The Mid-Atlantic area is older (from the British explorer/settler POV) than New England - think Roanoke Island, Jamestown, all of which pre-date New England.
That’s a good point. However it might be debatable whether machines like the Altair 8800 were called microcomputers because they were based on microprocessors, or whether it was because it neatly fit the micro-mini-mainframe hierarchy, or maybe a little of both. DEC developed the PDP-11 on a chip in 1979 (well, OK, a sort of hybrid package with two chips and a common pinout) but it was still officially a minicomputer.
That’s a great example of a now-obsolete term, and illustrates just how stupid that terminology was. As a movie purist I hated it, because it somehow implied that the proper original widescreen format was “partial screen”. In fact it was really the so-called “fullscreen” (or “pan & scan”) that was partial and cropped, a fact made plainly obvious when you see it on a proper widescreen TV.
That is really more due to deliberate deception than a term becoming obsolete. Both fullscreen and widescreen DVD formats were available at the same time, so marketing could hardly name them “better” and “worse”, or words that give that impression, because who would buy “worse”? So you end up with two words that are both superlatives in some way.
The same thing happened with USB ports that were either “full speed” and “high speed”. It sure isn’t obvious which is faster from the names.
(And, of course, condoms always come in sizes “huge”, “enormous”, and “gigantic” 
.)
I believe the largest size is now called “Bladder-Buster”.
TBCF, IIUC, some cinema was initially shot in 4:3 (not anamorphic) and cropped to a wider format, so I think there may be a few “full screen” movies that given the viewer more of the image than the widescreen version. Not that that would improve the movie, they obviously cropped it for a reason.
Another thing that seems a bit misnamed is [del]Macromedia Shockwave[/del] Adobe Flash. The name suggests speed, and it originally may have shown faint glimmers of that, but today I suspect most users feel that it ought to be renamed “Bog”.
4K TV is also referred to as UHDTV (Ultra High) to differentiate it from HDTV. My UHTV can split the screen into 4 HDTV feeds which is kind of a neat feature to show off to your friends to get across the point that it is four times higher definition that HDTV. I don’t use it day to day like that myself. Both HDTV and UHDTV beat SDTV that we had for over 40 years or the EDTV we had at the beginning of the “modern age”. So I’m a little confused as to your confusion since 4K isn’t being called HDTV in any marketing that I’ve seen.
It’s rare, though IMAX films and some of Kubrick’s can be like that. “The Shining” is an example. IIRC, the first DVD release of “The Shining” was 4:3 which was really weird because it was filmed in 4:3 (“Academy aperture”) but composed for 1.85:1 and intended to be matted and projected that way. I believe a later Blu-Ray release, once widescreen HDTVs were commonplace, was done as a properly cropped 1.85:1 transfer. So, yeah, it’s interesting, the DVD release was 4:3 but instead of being pan & scan it actually showed more of the image than was actually intended. I could not figure out for the longest time why it was impossible (at the time, anyway) to get a widescreen DVD of that movie!
Ah, yes, the LSI-11, as implemented in the Heathkit H-11. I actually wanted one at some point, but without compatible peripherals and a good operating system, I couldn’t convince myself of the point of a $1300 (disk drives not included) computer. (I guess the available RT-11 clone operating system may have been good enough; from descriptions, it sounds a lot like the TOPS OSs I used at the time, or VAX VMS as I came to use later.)
[quote]
I always wanted my own PDP-11, too! 
Never got one, but now I’ve done better – I have my own PDP-10 timesharing system. Well, OK, it’s a simulator that runs on my PC, but it does run a genuine version of TOPS-10, and it even has virtual tape drives on which I can mount virtual tapes and install various programs from tape images that are still floating around the interwebs! 
But no, just as a minor correction, the LSI-11 isn’t what I was referring to. That was an example of Large Scale Integration (hence the initials) but not a PDP-11 on a chip yet. That didn’t happen until the J-11 dual-chip hybrid, and it didn’t get used until some of the very last PDP-11 models.
The city of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, England was named after the construction of a brand new castle – in 1080 A.D.
Which reminds me of a series of Grateful Dead song titles: They followed up “Minglewood Blues” with a revised version: “New Minglewood Blues,” which was followed by “All-New Minglewood Blues,” and finally there was “New New Minglewood Blues.”
How about Naples—the Greeks named it Neapolis ‘New City’—in the 6th century BC. For that matter, there’s Carthage, named Qart Hadasht (literally ‘New Town’ in Phoenician) in about the 9th century BC. The only new thing older than that would have to be Egypt’s New Kingdom, which began in the 16th century BC. Unless you count the Neolithic (10,000 BC). Or the Neogene (23,000,000 BC).
Connecticut used to claim all the territory west of it, which was known as the Connecticut Western Reserve. It was incorporated into the Northwest Territory, which starts in Ohio. That’s why Cleveland had a Western Reserve University, now part of Case-Western, but really far west when it was founded in 1826.
New Scotland Yard dates to 1890.
Naturally, these weren’t actually named such in the time of their relevance, only by much later archaeologists in retrospect. So they’re not strictly *obsoleted *terms.
Yeah, well, Connecticut.
It’s worth reminding everyone that “Go west, young man” meant… to PA and Ohio.
Well, no. Not at all. The origin of the phrase is totally disputed, but there’s no hard evidence it was written down before 1872, even though Greeley wrote a variety of sentences with similar content. By then “west” as a metaphor meant going beyond the established states in the east and midwest.
Sigh. No, it wasn’t, and no, they didn’t. The official name of the 3rd generation iPad, as you can see from any Apple site now or then, is…“iPad” – the same as they do with most of their other products: iMac, Retina MacBook Pro, Mac Pro, etc. None of them carry an incrementing version except the iPhone. Tim Cook referred to it as “the new iPad” in his presentation, but “new” was a description, not part of the name. The “Support Name” was “iPad (3rd Generation)”. Here’s their support page: Identify your iPad model - Apple Support note no “The New iPad” on it.
Who ever rides an omnibus these days- maybe someone who wants a more hepcat charabanc I guess.
RIAA equalisation was very cutting edge in its day.
Leading edge does not seem to lead as much.
Debacle might be overstating it, but as somebody who does tech support for these things, it can certainly be a headache. People don’t know what they bought or wanted to buy, and it could be messy. Thankfully the 3rd Gen didn’t last long and the fourth gen added the Retina screen for an easy differentiator.
At any rate, it was, indeed, marketed as The new iPad. Here’s Apple’s front page from when it was released, courtesy of The Wayback Machine:
And the iPad tab:
And from the online store:
Scott Joplin’s New Rag. (He should have followed up with “Scott Joplin’s New Rag No. 2.”)