I got a PT Trainer tethered flight plane when I was a kid. An uncle did my absent father a solid, built and flew it. It featured pop off wings to absorb impacts, lessening the chance of serious breakage. It crashed breaking beyond repair before one lap completed. I could take a trip down memory lane for only 93 + shipping if I won the bidding. https://www.ebay.com/itm/275321290063?hash=item401a6d7d4f:g:XlgAAOSwvf9iijYM I'll settle for looking at the photos.
I did have an Airwolf but it was a smaller model with a glowplug engine on the top driving a large rotor, the idea being you fired up the engine and it would climb, and climb then when the small amount of fuel is gone it would glide down to earth via another set of rotors that would spin as it fell. It worked well most of the time but there was a warning on the box not to leave the rear tail wings on the model when using it or it would actually fly in one direction and you could lose it and I did on one occasion do the thing you are not supposed to do and did a flight with the tail wins on and before I knew it it had flown over several houses away and beyond. We never got it back or found it.
OMG I've seen that one love it. OK this song perhaps should be in the regrettable music thread but it's not actually bad. I've always loved it.
Or they hoped audiences didn't know? 1983's movie having Leia say she always knew put's 1977's and 1980's in a different perspective. Casual audiences may or may not. Ditto for more entrenched fans. But it does beg the question if the writers really had anything planned out for such a giant oversight, which is definitely "no" since "EPISODE IV" wasn't added to "Star Wars" until it's 1980 re-release, something many (incl. me) didn't know for the longest time either... the old tv trope "hidden in plain oversight" otherwise explains it away.
Yeah, I'm a tad miffed too. Interesting video in some aspects, but angering in others... at least there's some ambivalence... (and to be fair, some of the channel's test items look genuinely compelling... but even down to the smartphone, there are ways to safely disassemble anything, and in ways to make reassembly look like they had never been taken apart to begin with... There's a literal "hack" joke somewhere, too...) Any 9 year-old could take apart a machine with just as little skill... but since the kid wasn't old enough... I suspect a Ms Pac-Man original kiosk that had the original Pac-Man side panels would be a bit rarer, older, and be a bit more valuable than what that young adult person was rationalizing just prior to smashing it up... A cursory search beyond the retro $150 stuff reveals the value is generally twice that of what he was saying (with one exception, for a unit that didn't look refurbished but looked like it was sitting next to a window all day and as such as badly faded), and I doubt prices skyrocketed since 2017 - back when they weren't all that common either. The kid's video game is just glorified "cel animation in digital form"; a copy of that candy game, which is also just a glorified rehash of something made for a Commodore 64 some four centuries' earlier, only the blockiness had a more interesting look compared to ersatz hand-drawn stuff. The use of Grand Theft Auto's font, if it wasn't intentional, leads to quite the double entendre. He causally states there's no power, but he had it powered on earlier. So, guess how long the display unit can hold a potentially-lethal electric charge? But he said "rad" like how some teenagers might, so that means he won't be dumb enough to clumsily drop it... where doing so could cause an implosion - which would lead to worse things should the glass shatter... (Okay, at least he mentions "explosion", but he thinks it's the same television set you'd buy in 1981 - which is not quite the case, either... (but not too distant, too...) Vector-based games, much to my surprise when I'd read up on Tempest and it being the first game to use a color vector-based monitor rather than the typical raster-based, have monitor technology surprisingly more different too... amazing what is the same and where differences seep in...) He also meant to say "burn-in effect", but it's all good... For a cheap thrill, here's a neat example of those pesky laws of physics in action: (Despite the interesting subject material, be on the lookout for more of that ADHDTV sped-up video technique, which more often than not feels unintentionally slower... Even colleges teach basic video composition for some degrees...)
Uuuuum standing right next to CRT and hitting it, that's not very bright. I think the worst thing he did was standing there after breathing in all the dust which would have contained things like phosphor and other elements.