On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 20:00:16 -0700, Tim Smith wrote
(in article <reply_in_group-930EA0.20001618062007@news.supernews.com>):
> In article <0001HW.C29C4BB80102FD3AF0182648@news.comcast.net> ,
> George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> http://www.msbtech.com/products/iLinkDetail.php
>
> It's kind of hard to take seriously an audio company that talks about
> "sign waves"!
>
>
A typo. I make 'em myself sometimes, or else someone applied a computer spell
checker which interpreted "sine" as "sign". I know these folks, they are
highly rated and they make good stuff. Their outboard D to A converter sounds
really great. It's certainly the very best in its price range and better than
anything that comes built into any CD player.
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 21:46:32 -0700, Tim Smith wrote
(in article <reply_in_group-693D12.21463218062007@news.supernews.com>):
> In article <137en4cr4233399@corp.supernews.com>,
> Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>> Tim Smith wrote:
>>> In article <0001HW.C29C4BB80102FD3AF0182648@news.comcast.net> ,
>>> George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.msbtech.com/products/iLinkDetail.php
>>>
>>> It's kind of hard to take seriously an audio company that talks about
>>> "sign waves"!
>>>
>>
>>
>> Why? Sine wave = analog data. It's what your mouth makes when it
>> talks, and what your ears hear when you listen. Try less of the former
>> and more of the latter.
>
> Yes, that's a "sine" wave. But they talk about "sign" waves. When a
> company misspells the name of a fundamental area of their field, that
> does not instill confidence, and sine waves are a fundamental part of
> audio. (Yes, the pun in the previous sentence was intentional).
>
>
>
Well, they're a small company and whoever wrote that is probably not a writer
by trade and possibly no one proof read it afterwards. Anyway, I'd be more
interested in the accuracy of what they SAID about the "sign" wave than I
would be about how they spelled it.
Tim Smith wrote:
> In article <137en4cr4233399@corp.supernews.com>,
> Jer <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote:
>> Tim Smith wrote:
>>> In article <0001HW.C29C4BB80102FD3AF0182648@news.comcast.net> ,
>>> George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.msbtech.com/products/iLinkDetail.php
>>> It's kind of hard to take seriously an audio company that talks about
>>> "sign waves"!
>>>
>>
>> Why? Sine wave = analog data. It's what your mouth makes when it
>> talks, and what your ears hear when you listen. Try less of the former
>> and more of the latter.
>
> Yes, that's a "sine" wave. But they talk about "sign" waves. When a
> company misspells the name of a fundamental area of their field, that
> does not instill confidence, and sine waves are a fundamental part of
> audio. (Yes, the pun in the previous sentence was intentional).
>
>
> In article <f56nh8$2ah$4@reader2.panix.com>,
> EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com wrote:
>
> > > > No, the correct extension of his point would be that MacDonalds works
> > > > fine
> > > > for most people. That's why they sell so much.
> >
> > > That doesn't make McDonald's good.
> >
> > A trivial, irrelevant point.
>
> Why is it trivial and irrelevant?
>
> It's completely relevant to the point that "just because everyone wants
> it, doesn't mean it's any good".
It's also quite possible that in most markets "just because everyone
wants it means it isn't any good".
This comes about of course because someone sitting on a near monopoly
generally has no incentive to improve.
In alt.cellular.verizon Elmo P. Shagnasty <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
> In article <f56nh8$2ah$4@reader2.panix.com>,
> EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com wrote:
> > > > No, the correct extension of his point would be that MacDonalds works
> > > > fine
> > > > for most people. That's why they sell so much.
> >
> > > That doesn't make McDonald's good.
> >
> > A trivial, irrelevant point.
> Why is it trivial and irrelevant?
Because it refutes no claims which hae been made.
> It's completely relevant to the point that "just because everyone wants
> it, doesn't mean it's any good".
You are misquoting what has been said thus far.
--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel
In alt.cellular.verizon Brontide <ericew@gmail.com> wrote:
> 128Kbps MP3 has problems encoding artifacts that can be easily heard
> by myself and others. Even VBR 192kbps LAME often has trouble with
> some tricky passages where you can clearly hear tinning. AAC at that
> same bitrate does a superior job preventing artifacts, but still has a
> much higher fidelity when you ratchet up the bitrate.
Eric -
I am very impressed with the sharp price reductions in storage media over
the last few years. I used to rip at a medium bitrate, tryig to find a
sweet spot between fidelity and storage requirements. But now, I think I
should rip at the highest possible fidelity, efficiecy be damned.
If one were to want the highest possible fidelity in their CD rips, what
do you recommend (other than .wav)?
--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel
> In alt.cellular.verizon Brontide <ericew@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 128Kbps MP3 has problems encoding artifacts that can be easily heard
>> by myself and others. Even VBR 192kbps LAME often has trouble with
>> some tricky passages where you can clearly hear tinning. AAC at that
>> same bitrate does a superior job preventing artifacts, but still has a
>> much higher fidelity when you ratchet up the bitrate.
>
> Eric -
>
> I am very impressed with the sharp price reductions in storage media over
> the last few years. I used to rip at a medium bitrate, tryig to find a
> sweet spot between fidelity and storage requirements. But now, I think I
> should rip at the highest possible fidelity, efficiecy be damned.
>
> If one were to want the highest possible fidelity in their CD rips, what
> do you recommend (other than .wav)?
>
FLAC or OGG
--
The UNIX Guru`s view of Sex:
unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; umount; sleep
In article <f58lu0$bhj$6@reader2.panix.com>, EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com wrote:
> If one were to want the highest possible fidelity in their CD rips, what
> do you recommend (other than .wav)?
FLAC or Apple Lossless, depending on what platform you are ripping on.
No fidelity loss, but about half the size of a .wav file.
Rip your CDs once in one of those formats, and then copy them to a DVDs
that have a good protective coating, like TDK's Durabis coating (I think
that is the name). You can get 10-15 CDs per DVD.
If you ever need a lossy format to save space on a portable device, you
can take the files from those DVDs and encode them. That will usually
be faster and way more convenient then reripping the CDs, and the coated
DVDs will likely last much longer than the original CDs.
: But do Chevies suck because they aren't Lexuses? Of course not.
> I dunno, in my recent experience Chevies suck because they ARE Chevies.
> Requiring all sorts of work because of poor quality and design.
> 100,000 mile coolant that eats away at gaskets before 70,000 miles.
> Trannies that die before 75,000 miles.
You know what I'me getting at, Perry Pedantic. Feel free to substitute
the value-priced make of your choice, if it makes a more comfortable
analogy for you.
Geoff
--
"When my computer went down on me, all
I could do was moan." -- Elaine Richards
> I've noted that my workmates often use their phones for entertainment,
> games, or videoing, or surfing, or listening to music, as much or more
> than they do actually talking to people.
I selected my current phone for its compact size and apparent sturdiness,
but it came with all those extra features. It's been a very satisfactory
telephone, even though I never use the camera, text-mesasaging capability,
Web surfing, etc.
The one thing that annoys me about it -- and this was true of my last
couple of phones as well -- is how poorly written the owner's manual
is. Rather than beginning at the beginning and explaining how to use
the telephone as a telephone, the manual dives right into all the toy
features. It goes into that stuff at great length, while some rather
basic stuff -- like, say, how to change the ringtone to something that
won't make me jump out of my skin -- doesn't even appear in the index.
I found myself grumbling, "Goddammit, I don't care about all this teen-
age bullshit!"
> Mobiles do seem to have become cheap multimedia players, offering
> simple ways to while away the time during lunchbreaks or waiting
> at railway stations.
That's what I use books for, personally. I seldom go anywhere without
some form of light reading material in my car and/or backpack.
Geoff
--
"When my computer went down on me, all
I could do was moan." -- Elaine Richards
> One reason I would never buy one is the fact it is tied to music from
> apple. I expect to be able to put my own music on a mp3 player from
> wherever I want.
I know about downloading, but isn't there still the option of copying
music from one's CD collection? Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but it would
never occur to me to use downloading as my sole source of music. I still
believe in buying and owning actual media.
Geoff
--
"When my computer went down on me, all
I could do was moan." -- Elaine Richards
: Admittedly, podcasts are something that intrgues me more and more.
> I've only recently begun to get into them. Just Linux stuff for now. But
> they're quite fun. Strangely enough, my favourite is just a bloke called
> Dave, talking about Linux as he drives to work. There's a straight-forward
> intimacy in it, almost as if he were chatting to a passenger. He rambles
> and digresses, but that's part of the charm.
One of the local bookstores sells recordings of a few of Richard Feynman's
lectures in chemistry and physics. I keep planning to buy one and give
it a listen. Something like that would be good iPod fodder, I'd think.
Geoff
--
"When my computer went down on me, all
I could do was moan." -- Elaine Richards
: What better evidence of a consumer product's not sucking could there
: possibly be than the fact that a shitload of them have been sold?
> How many people bought
> * Microsoft Windows
> * George Foreman grills
> * Pet rocks
> * VHS VCRs
> * Chiapets
> * Toyota Priuses (despite long waiting lists and rapacious
> price-gouging by dealers)
> * Etc. Etc. Etc.
I maintain that while Windows could certainly be better, it's
perfectly adequate for most people most of the time.
I've never heard of any problems with George Foreman grills.
Do tell. (My beef (heh) there is that that's the only sort
of countertop grille that can be had anymore, under whatever
brand name. I prefer the older style with a bare steel grill
over an exposed heating element. But that's a measure of
personal preference, not of objective suckitude.)
The Pet Rock and the Chia Pet werea novelty items. I don't see
that the concept of sucking even applies to things like that.
What's wrong with VHS VCRs? The DVD is a superior format, but
that doesn't make VHS poorly conceived or executed, any more
than the advent of CDs meant that LPs suddenly sucked. Each
was a great approach in its day.
While I wouldn't own one, the Toyota Prius has hundreds of
thousands of satisfied owners who have different automotive
(not to mention social) needs and priorities than mine. My
not wanting one doesn't mean it sucks. Truth be told, I
actually kind of admire the car from a technical standpoint.
> The fact that so many fat chicks are wearing Britney-Spears-style
> hip-huggers and belly shirts even though their flab is hanging out
> all over the place is proof positive that the American consumer is
> more influenced by trendiness than suckiness (or lack thereof).
That says far worse (and more relevant) things about the American
consumer than it does about Britney-Spears-style hip-huggers and
belly shirts.
I think you need to define suckiness more carefully. Saying that
certain things suck simply because certain people buy them who
shouldn't, or because your needs and priorities don't impel you
to own them, is intellectually sloppy.
Geoff
--
"When my computer went down on me, all
I could do was moan." -- Elaine Richards
>Hell, the average CD is vastly inferior to the best vinyl has to offer. But
>Apple loss-less compression of a musical recording done on iTunes and played
>back on an iPod can actually be BETTER than CD playback:
Yeah, when it comes to stuff like this, we should all listen to
"digital music expert" George Graves. Check out what this ignorant
blowhard wrote about CD and dynamic range:
On May 23, 2005 George Graves wrote:
>As for dynamic range, what good is it when every time the level of the
>recorded signal drops 3dB, the number of bits being used is halved? By
>the time you are 9 dB down from full modulation you are quantifying with
>TWO bits and the noise and distortion/signal ratio is down to -4 dB!
Essentially, Ignorant George said "sure CD has a lot of dynamic range.
Except it doesn't." How STUPID and IGNORANT does George have to be to
get it so wrong? I mean, this guy PRETENDS that he has a clue, as he
spews audio advice and opinions.
Maybe George would now like to admit how ignorant that he was/is, and
that he should shut his trap when it comes to digital audio?
(Hopefully he will not embarrass himself by mumbling something like
"music is logarithmic and CD is linear", which would be incredibly
ignorant and wrong.)
Below is the full response that I made to Ignorant George at the time.
Not surprisingly, he was too busy running-away with his tail between
his legs to reply.
"I should have responded in more detail to the above statement of
George's. It is really so very, very wrong, that it exposes him for
the completely clueless pontificator that he is.
Background: 16 bits gets you 20 log(2^16) = 96.3 dB dynamic range.
However, the use of about 1/2 LSB of dither to eliminate quantization
distortion (which would otherwise occur when the sampled signal is
between quantization levels) adds about 3dB of noise. This results in
an actual dynamic range of about 93 dB.
Now to educate George.
1) Half-signal means you are down to using 15 bits. It does not cut
the number of bits used in half, down to 8 bits. The fact that George
claims that "every time the level of the recorded signal drops 3dB,
the number of bits being used is halved", proves how UTTERLY CLUELESS
he is.
Half of 2^16 is 2^15, George. Duh!
2) Half-signal is 6dB down, not 3dB. See above formula for example.
3) Using trivial arithmetic, we can see that if the signal is
half-level (i.e. tops-out at 2^15, i.e. 6dB down), it is still 93 - 6
= 87dB above CD's noise floor.
4) Using your example (but corrected for the fact that each halving
is 6d, by the time you are 18dB down, you are quantifying with 13
bits (not 2 bits, George), and the signal/noise ratio available is
still 93 - 18 = 75dB, not your ridiculous claim of 4dB.
5) It's trivially easy for anyone to simply use thief ears to hear
that you are wrong. Anyone can take a good-quality CD and listen to
quiet passages of music, and determine that the level of background
noise is extremely low, if it exists at all. Indeed, CD is SO GOOD in
this regard, that the noise you DO hear is in the MASTER TAPE, and NOT
the result of any deficiency of the CD format!
Please George, stop spouting-off about things that you OBVIOUSLY know
NOTHING about!"
>Their outboard D to A converter sounds
>really great. It's certainly the very best in its price range and better than
>anything that comes built into any CD player.
Yeah, when it comes to stuff like this, we should all listen to
"digital music expert" George Graves. Check out what this ignorant
blowhard wrote about CD and dynamic range:
On May 23, 2005 George Graves wrote:
>As for dynamic range, what good is it when every time the level of the
>recorded signal drops 3dB, the number of bits being used is halved? By
>the time you are 9 dB down from full modulation you are quantifying with
>TWO bits and the noise and distortion/signal ratio is down to -4 dB!
Essentially, Ignorant George said "sure CD has a lot of dynamic range.
Except it doesn't." How STUPID and IGNORANT does George have to be to
get it so wrong? I mean, this guy PRETENDS that he has a clue, as he
spews audio advice and opinions.
Maybe George would now like to admit how ignorant that he was/is, and
that he should shut his trap when it comes to digital audio?
(Hopefully he will not embarrass himself by mumbling something like
"music is logarithmic and CD is linear", which would be incredibly
ignorant and wrong.)
Below is the full response that I made to Ignorant George at the time.
Not surprisingly, he was too busy running-away with his tail between
his legs to reply.
"I should have responded in more detail to the above statement of
George's. It is really so very, very wrong, that it exposes him for
the completely clueless pontificator that he is.
Background: 16 bits gets you 20 log(2^16) = 96.3 dB dynamic range.
However, the use of about 1/2 LSB of dither to eliminate quantization
distortion (which would otherwise occur when the sampled signal is
between quantization levels) adds about 3dB of noise. This results in
an actual dynamic range of about 93 dB.
Now to educate George.
1) Half-signal means you are down to using 15 bits. It does not cut
the number of bits used in half, down to 8 bits. The fact that George
claims that "every time the level of the recorded signal drops 3dB,
the number of bits being used is halved", proves how UTTERLY CLUELESS
he is.
Half of 2^16 is 2^15, George. Duh!
2) Half-signal is 6dB down, not 3dB. See above formula for example.
3) Using trivial arithmetic, we can see that if the signal is
half-level (i.e. tops-out at 2^15, i.e. 6dB down), it is still 93 - 6
= 87dB above CD's noise floor.
4) Using your example (but corrected for the fact that each halving
is 6d, by the time you are 18dB down, you are quantifying with 13
bits (not 2 bits, George), and the signal/noise ratio available is
still 93 - 18 = 75dB, not your ridiculous claim of 4dB.
5) It's trivially easy for anyone to simply use thief ears to hear
that you are wrong. Anyone can take a good-quality CD and listen to
quiet passages of music, and determine that the level of background
noise is extremely low, if it exists at all. Indeed, CD is SO GOOD in
this regard, that the noise you DO hear is in the MASTER TAPE, and NOT
the result of any deficiency of the CD format!
Please George, stop spouting-off about things that you OBVIOUSLY know
NOTHING about!"
Peter Hayes <notinuse2@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Elmo P. Shagnasty <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <f56nh8$2ah$4@reader2.panix.com>,
>> EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com wrote:
>>
>>>>> No, the correct extension of his point would be that MacDonalds
>>>>> works fine
>>>>> for most people. That's why they sell so much.
>>>
>>>> That doesn't make McDonald's good.
>>>
>>> A trivial, irrelevant point.
>>
>> Why is it trivial and irrelevant?
>>
>> It's completely relevant to the point that "just because everyone
>> wants it, doesn't mean it's any good".
>
> It's also quite possible that in most markets "just because everyone
> wants it means it isn't any good".
>
> This comes about of course because someone sitting on a near monopoly
> generally has no incentive to improve.
Pity that Apple doesnt have anything like a monopoly or anything near one either.
Geoff Miller <geoffm@lava.net> wrote:
> Pegleg <Pegleg@usnavyret.mil> writes:
>
>> One reason I would never buy one is the fact it is tied to music from
>> apple. I expect to be able to put my own music on a mp3 player from
>> wherever I want.
>
>
> I know about downloading, but isn't there still the option of copying
> music from one's CD collection?
Corse there is.
> Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but it would never occur to
> me to use downloading as my sole source of music.
> I still believe in buying and owning actual media.
Geoff Miller <geoffm@lava.net> wrote:
> Kier <vallon@tiscali.co.uk> writes:
>
>> I've noted that my workmates often use their phones for
>> entertainment, games, or videoing, or surfing, or listening to
>> music, as much or more than they do actually talking to people.
>
> I selected my current phone for its compact size and apparent
> sturdiness, but it came with all those extra features. It's been a
> very satisfactory telephone, even though I never use the camera,
> text-mesasaging capability, Web surfing, etc.
>
> The one thing that annoys me about it -- and this was true of my last
> couple of phones as well -- is how poorly written the owner's manual
> is. Rather than beginning at the beginning and explaining how to use
> the telephone as a telephone, the manual dives right into all the toy
> features. It goes into that stuff at great length, while some rather
> basic stuff -- like, say, how to change the ringtone to something that
> won't make me jump out of my skin -- doesn't even appear in the index.
> I found myself grumbling, "Goddammit, I don't care about all this
> teen- age bullshit!"
Sure, and an intuitive user interface is even more
important so you dont need the damned manual at all.
>> Mobiles do seem to have become cheap multimedia players, offering
>> simple ways to while away the time during lunchbreaks or waiting
>> at railway stations.
>
> That's what I use books for, personally. I seldom go anywhere without
> some form of light reading material in my car and/or backpack.
Its more convenient to have it all in the one device.
The only thing I have in addition to the phone now is the keys and
the wallet and I would prefer to be able to do without those two.
I no longer even have lists anymore, they're in the
phone and I dont bother with a watch anymore.
And the camera is handy when shopping around to record some individual
offers that can be compared with whatever new shows up until you buy it etc.
Geoff Miller <geoffm@lava.net> wrote:
> Kier <vallon@tiscali.co.uk> writes:
>
>> Admittedly, podcasts are something that intrgues me more and more.
>
>> I've only recently begun to get into them. Just Linux stuff for now.
>> But they're quite fun. Strangely enough, my favourite is just a
>> bloke called Dave, talking about Linux as he drives to work. There's
>> a straight-forward intimacy in it, almost as if he were chatting to
>> a passenger. He rambles and digresses, but that's part of the charm.
>
>
> One of the local bookstores sells recordings of a few of Richard
> Feynman's lectures in chemistry and physics. I keep planning to buy
> one and give it a listen. Something like that would be good iPod
> fodder, I'd think.
I dont really like the format, you cant 'read' it at a variable rate.
Handy when your eyes have to be elsewhere tho like when driving.
>Geoff Miller <geoffm@lava.net> wrote:
>>
>> Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but it would never occur to
>> me to use downloading as my sole source of music.
>> I still believe in buying and owning actual media.
>
>Wota dinosaur.
Idiot. Music available to download is generally not CD quality.
And some of us prefer using CD's over ipods and the like.
> In article <elmop-45B944.15131217062007@nntp1.usenetserver.com>,
> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <3vGdnaDx98qlwOjbnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> > Notan <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed> wrote:
> >
> > > > What I don't understand about the whole iPod/Walkman/Discman
> > > > phenomenon is why so many people feel the need to listen to
> > > > music so much of the time. Personally, I find music distrac-
> > > > ting when I'm trying to concentrate on something else. And
> > > > even when I'm not concentrating on anything in particular, I'm
> > > > usually quite content just to think.
> > >
> > > I'm with you, but what *really* kills me is people requesting
> > > different screen savers for their cell phones... Does it get
> > > *any* more mindless!!! <g>
> >
> > OK, fat chicks wearing Britney-Spears-style hip huggers and belly shirts
> > requesting different screen savers for their cell phones.
> >
> > And buying ringtones like they buy drinks at a bar.
>
> I don't know what you mean by the second statement, but the first ought
> to be illegal. Fat woman who wear those hip huggers and belly shirts
> really have no clue.
In article <137g3m85jofhobf@corp.supernews.com>, geoffm@lava.net (Geoff Miller) wrote:
> Pegleg <Pegleg@usnavyret.mil> writes:
>
> > One reason I would never buy one is the fact it is tied to music from
> > apple. I expect to be able to put my own music on a mp3 player from
> > wherever I want.
>
>
> I know about downloading, but isn't there still the option of copying
> music from one's CD collection? Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but it would
> never occur to me to use downloading as my sole source of music. I still
> believe in buying and owning actual media.
>
And the better quality sound that comes with it.
I do buy from iTunes, but for the music that matters, I always buy the
CD.
chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Geoff Miller <geoffm@lava.net> wrote
>>> Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but it would never occur to
>>> me to use downloading as my sole source of music.
>>> I still believe in buying and owning actual media.
>> Wota dinosaur.
> Idiot.
Fuckwit.
> Music available to download is generally not CD quality.
Generally is completely irrelevant, child.
> And some of us prefer using CD's over ipods and the like.
Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote
> chrisv wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>> Geoff Miller <geoffm@lava.net> wrote:
>>>> Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but it would never occur to
>>>> me to use downloading as my sole source of music.
>>>> I still believe in buying and owning actual media.
>>> Wota dinosaur.
>> Idiot. Music available to download is generally not CD quality.
>> And some of us prefer using CD's over ipods and the like.
> Never mind that the original CDs perform a great job of
> being a backup for your lost iPod hard drive, or PC hard drive.
Makes a hell of a lot more sense to backup the downloads properly.
: Windows works just fine for most people most of the time. That's
: why it sells as well as it does, and it's why it doesn't suck.
> That same argument could be applied to "prove" that factory car
> stereos made by Delco and Visteon don't suck. After all, millions of
> them are sold every year, making them among the most successful
> consumer electronic products of all time.
Are the majority of the people who own them satisfied with them, or
not? It stands to reason that they are. After all, most people
aren't audiophiles or into expensive, high-end aftermarket car
stereos. If most people were audiophiles, we wouldn't need the
term "audiophile" to describe them, because they'd be the default.
And for the record, the factory AM/FM radio in my Chevy pickup
-- not explicitly branded but presumably a Delco -- suits me just
fine. It has decent sound and an intuitive front end that's easy
to operate while driving. It most certainly doesn't suck as far
as I'm concerned. Again, it's probably adequate for most people
most of the time. Your needs and wants may vary. And isn't that
really what this argument is about?
> Oh, and the Vortec Cyclone Fuel Saver must not suck, either,
> since a shitload of those are sold every day too.
A shitload relative to what? Is there a competing brand?
For that matter, how do you know that a lot of them are sold?
Enough of them seem to be sold to keep the company that makes
them in business, but is that really a lot in objective terms?
Geoff
--
"When my computer went down on me, all
I could do was moan." -- Elaine Richards
Elmo P. Shagnasty <elmop@nastydesigns.com> writes:
> I know a guy who CANNOT *not* answer his phone.
[...]
> Me, I can ignore a ringing phone like nobody's business.
Same here. Especially when I'm talking to someone else face
to face. Unless I'm expecting a certain specific, important
call, someone I'm talking to in person takes precedence over
anyone who's calling on the phone. If it's important, the
caller will leave a message. If not, they're presumably just
calling to chat, and I'll feel that much more justified in not
picking up the phone in the first place.
Sometimes I just don't feel like answering the goddam thing.
My position is that *I* pay for it, so I'll answer it, or not,
at my convenience or whim.
Geoff
--
"When my computer went down on me, all
I could do was moan." -- Elaine Richards
>> Chuckle. The one that makes me shake my head is people yakking
>> on cells in the frigging grocery store. Not 'honey, what was
>> that you told me not to forget?' calls, just yakking. Can they
>> not go 20 minutes with only their own thoughts, paying attention
>> to the task at hand?
I've had to square away a few friends of mine about the idea that
cell phones aren't for chatting, and that if they can't reach me
except on my cell phone, I'm probably not in a position to engage
in idle chitchat. I went through the same thing back in the early
'90s with respect to the pager I carried at the time.
Elmo P. Shagnasty <elmop@nastydesigns.com> replies:
> That brings to mind people who complain about beer and hot dog
> prices at sporting arenas. Good God, people, can't you go two
> hours without feeding your face?
I don't understand that, either. It's amazing that to so many people,
attending a sporting event or a movie implies eating junk food. That's
so ingrained that on a couple of occasions, I've seen people make a bee-
line to the theater snack bar even though we'd just come from having
dinner at a restaurant.
Geoff
--
"When my computer went down on me, all
I could do was moan." -- Elaine Richards
: Windows works just fine for most people most of the time.
: That's why it sells as well as it does, and it's why it
: doesn't suck.
> And McDonalds makes the best burgers.
I didn't say Windows was the best. I said it works just fine
for most people most of the time. My original words are included
above for your groveling convenience.
And yes, the same applies to McDonalds hamburgers. Thanks for
making my point for me.
> Idiot.
Tell ya what, spud: acquire some reading comprehsion, and then
brush up on your critical thinking skills. At that point, you'll
have an outside chance of earning the right to call someone else
an idiot. Maybe.
Geoff
--
"When my computer went down on me, all
I could do was moan." -- Elaine Richards
>chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Geoff Miller <geoffm@lava.net> wrote
>
>>>> Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but it would never occur to
>>>> me to use downloading as my sole source of music.
>>>> I still believe in buying and owning actual media.
>
>>> Wota dinosaur.
>
>> Idiot.
>
>Fuckwit.
>
>> Music available to download is generally not CD quality.
>
>Generally is completely irrelevant, child.
Where can one legally download CD-quality music?
>> And some of us prefer using CD's over ipods and the like.
>
>Yes, he isnt the only dinosaur around.
Re: The great iPhone hunt of 2007 
, by the time you are 18dB down, you are quantifying with 13
Linear Mode
