Is that a standard piece of lab equipment?” Les, of course had to advance a few steps to completely view offending object. “Whoever did that is fired” Les roared. After the Guard log was reviewed, the incident could be pinned on no employee. The suspicion wafted over that some National Semiconductor people were suspected of sneaking into the building. The night security guard was to be fired. Nothing further was heard, the maintenance department spent 45 minutes dismantling the ragweed and carting it off. Everyone hid their smiles, but defiantly a lighter mood existed throughout the day! Through the grapevine I heard that Wayne was the Ragweed embed culprit. I cornered Wayne in his office to inquire as to the reasoning behind the gag. Wayne elaborated that a Character Generator product INTEL was manufacturing had been given to him for evaluation. Once he hooked the device up in its minimum configuration, the characters were display upside-down and backwards. Wayne through his knowledge of circuits concluded the row decoder had been hooked up to the complement side of the column counter. Wayne had returned the part to engineering with a note attached with his analysis. Engineering had replied to Wayne that he probably had hooked the device up improperly.
Marketing sent some of the devices to their customer. After two weeks, no word had been heard from the customer. Marketing called the customer. The customer answered the phone, when he was sure it was INTEL calling he shouted “The Damn Characters come out upside-down and backwards!” he then slammed the receiver down on its socket. Wayne felt the ragweed typified engineering operatives.
Wayne was liked by the engineers and most of the company, for some reason Andy’s three managers were intent on derailing Wayne. George Stadaker, Les Vadez and John Mahowee all dreamed of getting Wayne under their control just so they could fire him. It seems Wayne had humiliated these people twice or three times to my knowledge. First time when he delivered many sales of the 4004 system when everyone else had given up. A second time, when he succeeded in establishing the PDP-10 System, when they said he would never get it working. A third time with the Ragweed.
Related Article:
http://www.ucimc.org/newswire/display_any/22429 |
This work is in the public domain |
Comments
|
More on Wayne Pickette's Story |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
08 Feb 2005
|
|
You can read an updated version of Phil Stinard's original web Feature (linked above as a Related Article) in The Public i's February 2005 Black History Month edition, available at many locations in the area. |
|
Re: INTEL as in ROME 1972AD |
by Phil Stinard
pstinard (nospam) hotmail.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
09 Feb 2005
|
Dear Troll/Jamaica Bob,
ML has done more than any one else at the IMC to see that Wayne's story gets told. He found my article on the San Francisco IMC website and crossposted it here. He encouraged me to submit the article to the Public i, where it appeared in the latest issue. He made Steve Bisset's excellent contribution a separate thread and featured it prominently on the IMC web site. He did this despite continual abuse from misguided supporters and malicious trolls such as yourself. Please go find someone else's ankles to bite and stop your pathetic attempts to sabotage serious efforts at getting the story out. |
|
Re: INTEL as in ROME 1972AD |
by Wayne Pickette
waynedougpick (nospam) yahoo.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
11 Feb 2005
|
IMC staff, including and/or starting with ML, has been treating the very improper way my Wife for a long while of time, while she has been trying , in spite of fully unfair treatment , to attract attention to my cause. I am sure that if this issue is producing some so named "trolls" then IMC should start to eliminate "trolls" through the changing of its own editorial policies or, at least, through modifying them.
Unfortunately, though Phil Stinard is right, Jamaica Bob was right too, but, in difference with Mr. Stinard comment, the comment of Jamaica Bob is deleted. |
|
The Situation |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
11 Feb 2005
|
Hi Wayne,
The situation with the troll and his various names is that his posts will be deleted as they are detected. This was a decision made by our Steering group, which is fully empowered to do so. Like all decisions at the IMC, this was made by consensus of all those present. It's a done deal and I am merely carrying out this decision. It has absolutely nothing to do with the content of any of his posts and everything to do with his identity as a repeated abuser of our website use policy.
I do not see the how his comments, even if they appear on the surface to be supportive, of a known troll and abuser are helpful to you here. You have received a considerable amount of help and support from a number of people at the IMC and your story was printed in the February 2005 Public i because of my encouragement of Phil to submit it so that it would get wider distribution.
As for Anna's situation, I realize that her last couple of post have been pretty much within the rules here. The problem is that she has only chosen to start paying attention to our polices after she had used up numerous opportunities to quit abusing our website. Because of her continuing refusal -- at that time -- to abide by these policies, I was forced to take her case to the Steering group. Unlike in the case of the troll, she has been only temporarily prohibited from using UC IMC for three months. You are also able to read her posts in the Hidden files, unlike the troll whose crap simply goes away permamently.
Anna is eligible to apply after a three month hiatus to get her posting privilieges reinstated at UC IMC on March 20. She must do this by writing a statement that she understands the policies and will abide by them at all times in the future, then submitting the statement to the Steering group.
If we are convinced, based on her statement and her actions during the ban, that she intends to abide by the policies, then there is a good chance she will be allowed to post here again. However, her continuing to post here in the meantime, in defiance of the temporary prohibition, is likely to weigh against her, should she decide to reapply for the prohibition to be dropped.
Also, please understand that the lifting of this sanction is NOT automaticon March 20 -- she has to make a decision to commit to future compliance. Likewise, is she does do that and is reinstated, she must continue to abide by the agreement or risk a permament ban.
I find that Anna's style is not something I usually enjoy reading, but she occassionaly has some important things to add to the conversation here. As long as those things are within the bounds of our very liberal website use policies in the future, I would support the reinstatement of her posting privileges if she reapplies. If I am forced to continue hiding posts she should not be making here between now and March 20, or whatever date she chooses to reapply and her letter is accepted by the Steering group, then I will oppose her reinstatement.
Please do not take my potential support as assuring she will be reinstated. Anna has personally and deeply insulted a number of people at UC IMC. They are reasonable and forgiving people, like me, but I cannot speak for where they might stand on Anna returning to posting here. Anna's abusive practices are directly tied to her legally defamatory, baseless, and unfair accusations against a number of people. We will never allow that to happen again, so unless we are certain it will NOT, then things will stay as they are right now. The ball is in _Anna's_ court. It is time for her to quit blaming others for what she clearly brought on herself. |
|
Re: INTEL as in ROME 1972AD |
by Wayne Pickette
waynedougpick (nospam) yahoo.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
11 Feb 2005
|
I don't know whether Anna is going to apply to the usage of IMC web or not, as I can't dictate her anything and can't decide for her, though I can say that if I were her, I wouldn't do it.
My opinion is that your staff, including you, yourself, has been deeply unfair and offensive to her and her postings. That is why if I were in her shoes I wouldn’t ask or apply for any readmission, especially because you are running open publishing forum. I watched the entire story, and my opinion is that you were attackers and she was defending herself, and mainly my cause and her cause about education. The admitted failure of public education under the program No Child Left Behind, which we (I and she) watched yesterday during the meeting in Champaign Public Library, confirmed that she was the same way right about the necessity to increase the quality of public education, as she was right about my cause. I have already written before that I don't like her to be involved in politics, whether global or local, but, again, I can't dictate her how to behave. |
|
Re: INTEL as in ROME 1972AD |
by La Ley
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
13 Feb 2005
|
Wayne,
Searching through the IMC's archives, I couldn't find any examples of ML, or any other personnel with control over IMC content, attacking Anna on education, your "cause," or any other issue. I could have missed something. If so, please post concrete examples. The criticisms and so-called attacks on Anna have come from readers, and ML has no control over what people choose to say about her. ML HAS spoken out on concrete examples in which Anna has written abusively about others, and has spoken to the issue of why she was banned from the IMC website.
Your (and Anna's) attacks on the IMC are focussing more attention on your personalities than on your issues, and one must ask: If you don't like the way the IMC is covering your issues, why don't YOU write about your issues instead of chronically complaining about a perceived lack of respect, attention, and coverage for your cause? This is all getting to be tiresome and distracting, and with most of the comments being about personality disputes rather than the substance of your story, I'm frankly beginning to lose interest. |
|
Re: INTEL as in ROME 1972AD |
by Phil Stinard
pstinard (nospam) hotmail.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
14 Feb 2005
|
I don't wish to belabor the point, but since Wayne referred to some of my comments, I need to make a clarification.
Wayne wrote: "Unfortunately, though Phil Stinard is right, Jamaica Bob was right too, but, in difference with Mr. Stinard comment, the comment of Jamaica Bob is deleted."
I wish to make it clear that my views are diametrically opposed to those of the troll, so I disagree with the characterization that both the troll's comments and mine are correct. Although the troll's comments were deleted, the gist of the comments was that ML opposed Anna's and Wayne's efforts to seek publicity, and ended with a quote that I remember vividly: "To Hell with ML." I strongly disagree, and in no way do I wish my comments to be lumped in with those of the troll as being "correct." You can choose which comments you wish to view as correct, but we cannot both be correct.
Trolls seek to manipulate, deceive, mock, and divide. They will profess support for a cause, and then ridicule others who support the same cause in an attempt to drive a wedge between people and ultimately destroy the cause. The troll expressed support for Wayne and Anna, but its intentions are the opposite. Whether you choose to agree with me or not is your choice, but consider concrete actions that have been done on your behalf and who has done them. Good material has appeared on the IMC site written by me, Steve Bisset, and others, with the overt support and encouragement of ML. What has the troll done other than move the topic off the subject of microprocessors?
People who really support you will write concrete articles that further verify your claims, or they will contact you directly and offer help. Has the troll done this? If so, please correct me. |
|
Re: INTEL as in ROME 1972AD |
by Wayne D. Pickette
waynedougpick (nospam) yahoo.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
14 Feb 2005
|
It seems that this entire discussion is OFF TOPIC, if this classification is really existing, it should be applied here, as it has no connection with the content of the article. So, I would like to stop it right here.
I would actually like all of these comments to be hidden as OFF TOPIC or deleted. I am also sure that NONE of the involved in the discussion seems to be interested in changing his /her opinions. I am sure about me, and I see the same attitudes in other participants. Facts, which can be presented to support my points of view, to answer to Phil, La Ley, etc., though they (these facts) are existing, still have no connection WHATSOEVER to the content of this article. So, once again, this OFF TOPIC discussion has no sense, and I don't want to continue it and am sorry that I got involved in it, as being still irritated by the abuse, which my Wife suffered here, while promoting my cause.
Sorry, La Ley, but I haven't noticed by now any interest of yours to my topic (actually to the entire cause). Though I've noticed that you were having the great interest in arguing with my Wife, pertinent to completely different topic, as I've marked, trying by all means to stir troubles. So, I don't think that it is possible for you to lose the interest, which hasn't been ever existing (not the interest to the stirring up the troubles). Again, this ENTIRE discussion is OFF TOPIC, has no sense at any point of view and looks like a kitchen argument. I don’t want any continuation of it, and would like all these comments to be hidden or deleted. By the way, the answer of Phil Stinard to the comment of Jamaica Bob has no sense for any reader, as Jamaica Bob comment is deleted. So, delete all other also, as the other thing, which seriously irritates me, is the fact that because of the partial deletion or hiding of some comments almost each string of comments here (not only about my causes) starts to look finally for each independent and impartial beholder like the communication of the mentally impaired people. So, please, delete the entire string. |
|
