Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Apple Books Media Businesses Book Reviews

Revolution In The Valley 290

Jack Herrington writes "For most companies, lightning never strikes. The promised miracle product fails, and the revolutionary dreams meet evolutionary reality. But for Apple, lightning struck twice: first with the Apple computer, which can be justifiably named the first personal computer, then with the Macintosh. Introduced with the groundbreaking 1984 commercial the Mac started the GUI revolution which brought millions of new users into the once inhospitable world of computing." Read on for Herrington's review of Revolution in the Valley.
Revolution in the Valley
author Andy Hertzfeld
pages 240
publisher O'Reilly
rating 9
reviewer Jack Herrington
ISBN 0596007191
summary The birth of the Mac, as told by one of its creators

At the heart of this revolution was a set of brilliant engineers and coders who through their work inspired individuals and companies alike. Andy Hertzfeld captured this revolutionary time at Apple through the eyes of the engineers involved at his site, folklore.org. Now he's published these stories in the book Revolution in the Valley.

Apple Confidential 2.0 will give you history. Cult of Mac describes the phenomenon from the outside. But only Revolution in the Valley tells the story of a computer revolution from the perspective of the team in the center of the storm.

The book consists of concise stories, separated by pages of notes, drawings and photographs from the three years it took to develop the original Mac. The stories run in length between one and eight pages, with most ending in the two- or three-page range. Each is told from a personal perspective, mainly by Hertzfeld himself. Sidebars with comments from Woz and others are included to round out the perspective.

The stories are organized chronologically, starting with Hertzfeld's first days at Apple and ending around the time when Jobs was ousted in Sculley's palace coup. Most of the stories are technical in nature, often going down into the level of hardware detail. Others are more personal in nature, detailing Jobs' odd hiring or management style, talking about the stresses of a 90-hour work week, or recounting Adam Osbourne's threats about the destruction of Apple and Jobs' famous response.

With its roughly one hundred stories weighing in at a little under 300 pages this is a relatively quick read. This is especially true since the stories work on many levels and are told with remarkable skill. There are some standouts: The development of the GUI, replete with Polaroids taken at key points along the way, is excellent. The story on the first meeting with Microsoft is told from a whole new perspective from what we have heard in the past. The genesis of the 1984 commercial is fascinating, and the meeting with Mick Jagger is hysterical.

There isn't a whole lot here that you won't find on folklore.org, though some of the later chapters do some summation work that I couldn't find on the site. These bring the book together as a coherent, readable whole. The note pages, which separate the chapters and are not on the site, are interesting on their own, particularly the notes from the session with Alan Kay.

Apple's development of the Macintosh has been seen as the prototype of the dot-com death marches that would follow. What we see here is the potent mix of technical brilliance, insane work hours and pressure, and management arrogance that paints a much more chaotic and realistic picture.

On a personal level, this is the book I have been waiting for my whole career. Andy Hertzfeld and Bill Atkinson are legends to me and many others. The passion and brilliance they demonstrated set the bar for all of us who look at computer science not as a job, but as a calling. To see the Mac development from Andy's perspective is simultaneously deflating and uplifting. Their project suffered from all of the usual trials. But somehow the team got through it, their creativity and hard work paid off, and they changed the world.

How many revolutions can there be? How many times can lighting strike? How can one small group of people change the world? That's what we all got into this business to find out. And this book shows us an example of how it was done and inspires us to do the same. Thank you, Andy, for what you did then and what you are doing now.


Jack Herrington is an engineer with a twenty-year career inspired by people like Andy Hertzfeld, and the editor-in-chief of the Code Generation Network, as well as the author of Code Generation in Action. You can purchase Revolution in the Valley from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Revolution In The Valley

Comments Filter:
  • Revolution (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BWJones ( 18351 ) * on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @04:01PM (#11212213) Homepage Journal
    This book seems to leave off when Steve Jobs left after Sculley took over the company and misses the whole revolution that has occurred since then so while the book ends with Macintosh, we really should be considering: Apple II, Macintosh, the new Macintosh (nee OS X) and now iPod.

    Perhaps the answer to this question this book asks about lightning striking twice lies in the care and craftsmanship that Apple puts into their products. Like Steve Jobs other companies Pixar and NeXT, there is a substance to Apple's products that tells a story. It goes beyond simple packaging to encompass the whole user experience. With Apple's products, there is considerable effort put into 1) Will this product meet a need and accomplish that goal better than anything else available? 2) Crafting the user experience to optimize their interface with whatever task the product is designed to serve 3) Make sure it does not suck (high praise). If a product does not meet these criteria, it is shelved like so many other projects that never rise to the top at Apple. (like the Palm device and an early effort at co-branding a phone)

    The other interesting thing about Apple is the diversity of folks that actually work for them. They prefer to employ folks with advanced degrees, have a significant number of artists and creative folks working there and I seem to remember that one of their product managers was an MD, PhD. So, many of the folks there are creative and are trained to think critically about issues which is reflected in the products Apple creates. The reality with producing great things is that they evolve during development. There is great pain and effort that go into producing significant things and it requires a dedicated team of folks that are brought together by a common vision. Apple (more precisely the people that comprise Apple) are driven by a common passion to create something just that much better than what is available and to create "cool" things that influence how we interact with computers and the data that drives our lives (movies, music, scientific data etc...etc...etc...).

    • Re:Revolution (Score:2, Insightful)

      by goldspider ( 445116 )
      I think the word "revolution" is thrown around far too casually lately.

      The iPod is a neat gadget, granted, but it's not going to change the world. I'm not even sure I'd classify the Apple II or Macintosh as "revolutionary".

      Cutting-edge for their time? Absolutely. But "revolutionary", next to databases and the Internet, just doesn't apply.
      • Re:Revolution (Score:3, Informative)

        by bsd4me ( 759597 )

        I'm not even sure I'd classify the Apple II or Macintosh as "revolutionary".

        The Apple II may not have been revolutionary in terms of technology, but they definetly started the revolution of the way technology is used in classrooms.

        The Apple II was found in a very large number of schools, even if it was just a single machine in the library, and introduced millions of children to computers.

      • by kherr ( 602366 ) <{moc.daehteppup} {ta} {nivek}> on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @06:32PM (#11213724) Homepage
        It's easy to look at technology that we use every day and know so intimately and disregard it as mundane. But think of the people who don't read /. for fun, the non-techies. What we take for granted they may marvel at.

        The Apple II was revolutionary because it successfully moved home computing from kits to mass appeal. The Apple II flooded schools, giving a generation of children hands-on experience with computers. Apple did it first on a wide scale, if not best. The success of the Apple II also pushed IBM into the PC market.

        The Macintosh was revolutionary because it brought the graphical user interface to everyday use. Predecessors tried and failed (including Apple's Lisa). But at the time the Macintosh hit the market, the command-line mentality was entrenched. I remember vividly reading monthly screeds railing against icons and the mouse by major voices in the computer industry. Where are we now? The GUI dominates everything, for good reason. It makes the computer a more accessible tool, even if far from perfect.

        The other, less recognized, benefit of the Macintosh is the blossoming of desktop publishing and image editing. With Mac OS and laser printers people were able to create beautiful, expressive documents instead of just printouts. Coupled with the GUI it led to a much easier way to lay out all aspects of the page before printing. Photoshop provided similar ease of use for image manipulation on the Mac.

        Sony's Walkman, while not a spectacular device from a purely technical standpoint, was revolutionary because it gave everyone portable music. The iPod seems to be heading in the same direction for digital music, even though the iPod is far from the first mp3 player.

        Revolutions are not founded just on brilliant technology but on the right mixture of technology with social acceptance, like Henry Ford who altered the course of society by mass-producing the automobile. Changing the way people conduct their lives should be the measure of what is and is not revolutionary, not whether or not the technology is something unique.
    • Re:Revolution (Score:5, Insightful)

      by podperson ( 592944 ) on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @04:33PM (#11212591) Homepage
      I agree on all counts.

      Part of it is having "taste". E.g. Apple "copied" Xerox's and others' earlier work and produced the Mac UI -- which was better than anything that preceded it. With Apple's UI to borrow from, Microsoft repeatedly made kludgier, inferior imitations. Everyone copies someone, but taste determines what you've copy, and know when you've done a good job.

      Another part of it is avoiding kludges. E.g. QuickTime was a revolutionary product, but it also had a fully extensible and general architecture which none of its clones can yet match. A single QuickTime movie can automatically select between multiple audio and video tracks to cope with different localization, bandwidth, and hardware requirements -- this is a 1.0 feature. Consider that MPEG came out initially without a robust mechanism for keeping audio and video in synch (just start playing both tracks at the same time, and hope).

      Apple without Steve managed to produce the Newton (which could have been another stroke of lightning, but was released too early and with software too far in advance of its hardware) and managed the PowerPC transition flawlessly. Steve without Apple built Pixar and created NeXT (which for most of OS X's elegance deserves credit) and WebObjects.

      Having just purchased a TiVo, I expect Apple to show TiVo a thing or two next... Sure, the UI is PRETTY...
      • Re:Revolution (Score:3, Insightful)

        by BWJones ( 18351 ) *
        E.g. Apple "copied" Xerox's and others' earlier work and produced the Mac UI -- which was better than anything that preceded it.

        Let me correct you and everybody else on this point. Apple PAID for the GUI in the form of stock which Xerox desperately wanted at the time.

      • Re:Revolution (Score:3, Interesting)

        by drinkypoo ( 153816 )
        The Windows UI since 3.0 is based on discussions in the Motif working group - of which Microsoft was a member. Note the complete and utter lack of difference between the two. Until the start menu, windows UI was basically motif. Then it became a less lame version of CDE. Microsoft has never really copied Apple's GUI. The GUI was a natural evolution that was bound to happen when computers got both multitasking and graphics output capabilities. Personally I find the older MacOS GUI dramatically less usable th
      • Re:Revolution (Score:3, Interesting)

        by epine ( 68316 )

        I once had the privilege to sit in front of one of workstations at Xerox Parc circa 1983, when I was invited to visit some friends from the University of Waterloo who had transfered to PhD programs at Stanford. One of these friends had a cool job on the side at Xerox.

        The main thing I remember is that the machine had a useful THREE button mouse. Not long afterwards I bought one of the early generation Fat Macs, with its completely crippled one button mouse.

        What you got with the Fat Mac was a monochrome s
    • There is a bit of "yes and no" to the points you bring up. There are a lot of exceptions to your points and in some cases Apple has succeeded depite themselves.

      Like Steve Jobs other companies Pixar and NeXT, there is a substance to Apple's products that tells a story. It goes beyond simple packaging to encompass the whole user experience.

      NeXT wasn't exactly successful, despite it's original product being just as "insanely great" as some other things Jobs touched.

      If a product does not meet these crite
  • Good times. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SIGALRM ( 784769 ) * on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @04:01PM (#11212218) Journal
    Introduced with the groundbreaking 1984 commercial the Mac started the GUI revolution which brought millions of new users
    I purchased one of those 128K beasts in 1986 for gawd-only-knows how much. I found out the Macintosh File System ("MFS") was a flat file system: all files were stored in a single directory. However, the system software presented a hierarchical view that showed nested folders. In those days, the Mac ran a single-user, single-tasking operating system, the "Mac System Software"... it came on a single 400 KB floppy.

    Oh, the memories. QuickDraw. Wish I still had that box, bet it would fetch some bling-bling on Ebay :)
    • Re:Good times. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by master_p ( 608214 ) on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @04:48PM (#11212750)
      At the exact same time, I bought an Amiga 500, with an 68000 CPU, 512 KB memory, blitter, 4096 colors on screen, 4 channels of 22KHz hardware-assisted sound, an 800 KB floppy, pre-emptive multitasking, a unix command-line system, a unix-like filesystem that allowed filenames up to 256 characters...imagine how dump Commodore was not to dominate the computer business with such a marvel in its hands!
      • Re:Good times. (Score:5, Informative)

        by kzg ( 634262 ) on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @07:16PM (#11214060)
        The Amiga 500 you are referring too was release 3 years after the Macintosh in 1987. Hardly the exact same time.
    • The local school board was throwing out a bunch of hardware years ago, and the IT guy there was the leader of our local computer club. The equipment was being stored at a Telus warehouse. Anyone who wanted anything was welcome to help themselves before noon when the garbage truck dropped by.

      I and a friend skipped school that morning, and my mother drove us there to load up the car with whatever we could salvage for ourselves. Among the treasures was various Mac LC IIs and IIIs, some strange monitors I'd ne
    • I don't think they were selling the 128k in '86 anymore. Our family got ours in December 1984 (20 years ago!), a seminal life-changing month for me (nerdy as that is... well, this is /., right?) This was our family's first computer, and prior to this I had only dealt with various Commodore machines. Well we walked into a computer store thinking Commodore, I got a demo of menus/windows/desk accessories/macpaint and was promptly blown away, and we walked out with various Apple Mac/Lisa marketing material ("Ma
    • Re:Good times. (Score:3, Informative)

      by ktakki ( 64573 )

      Wish I still had that box, bet it would fetch some bling-bling on Ebay :)

      The only 128K Mac I could find on eBay was priced at $406 [ebay.com], which seems horribly overpriced to me (I've seen 128K Macs bundled with dot matrix printers in local want ad magazines for $25 to $50), even if it does still boot. Everymac.com says its list price was $2500 [everymac.com], though the street price was closer to $1800, IIRC. I bought a 512K Mac (2nd generation) for $1299 in 1985. Comparable PC clones were $1500 to $2500.

      Still have it, st

  • by mr.henry ( 618818 ) * on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @04:01PM (#11212222) Journal
    Gerald Holmes [freeyellow.com] made a nice cartoon [archive.org] about the Steve Jobs & Bill Gates rivalry in the early history of the PC.
  • Funny... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Icarus1919 ( 802533 ) on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @04:03PM (#11212255)
    You know, it's funny they should use that analogy, because every time I've used an Apple computer I've wanted lightning to strike me.
  • by bennomatic ( 691188 ) on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @04:09PM (#11212332) Homepage
    ... with the iPod. I still find it amazing to see how many people on BART during the commute hour have the telltale white headphones. And the number keeps growing, and growing...
  • by ZeeExSixAre ( 790130 ) on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @04:10PM (#11212338)
    For most companies, lightning never strikes. The promised miracle product fails, and the revolutionary dreams meet evolutionary reality.

    Hmm... something that will revolutionize the way we get around... cities will be built around this invention of the millenium... what was that thing again? Wasn't it banned from sidewalks in 30 cities around the country?

    Too fast to be pedestrian and too slow to be a vehicle: the Segway was doomed to be a toy from the start. Oh yeah, and that price....

  • 3 times! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mogrify ( 828588 ) on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @04:12PM (#11212366) Homepage
    Hasn't lightning struck again with the iPod? I wonder if the lightning analogy makes sense... maybe they're just good...?
    • They're a neat gadget, but hardly a "revolution". The true meaning of that word has long since fallen prey to market-speak.
      • Maybe. But when speaking of revolutionary technologies they will always also be evolutionary. Nothing gets created in a vacuum. I'm not in marketing, but I nonetheless consider the iPod revolutionary for the simple fact that it opened the floodgates to a market that at that time had few players. It showed that a successful business model could be based selling limited DRM music and hardware. Others could have done it, but didn't. Apple did, hence the iPod (rightfully) gets the glory.
    • Hasn't lightning struck again with the iPod? I wonder if the lightning analogy makes sense... maybe they're just good...?

      Not really. But, also, yes.

      The point is that it's not the iPod that is "revolutionizing" personal music consumption, but the combo of the iPod and iTunes. In the end, you'll find that it's iTunes that will have the greater impact. Apple figured out that the iPod razor will mean a lot of iTunes blade sales.

      More importantly, this is the sort of thing that Apple is really good at - not

      • Yes... their skill in design keeps being proven over and over, and it floors me too... both their hardware and software seem like art-gallery material, and yet it's accessible and inviting. But I still think the iPod is revolutionary in that it uses mass-market, status-symbol appeal to introduce its users to an entire slate of Apple products, and in a larger sense, to Apple's design philosophy. No other portable device has driven business in many other diverse areas like the iPod has. But it also introdu
      • You have it backwards because iTunes is there to support the iPod and not the other way around. The iPod makes Apple more than the iTMS ever will. If you want to make a razor analogy, the iPod is the razor, and the non-field-replacable batteries are the blades... In that respect it's more like the original kodak camera.
    • It's a stupid saying anyway, because we have known for a long time that lightning often strikes the same place twice during the same storm, let alone during subsequent storms.
    • # cat -v /dev/hda | mail billg@microsoft.com
      Are you sure you want to send the contents of your hard drive to Bill? How about dd -if=/dev/urandom bs=1G count=20 | mail billg@microsoft.com instead?
  • Insanely Great (Score:3, Informative)

    by isecore ( 132059 ) <isecore AT isecore DOT net> on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @04:14PM (#11212390) Homepage
    another good read on the history of the Mac is "Insanely Great" by Steven Levy. Maybe not the most accurate piece of litterature on the planet, but a very entertaining read nonetheless.

    He also wrote "Hackers" (don't confuse it with the lame movie of the same name) which deals with the origins och hackers and really cool old-school stuff.
  • Apple II? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Forbman ( 794277 ) on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @04:18PM (#11212435)
    Sorry, I'd have to say that the real revolution in the first phase wasn't the Apple II, but the Vic-20 and Commodore 64.

    The Atari 400/800 were close, but the VIC20/C64 democratized it. Since all 3 were 6502-based (OK, 6510 in C64), they all had the same basic inherent limitations, but Commodore blew up the markets for both the Apple II and Atari computers.

    Too bad Commodore couldn't market Eternal Life (tm).

    • You need to look at your calendar....
    • The Apple II was also 6502 based..

      And the Apple II pre-dated the C64.. Not sure about Vic20 or Atari's stuff though.

    • Re:Apple II? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Trixter ( 9555 )
      I disagree, since the Apple II predated those computers by several years and lasted just as long in the marketplace (there was still software being published for Apple II as late as the early 1990s).

      Aside: You must be European, as the Vic-20 and C64 didn't catch on nearly as much in the USA as the Apple II did.
      • Re:Apple II? (Score:3, Informative)

        by BWJones ( 18351 ) *
        It is also interesting to note that even after the introduction of the Lisa and the Macintosh, the Apple IIe was in such demand, it was actually produced up until 1993 for a platform lifetime of the Apple II for seventeen years or so which is an eternity in the desktop computing world.

  • Have you not heard the story behind the Commodore 64? Jack Tremeil's venerable "computer for the masses, not the classes."

    The thing was developed in TWO WEEKS. [commodore.ca] The OS took another TWO WEEKS.

    In 1981.

    And blew the doors off of anything Apple was selling. And kept blowing the doors off of Apple until 1992.

    You all were playing Sticky Bear and Oregon Trail while I was playing, well, everything from Donkey Kong to Project Firestart.

    And, oh yeah, it's still in Guinness for selling better than any other sing
    • by Anonymous Coward

      Have you not heard the story behind the Commodore 64? Jack Tremeil's venerable "computer for the masses, not the classes." The thing was developed in TWO WEEKS. The OS took another TWO WEEKS.

      The C64 is a minor extension of the VIC-20, and its operating system is a minor extension of the VIC's OS as well. The VIC-20 was not developed in a matter of weeks.

      And blew the doors off of anything Apple was selling. And kept blowing the doors off of Apple until 1992.

      Really? The Commodore 64/128 blew the doo

      • The Commodore 64 ceased to be an interesting machine once the Atari ST came out. It became remarkably irrelvant once you could ST's and Amigas for cheap.

        By 1988, the Commies were more of an historical curiosity than anything else.
    • The C= 64 and the Apple ][ are dramatically different computers. For one, the Apple was expandable, it has a bunch of expansion slots (at least six) and room for cards. The C= 64, while a very cool little computer, is extremely limited when it comes to making it do things it wasn't designed to do, short of hardware hacking. (A friend of mine once added an 8 bit ISA slot to a C64, for example.) The only thing the 64 has over the apple is the sound hardware and the price. Let us also not forget the many bugs
      • Well with the c64 it all came down to games, it simply was until the Atari ST ant the Amiga came out the home computer with the best graphics there was. (which was until 85 or so) It basically blew the Apple2 and the Atari 400/800 away graphics and soundwise. The Atari was promoted as 128 color machine, but the problem was that the mode only allowed color switch on a line level and in between the lines the colors were limited to four, the hardware sprites were fixed to one color. Only a handful of games wer
  • The Commodore PET [commodore.ca] predates the Apple as the first personal computer by an itsy bitsy margin.
  • ...the Apple computer, which can be justifiably named the first personal computer...

    Er...uh...I don't think so. CP/M [ic.ac.uk] was there years before the Apple, and there was a big (for the time) user base of CP/M computers. Not just in business, but hobbyists as well.

    • 1. CP/M is an OS, not a system. 2. There may have been a "big user base" of CP/M, but as you pointed out, it was big "for the time". The point is that Apple was the first mainstream PC and it transcended its "time" by creating a new market.
      • No, the Apple wasn't the first "mainstream PC," because back in the 70's CP/M was mainstream. One of the reasons it was so popular is that it wasn't tied to one set of hardware manufactured by one company. It could be adapted to any 8080 or Z80 machine with any terminal because the terminal codes weren't hard-coded into the systm. There was also a multi-user version, MP/M, so that multiple users could share to some extent the same 8" floppies.
  • The first PC? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Dammital ( 220641 ) on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @04:26PM (#11212526)
    the Apple computer, which can be justifiably named the first personal computer
    Pop quiz: What was the first personal computer? [blinkenlights.com]
  • by nurb432 ( 527695 ) on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @04:45PM (#11212722) Homepage Journal
    For all these f-ing lusers that think they can use a computer.. If it wasnt for Apple, they wouldnt be here today..

    Damn Jobs.. Damn him!!

    Things were better when you had to almost be an EE to have your own computer at home..
    • If it were up to Apple, half the problems that lusers see wouldn't exist. It's because you had to be an expert to use a IBM PC, but not to use an Apple PC.

      Except lusers bought IBM PCs when they really needed Apple PCs.
  • The term "Personal Computer" was popularized by IBM. Before this the generic term was microcomputer, although "home computer" was also used. In the eighties, before the "IBM Clones" came out, "PC computer" specifically referred to IBM as opposed to the Apple II or Commadore, etc. IBM popularized the term while putting out FUD about the usefulness of other computers for business. It may be nitpicking, but it still bugs me when people use the term PC to describe early microcomputers
  • (3) I'd consider laser printing, introduced shortly after the Mac.
    (4) Integrated graphical applications such as Multiplan, MacWord, MacPaint, etc.
    (5) Multimedia software such as iPhoto, iMovie. These are distant decendents of the NeXT software line.
    (6) iPod and iTunes. Too early to tell.
  • by Junks Jerzey ( 54586 ) on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @11:06PM (#11215487)
    I see lots of comments claiming it wasn't revolutionary. In reality, no, the Mac wasn't the first system with a GUI. That would be Ivan Sutherland's Sketchpad application from the 1960s. And we all know about the Alto. But at the time, back in 1984, the Mac was an atomic bomb dropped on the computer world. People used 8-bit computers like the Atari 800, Apple II, and Commodore 64. People used IBM PCs and clones, back when all popular PC software was written for text-mode MS-DOS. So then here comes the Macintosh with:

    1. A 32-bit (internally; it had a 16-bit bus) microprocessor.
    2. Bitmapped graphics *only*. No text mode. The visual difference was huge.
    3. High-resolution graphics: 512x384, compared with the roughly 320x200 graphics of the 8-bit home computers. (Note that you could get better graphics for the PC, but as an expensive add-on.)
    4. Applications geared toward using bitmapped displays, like MacPaint (which was stunning at the time) and MacWrite.
    5. Lots of other little things taken for granted: the mouse, the desktop metaphor, shutdown and disk ejection controlled by the system, digitized sound, icons representing applications.

    All in all, this was quite a shock to the average person who didn't know about the research going on elsewhere.

"You tweachewous miscweant!" -- Elmer Fudd

Working...