Sometimes we simply lack the power to protect the willfully ignorant from their own naiveté, especially when they abuse us for our troubles.
I was never concerned with the 'audiophile' types. I'm concerned by the average Joe who gets tricked by the guy at Best Buy into thinking his picture will suffer if he uses $3 HDMI cables, and instead should buy a $75 3' HDMI cables. You know, because more expensive means better.
In fact, *EVERYTHING* is based from analog waveforms. Including your very cells.
Right, I absolutely understand that. However, it's an unnecessary complexity for someone to understand when it comes to short digital cables. Having a higher integrity analog waveform for a digital signal, compared to one that already has 0% data loss, is of no benefit to the quality of the received digital signal.
The point is that they're tricking people who might understand enough about analog to know that the waveform will be 'better', even though the digital signal received will be of no higher quality. That's why they need to understand the fundamentals of digital signals, in addition to physics.
Once again, I understand signal integrity issues, they just simply don't apply here. If your protocol specifies cable jitter of less than 50ns (for example), it doesn't matter if your cable has a jitter of 40ns or 1ns, both will be reproduced identically. Same with rise/fall time, over/undershoot, duty cycle, etc. If both meet the specifications, the received signals will be identical.
Ok... no way to compare it with a PS3 or XBOX, but I wonder if 20+ years from now, and just for fun, one will be able to just plug in the console and play a game based on digitally distributed media.
I know the XBox 360 DRM licenses itself to the console you download it on (and can be relicensed once a year, if you get a new one), so as long as your original hardware works it should work even if MS burns the servers. So you're trading the inability to lose individual games for the unfortunate fact that if the console goes, so do all the games.
Agreed, I've found the risk analysis for my habits to come down in favor of Steam for the most part, too. The risk of Steam disappearing forever or having a temporary outage is less than my risk of harming my disk or temporarily misplacing it. The fact that my most-played Steam games are also multiplayer (and thus require an internet connection anyway) helps, too.
I still prefer physical media for consoles, though. I chalk it up to a combination of the planned obsolescence of the platform, smaller HDD, vendor lock-in, and familiarity with a stack of console games next to the TV.
The best part is, I think the software 'bug' might have been there intentionally to make the iPhone look like it had better reception than it actually had (iPhones had complaints of more dropped calls than other phones, right?). So now, instead of admitting their hardware issue on iPhone 4, they will just make it obvious how bad the reception has always been, now that people have already bought their phones.
I don't think it will work, but I guess when you're as big as Apple, you've gotta try everything.
I passed my classes with flying colors, thank you very much. I also do hardware design for a living. Don't forget, you insulted my knowledge first.
The point still stands: no matter how much physics you know, understanding the fundamentals of digital signal transmission is necessary for skepticism of the claims made by Monster, Denon, and others on hihg-integrity digital cables.
As an Electrical Engineer by training and trade, one of the first things I learned is that surpassing specifications in digital systems (beyond the safety margin) gains nothing.
As a person who lives in the real world who has seen what happens when marginally-specified systems suffer partial failure, I think you are a bozo. Especially in cabling it is useful to overspecify so that if the environment is especially noisy the effects are felt less severely. No matter how much cleverer than the users you think they are, they will always find a way to use your hardware in such a way that it doesn't work properly even when it's installed "properly" (by the book.)
That's the safety margin I mentioned. Give a margin beyond expected (or worst-case) usage, just in case. But that's for reliability, not because it makes the pictures prettier.
There may be cables that fail to meet specifications, but vastly surpassing those specifications (which is the problem here) provides no improvement to signal integrity.
It does when you use the hardware outside of specifications, or when the specifications are inadequate (often.) For instance, grounds on common automobiles (here comes the car analogy) are adequate. But when I replace one, I replace it with a part with total overkill, so that if it gets half abraded away by dragging my pickup over a rock (or whatever) it will still work.
Obviously we don't do this to every part because we'd end up with 12,000 pound sedans, or two-foot WiFi antennae, or whatever. But I've definitely found that some places, it pays to overspecify. Using a heavier conductor than you need means not frying it in a brownout. Etc etc.
I didn't say it couldn't increase reliability. I was only talking about signal quality. Monster doesn't promote its cables as 'rugged', but as something that will improve the quality of your picture. Increasing signal integrity doesn't even make the cable more rugged necessarily. In your case, you would be better off with a mechanical shield around your grounds that will better resist abrasion, rather than a larger ground that is just as likely to wear off.
And rather than using a larger conductor, a fuse or overvoltage protection diode is usually better, since it prevents whatever's downstream from failing. The cable then should be sufficient to carry that load.
Now, it does seem like it took a lot to get it here. It seems he's acknowledging that he was "bull-headed" and that he's mostly writing this because of the barrage of criticism he's received. But what he's actually said is right on -- he isn't qualified to comment, and if he really wants to, he'd have to both solidly define art and play some games, which he's not prepared to do.
But he's also still trying to get the last word in, claiming 'I still don't think they're art, I just don't want to discuss it', rather than simply ceding judgment to someone more qualified. Saying 'I can't prove it, but you're still wrong' is different from saying 'I can't prove it, so I might be wrong'.
And the backhanded apology of "I had to be prepared to agree that gamers can have an experience that, for them, is Art" which implies 'they just have the wrong definition of art', really grinds my gears in a supposed 'retraction'. It would be like me calling his wife ugly, but retracting it by saying 'she's not ugly, I'm sure Ebert thinks she's attractive'.
I am NOT trying to say Monster Cable is the way to go, just point out that the blithe geek statements of "Cables don't matter for digital!" is not correct. They very well can, and it can happen in real world situations. HDMI cables start failing Category 2 certification at 10 feet or so. It isn't hard to have a cable run longer than that with a big TV and stands for media equipment. It is real easy if you do in-wall stuff.
Let me clarify what I mean. For digital cables, you either meet the specification, or you do not. Given expected conditions, you may need a margin above that specification to handle noise or component degradation. However, going far beyond the specifications does not improve the signal. If your application's needs are within the specification (for example, by cable length and ambient noise), then any cable which meets those specifications is sufficient. You are wasting money to use a cable significantly beyond meeting specifications in the worst-case environment.
never wired anything before huh - if its a 6 battery setup it will take twelve individual circuits (wires) to enable this "clever" solution - if those are wires you have to put them somewhere in the device, same for a circuit board - in a standard batter setup the contacts serve that function but don't have to span the length of the battery or the entire series combination of batteries
Easy. Design each holder to present only one V+ and V- contact. There are no additional wires, just slightly longer wires that connect on both ends of each battery. Wire is trivially cheap, and this wiring can be trivially simple, easy, and out of the way. Batteries are cylinders, so the enclosure has extra space between the round battery and flat circuit board. Just run the two wires (OMG hard!!!) in that space. QED.
And 12 additional wires are not 12 additional 'circuits'. A circuit requires a return path.
If it's parallel, it's even easier, as you just connect all the V+ together and all the V- together. Even easier on a PCB, since the power is carried on entire layers of the board, so no additional wiring is needed.
He's saying "I could be wrong". For someone who forms and expresses opinions for a living, that's about the best you can expect.:)
Right, but it's the 'I don't want to argue anymore, because I think I'd lose' part that irritates me. I think he'd need to say 'I'm probably wrong' (rather than 'could be) for it to be an effective mea culpa.
Also, the fact that he muses that he can't define art in such a way to exclude video games, yet include stuff like participatory art. He's learned, it seems, not to piss anyone else off by calling their medium non-art. Again, the problem is he simply says 'I don't want to argue any more' instead of saying 'on closer inspection, I was wrong'. Maybe this is why people have such a bad opinion of critics?;)
And perhaps your loss if you never read one of his books or watch one of his favorite films? Or read one of my favorite graphic novels? There's a lot of great stuff out there to experience, and the fact that someone finds something other than your favorites to enrich his life (and might even find your favorites... uninteresting) doesn't make him the poorer for it.
I never said he needed to play it. I also didn't mean to imply that not experiencing some video game was any worse than not reading a novel or watching a movie. My point is that I just don't care if he decides he doesn't want to play it, it doesn't harm me.
Again, it's the fact that he refused to even try and see if he likes it, while simultaneously shitting on it. If he said he didn't like it, there wouldn't have been an uproar. Hell, even if he said movies were better.
As an Electrical Engineer by training and trade, one of the first things I learned is that surpassing specifications in digital systems (beyond the safety margin) gains nothing.
As the dumb mechanic who has to constantly repair barely serviceable components when they're new, I beg to differ. Going beyond the minimums makes the system more robust and reliable as time and corrosion set in.
That's what the safety margin is. Design enough above the specification so it still meets it over the expected service life, and in less-than ideal conditions.
The problem comes from designing a cable whose conductor will meet specifications for 100 years, wrapping it in an enclosure that will last 50, and putting it in a system that will only last 10.
Bullshit, son. It's all a fucking *ANALOG* pulse down a goddamned conduit of one sort or another. That's PURE FUCKING PHYSICS.
Absolutely. And the analog signal integrity does get better with higher quality cable. That's why unplated, multi-strand, low-oxygen instrument and speaker wire is preferred in high-end analog systems; it's all in the physics.
However, if you only know about analog signals and not digital, then you are MORE EASILY tricked into thinking that higher quality cables result in higher quality data transfer. That is not the case. If the first cable transmits with 0% signal loss, then a cable with better analog transmission properties can't do any better. That's where the EE/CS comes in.
Did you fail those classes?
Oh please, I've designed a PCB to handle data transfers on the order of Gb/s. I work with digital signal integrity issues on a regular basis.
Do you have any credentials beyond buying HDMI cables for $50/ft?
Did anyone else notice that he changed the pictures on his blog post? When I read it last night, it was all Doom and other bloody horror FPS screenshots. Today it's all Shadows of the Colossus. Perhaps someone caught too much flak (again) and was pressured to backpedal (again)?
I thought it seemed like a strawman to say 'does this decapitated demon look like art to you?' It would be like using a clip from Porky's to explain why movies aren't art...
Roger Ebert is a brilliant man. However, as oft occurs with brilliance, he will not admit a mistake, a misstep or that he was flat out wrong. You've squeezed all you can squeeze out of him which is basically that he regrets saying it but he still believes it is true.
Yup. This isn't Ebert 'backing down', this is Ebert taking his ball and going home. He just says "I still think I'm right, but I'm not going to argue any more", which is a fantastic strategy in that he can't lose an argument he doesn't have.
That said, I don't particularly care what he thinks (never been a big fan to begin with). I know what I think, and I know what future generations will probably think. Oh well, his loss if he never plays Braid.
I'm not concerned about the audiophiles who buy Monster cables because they think they're 'superior'. I'm concerned about the average person who is tricked into thinking non-name-brand cables are somehow defective because of some missing magical ingredient.
Put another way, the audiophiles do know, but don't care. Screw 'em. It's the people who would care that the cables are effectively the same, but don't know and are coerced into wasting their money so a Best Buy salesman gets a bit more commission.
You don't need to be an EE or Comp. Sci. expert to understand that digital audio/video cables can't improve the signal quality beyond 0 data loss, you just need to have managed high school level physics.
First of all, signal quality and data loss weren't part of my high school physics curriculum. Nor were they part of my college physics curriculum. That's because we're talking about digital signals, which are the realm of EE and CS.
Secondly, the point is that the advertising implies that other cables don't have zero losses. Unless you understand beyond the basics of digital signals (and let's face it, that's hardly ubiquitous knowledge right now), you're vulnerable to advertisers abusing their 'air of authority'. Unless you can prove the box wrong, it's understandable to trust it (perhaps people have been desensitized by truth-in-advertising laws?).
People don't necessarily 'deserve' to be taken for a ride if they can't figure this out, but bear in mind that we're talking about people with more money than sense - it's not like they're being ripped off for food, healthcare or basic transport - we're talking about luxury goods being sold to people with money to burn.
These cables are pushed to anyone who will listen, not just the obscenely rich. Best Buy will sell them to someone buying a new TV, even if they don't have an HDMI device putting out HD video. This is an up-sell even for those who can't afford to spend $100 on their cables, based on the fear that their TV (which may be a rare luxury purchase, due to their budget) will not work without it.
And as stated above, these are people with more money than knowledge, not necessarily sense. Well disguised technobabble can confuse even the best of us without background knowledge.
So cable quality DOES matter as people can find out, but then there are assholes like Monster that rip people off with it.
Right, but only to a point. Once worst-case noise and signal loss are below the threshold for proper reception at operating conditions, no further improvement can be gained (except perhaps to further shield from harsh environments not typically found in a living room).
There may be cables that fail to meet specifications, but vastly surpassing those specifications (which is the problem here) provides no improvement to signal integrity. As an Electrical Engineer by training and trade, one of the first things I learned is that surpassing specifications in digital systems (beyond the safety margin) gains nothing.
I assume you expect to be taken advantage of by your mechanic/doctor/banker because you don't know enough about cars/biology/financial devices?
Why yes, I do. It's not right, but I fully expect each and every one of these persons to ignore that and screw me over. That, arguably, is the biggest problem facing our time: you can't trust people, so the separation of labour breaks down, requiring you to be an expert at everything.
However, note that the GP states the money 'deserves' to be taken. I think that crosses the line from 'need to be cautious' to 'GP is an insufferable douche-bag'.
I'm of the opinion that we should be spreading information, instead of being the assholes laughing in the corner and watching Monster get richer.
Just because there's no difference doesn't mean that an audiophile can't hear it. Seriously, expect to be blown away by the very same people who you're trying to help.
Unfortunately, that is true. Of course, I think the average person buying a Monster HDMI cable isn't an audiophile, they're just swayed by pretty colors and lots of stickers.
And I think most people can be swayed by the 'but think of all the things that upgrade money could go to instead that will actually improve your sound/video quality' argument.
Will Monster make a special gold-plated, oxygenated cable for it?
Of course they will. So would I, if I could manage to get through the sales speech without breaking down in hysterical laughter. Some money just deserve to be taken.
Because they don't understand enough about the physics of digital electrical signals? I assume you expect to be taken advantage of by your mechanic/doctor/banker because you don't know enough about cars/biology/financial devices? Your money deserves to be taken, right?
I'm of the opinion that we should be spreading information, instead of being the assholes laughing in the corner and watching Monster get richer.
I do not take Genesis literally, it is a creation myth. But if we take the general view that all is somehow God's creation and leave the how aside then he sure did create a lot of this thing he does not like.
It is a myth, which doesn't depend on the truth or untruth of the story for its message. So let's leave the discussion of whether creation happened in 7 24-hour periods 6000 years ago for another time, it's irrelevent to the discussion at hand.
That said, if you think God's creation can't in-part include things he does not like, you should have bigger issues with the creation story. For example, the serpent. That said, after the fall of man, there is no assumption that creation is perfect in any way (see the creation of a new Heaven and new Earth in Revelation).
Not only in humans, who are sinful, but also in animals which the catholic catechism describes as "... God's creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory"
How did we go from a discussion on what the Bible says, to one backed up by the Catholic Catechism? If that Catechism is fair game, then the act of homosexuality is a sin, end of discussion.
Even your reference does not say that all (or any) animal behaviors are appropriate for humans. Rather, find me something in the Bible that says (or can even be interpreted) to mean 'because some animals are gay, it's alright for a human to be gay as well'.
In the end I think the whole discussion is pretty much irrelevant. People are not here to judge (that's someone else's job), we are here to forgive each other's trespasses as best we can and help each other through this thing called life. That's the way it was taught to me at least.
That depends. Forgiveness for those who seek it, yes. However, those who pursue a sinful lifestyle are different. They should first be gently rebuked and counseled (Galatians 6:1-2), yet if they are unrepentant they should be removed from the church (1 Corinthians 5). Note the difference is pride in the actions. Galatians speaks of teaching each other to live free from sin, with an echo of the grace and forgiveness they have already received from God. In Corinthians, we are speaking of unrepentant sin (and sexual sin at that, making the determination of the sinfulness of homosexuality incredibly important) from those who refuse to acknowledge their sin. Also note that there is an exclusion for those who are not Christians, since they will already be judged for their sins, they need no additional guilt.
Anyway Parables are a great way for someone to completely miss the point while thinking they understand what you area saying. It's possible that God does not care about the minor details (and it's a reasonable argument to make), however that's also a massive assumption. (Both in how God feels and what's minor.) (EX: "Is eating specific things at specific times important or minor?" is really two question "is it minor?" and "Is it important?")
I can agree that it is an assumption. However, I disagree on the risk. We're talking about the risk that God would send his son Jesus to teach partly through parables and to die by crucifixion while we were still unsaved, only to exclude people purely on a 'gotcha!'
So what exclusions are you anticipating would exclude a person? Are they consistent with the principle that sinful man is incapable of doing anything by himself to be worthy of salvation?
PS: My point is simply one of clarity. It's easy to shape what you read/hear/see to fit your prior assumptions, but be careful when you assume you completely understand a given sentence let alone a book and or things of importance.
But this isn't my original assumption. It's not even my second or third assumption. I'm constantly looking at my faith critically, and have lost count of the number of times I've realized I was previously wrong. For example, I originally assumed that being 'bad' would be reason to lose forgiveness, but I have since determined through further study that this isn't what the Bible teaches. I would be willing to concede if presented with a convincing argument, but I'm not seeing that here.
Slashdot Mirror
Sometimes we simply lack the power to protect the willfully ignorant from their own naiveté, especially when they abuse us for our troubles.
I was never concerned with the 'audiophile' types. I'm concerned by the average Joe who gets tricked by the guy at Best Buy into thinking his picture will suffer if he uses $3 HDMI cables, and instead should buy a $75 3' HDMI cables. You know, because more expensive means better.
In fact, *EVERYTHING* is based from analog waveforms. Including your very cells.
Right, I absolutely understand that. However, it's an unnecessary complexity for someone to understand when it comes to short digital cables. Having a higher integrity analog waveform for a digital signal, compared to one that already has 0% data loss, is of no benefit to the quality of the received digital signal.
The point is that they're tricking people who might understand enough about analog to know that the waveform will be 'better', even though the digital signal received will be of no higher quality. That's why they need to understand the fundamentals of digital signals, in addition to physics.
Once again, I understand signal integrity issues, they just simply don't apply here. If your protocol specifies cable jitter of less than 50ns (for example), it doesn't matter if your cable has a jitter of 40ns or 1ns, both will be reproduced identically. Same with rise/fall time, over/undershoot, duty cycle, etc. If both meet the specifications, the received signals will be identical.
At first he used pictures from a Clive Barker video game because he liked the way they looked...
I'm sure it had nothing to do with trying to keep portraying games as lacking artistic merit. ;)
Ok... no way to compare it with a PS3 or XBOX, but I wonder if 20+ years from now, and just for fun, one will be able to just plug in the console and play a game based on digitally distributed media.
I know the XBox 360 DRM licenses itself to the console you download it on (and can be relicensed once a year, if you get a new one), so as long as your original hardware works it should work even if MS burns the servers. So you're trading the inability to lose individual games for the unfortunate fact that if the console goes, so do all the games.
Agreed, I've found the risk analysis for my habits to come down in favor of Steam for the most part, too. The risk of Steam disappearing forever or having a temporary outage is less than my risk of harming my disk or temporarily misplacing it. The fact that my most-played Steam games are also multiplayer (and thus require an internet connection anyway) helps, too.
I still prefer physical media for consoles, though. I chalk it up to a combination of the planned obsolescence of the platform, smaller HDD, vendor lock-in, and familiarity with a stack of console games next to the TV.
The best part is, I think the software 'bug' might have been there intentionally to make the iPhone look like it had better reception than it actually had (iPhones had complaints of more dropped calls than other phones, right?). So now, instead of admitting their hardware issue on iPhone 4, they will just make it obvious how bad the reception has always been, now that people have already bought their phones.
I don't think it will work, but I guess when you're as big as Apple, you've gotta try everything.
Wrong. Analog can't carry data, only be pulsed to represent a 1 or 0.
You're either being pedantic or wrong. What about FSK, FM, AM, QPSK, and so on?
I passed my classes with flying colors, thank you very much. I also do hardware design for a living. Don't forget, you insulted my knowledge first.
The point still stands: no matter how much physics you know, understanding the fundamentals of digital signal transmission is necessary for skepticism of the claims made by Monster, Denon, and others on hihg-integrity digital cables.
As an Electrical Engineer by training and trade, one of the first things I learned is that surpassing specifications in digital systems (beyond the safety margin) gains nothing.
As a person who lives in the real world who has seen what happens when marginally-specified systems suffer partial failure, I think you are a bozo. Especially in cabling it is useful to overspecify so that if the environment is especially noisy the effects are felt less severely. No matter how much cleverer than the users you think they are, they will always find a way to use your hardware in such a way that it doesn't work properly even when it's installed "properly" (by the book.)
That's the safety margin I mentioned. Give a margin beyond expected (or worst-case) usage, just in case. But that's for reliability, not because it makes the pictures prettier.
There may be cables that fail to meet specifications, but vastly surpassing those specifications (which is the problem here) provides no improvement to signal integrity.
It does when you use the hardware outside of specifications, or when the specifications are inadequate (often.) For instance, grounds on common automobiles (here comes the car analogy) are adequate. But when I replace one, I replace it with a part with total overkill, so that if it gets half abraded away by dragging my pickup over a rock (or whatever) it will still work.
Obviously we don't do this to every part because we'd end up with 12,000 pound sedans, or two-foot WiFi antennae, or whatever. But I've definitely found that some places, it pays to overspecify. Using a heavier conductor than you need means not frying it in a brownout. Etc etc.
I didn't say it couldn't increase reliability. I was only talking about signal quality. Monster doesn't promote its cables as 'rugged', but as something that will improve the quality of your picture. Increasing signal integrity doesn't even make the cable more rugged necessarily. In your case, you would be better off with a mechanical shield around your grounds that will better resist abrasion, rather than a larger ground that is just as likely to wear off.
And rather than using a larger conductor, a fuse or overvoltage protection diode is usually better, since it prevents whatever's downstream from failing. The cable then should be sufficient to carry that load.
Now, it does seem like it took a lot to get it here. It seems he's acknowledging that he was "bull-headed" and that he's mostly writing this because of the barrage of criticism he's received. But what he's actually said is right on -- he isn't qualified to comment, and if he really wants to, he'd have to both solidly define art and play some games, which he's not prepared to do.
But he's also still trying to get the last word in, claiming 'I still don't think they're art, I just don't want to discuss it', rather than simply ceding judgment to someone more qualified. Saying 'I can't prove it, but you're still wrong' is different from saying 'I can't prove it, so I might be wrong'.
And the backhanded apology of "I had to be prepared to agree that gamers can have an experience that, for them, is Art" which implies 'they just have the wrong definition of art', really grinds my gears in a supposed 'retraction'. It would be like me calling his wife ugly, but retracting it by saying 'she's not ugly, I'm sure Ebert thinks she's attractive'.
Particularly, ones I had never seen. Like the movie Ebert co-wrote...
I am NOT trying to say Monster Cable is the way to go, just point out that the blithe geek statements of "Cables don't matter for digital!" is not correct. They very well can, and it can happen in real world situations. HDMI cables start failing Category 2 certification at 10 feet or so. It isn't hard to have a cable run longer than that with a big TV and stands for media equipment. It is real easy if you do in-wall stuff.
Let me clarify what I mean. For digital cables, you either meet the specification, or you do not. Given expected conditions, you may need a margin above that specification to handle noise or component degradation. However, going far beyond the specifications does not improve the signal. If your application's needs are within the specification (for example, by cable length and ambient noise), then any cable which meets those specifications is sufficient. You are wasting money to use a cable significantly beyond meeting specifications in the worst-case environment.
never wired anything before huh - if its a 6 battery setup it will take twelve individual circuits (wires) to enable this "clever" solution - if those are wires you have to put them somewhere in the device, same for a circuit board - in a standard batter setup the contacts serve that function but don't have to span the length of the battery or the entire series combination of batteries
Easy. Design each holder to present only one V+ and V- contact. There are no additional wires, just slightly longer wires that connect on both ends of each battery. Wire is trivially cheap, and this wiring can be trivially simple, easy, and out of the way. Batteries are cylinders, so the enclosure has extra space between the round battery and flat circuit board. Just run the two wires (OMG hard!!!) in that space. QED.
And 12 additional wires are not 12 additional 'circuits'. A circuit requires a return path.
If it's parallel, it's even easier, as you just connect all the V+ together and all the V- together. Even easier on a PCB, since the power is carried on entire layers of the board, so no additional wiring is needed.
He's saying "I could be wrong". For someone who forms and expresses opinions for a living, that's about the best you can expect. :)
Right, but it's the 'I don't want to argue anymore, because I think I'd lose' part that irritates me. I think he'd need to say 'I'm probably wrong' (rather than 'could be) for it to be an effective mea culpa.
Also, the fact that he muses that he can't define art in such a way to exclude video games, yet include stuff like participatory art. He's learned, it seems, not to piss anyone else off by calling their medium non-art. Again, the problem is he simply says 'I don't want to argue any more' instead of saying 'on closer inspection, I was wrong'. Maybe this is why people have such a bad opinion of critics? ;)
And perhaps your loss if you never read one of his books or watch one of his favorite films? Or read one of my favorite graphic novels? There's a lot of great stuff out there to experience, and the fact that someone finds something other than your favorites to enrich his life (and might even find your favorites... uninteresting) doesn't make him the poorer for it.
I never said he needed to play it. I also didn't mean to imply that not experiencing some video game was any worse than not reading a novel or watching a movie. My point is that I just don't care if he decides he doesn't want to play it, it doesn't harm me.
Again, it's the fact that he refused to even try and see if he likes it, while simultaneously shitting on it. If he said he didn't like it, there wouldn't have been an uproar. Hell, even if he said movies were better.
As an Electrical Engineer by training and trade, one of the first things I learned is that surpassing specifications in digital systems (beyond the safety margin) gains nothing.
As the dumb mechanic who has to constantly repair barely serviceable components when they're new, I beg to differ. Going beyond the minimums makes the system more robust and reliable as time and corrosion set in.
That's what the safety margin is. Design enough above the specification so it still meets it over the expected service life, and in less-than ideal conditions.
The problem comes from designing a cable whose conductor will meet specifications for 100 years, wrapping it in an enclosure that will last 50, and putting it in a system that will only last 10.
Bullshit, son. It's all a fucking *ANALOG* pulse down a goddamned conduit of one sort or another. That's PURE FUCKING PHYSICS.
Absolutely. And the analog signal integrity does get better with higher quality cable. That's why unplated, multi-strand, low-oxygen instrument and speaker wire is preferred in high-end analog systems; it's all in the physics.
However, if you only know about analog signals and not digital, then you are MORE EASILY tricked into thinking that higher quality cables result in higher quality data transfer. That is not the case. If the first cable transmits with 0% signal loss, then a cable with better analog transmission properties can't do any better. That's where the EE/CS comes in.
Did you fail those classes?
Oh please, I've designed a PCB to handle data transfers on the order of Gb/s. I work with digital signal integrity issues on a regular basis.
Do you have any credentials beyond buying HDMI cables for $50/ft?
Did anyone else notice that he changed the pictures on his blog post? When I read it last night, it was all Doom and other bloody horror FPS screenshots. Today it's all Shadows of the Colossus. Perhaps someone caught too much flak (again) and was pressured to backpedal (again)?
I thought it seemed like a strawman to say 'does this decapitated demon look like art to you?' It would be like using a clip from Porky's to explain why movies aren't art...
Roger Ebert is a brilliant man. However, as oft occurs with brilliance, he will not admit a mistake, a misstep or that he was flat out wrong. You've squeezed all you can squeeze out of him which is basically that he regrets saying it but he still believes it is true.
Yup. This isn't Ebert 'backing down', this is Ebert taking his ball and going home. He just says "I still think I'm right, but I'm not going to argue any more", which is a fantastic strategy in that he can't lose an argument he doesn't have.
That said, I don't particularly care what he thinks (never been a big fan to begin with). I know what I think, and I know what future generations will probably think. Oh well, his loss if he never plays Braid.
I'm not concerned about the audiophiles who buy Monster cables because they think they're 'superior'. I'm concerned about the average person who is tricked into thinking non-name-brand cables are somehow defective because of some missing magical ingredient.
Put another way, the audiophiles do know, but don't care. Screw 'em. It's the people who would care that the cables are effectively the same, but don't know and are coerced into wasting their money so a Best Buy salesman gets a bit more commission.
You don't need to be an EE or Comp. Sci. expert to understand that digital audio/video cables can't improve the signal quality beyond 0 data loss, you just need to have managed high school level physics.
First of all, signal quality and data loss weren't part of my high school physics curriculum. Nor were they part of my college physics curriculum. That's because we're talking about digital signals, which are the realm of EE and CS.
Secondly, the point is that the advertising implies that other cables don't have zero losses. Unless you understand beyond the basics of digital signals (and let's face it, that's hardly ubiquitous knowledge right now), you're vulnerable to advertisers abusing their 'air of authority'. Unless you can prove the box wrong, it's understandable to trust it (perhaps people have been desensitized by truth-in-advertising laws?).
People don't necessarily 'deserve' to be taken for a ride if they can't figure this out, but bear in mind that we're talking about people with more money than sense - it's not like they're being ripped off for food, healthcare or basic transport - we're talking about luxury goods being sold to people with money to burn.
These cables are pushed to anyone who will listen, not just the obscenely rich. Best Buy will sell them to someone buying a new TV, even if they don't have an HDMI device putting out HD video. This is an up-sell even for those who can't afford to spend $100 on their cables, based on the fear that their TV (which may be a rare luxury purchase, due to their budget) will not work without it.
And as stated above, these are people with more money than knowledge, not necessarily sense. Well disguised technobabble can confuse even the best of us without background knowledge.
So cable quality DOES matter as people can find out, but then there are assholes like Monster that rip people off with it.
Right, but only to a point. Once worst-case noise and signal loss are below the threshold for proper reception at operating conditions, no further improvement can be gained (except perhaps to further shield from harsh environments not typically found in a living room).
There may be cables that fail to meet specifications, but vastly surpassing those specifications (which is the problem here) provides no improvement to signal integrity. As an Electrical Engineer by training and trade, one of the first things I learned is that surpassing specifications in digital systems (beyond the safety margin) gains nothing.
Why yes, I do. It's not right, but I fully expect each and every one of these persons to ignore that and screw me over. That, arguably, is the biggest problem facing our time: you can't trust people, so the separation of labour breaks down, requiring you to be an expert at everything.
However, note that the GP states the money 'deserves' to be taken. I think that crosses the line from 'need to be cautious' to 'GP is an insufferable douche-bag'.
Just because there's no difference doesn't mean that an audiophile can't hear it. Seriously, expect to be blown away by the very same people who you're trying to help.
Unfortunately, that is true. Of course, I think the average person buying a Monster HDMI cable isn't an audiophile, they're just swayed by pretty colors and lots of stickers.
And I think most people can be swayed by the 'but think of all the things that upgrade money could go to instead that will actually improve your sound/video quality' argument.
Will Monster make a special gold-plated, oxygenated cable for it?
Of course they will. So would I, if I could manage to get through the sales speech without breaking down in hysterical laughter. Some money just deserve to be taken.
Because they don't understand enough about the physics of digital electrical signals? I assume you expect to be taken advantage of by your mechanic/doctor/banker because you don't know enough about cars/biology/financial devices? Your money deserves to be taken, right?
I'm of the opinion that we should be spreading information, instead of being the assholes laughing in the corner and watching Monster get richer.
I do not take Genesis literally, it is a creation myth. But if we take the general view that all is somehow God's creation and leave the how aside then he sure did create a lot of this thing he does not like.
It is a myth, which doesn't depend on the truth or untruth of the story for its message. So let's leave the discussion of whether creation happened in 7 24-hour periods 6000 years ago for another time, it's irrelevent to the discussion at hand.
That said, if you think God's creation can't in-part include things he does not like, you should have bigger issues with the creation story. For example, the serpent. That said, after the fall of man, there is no assumption that creation is perfect in any way (see the creation of a new Heaven and new Earth in Revelation).
Not only in humans, who are sinful, but also in animals which the catholic catechism describes as "... God's creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory"
How did we go from a discussion on what the Bible says, to one backed up by the Catholic Catechism? If that Catechism is fair game, then the act of homosexuality is a sin, end of discussion.
Even your reference does not say that all (or any) animal behaviors are appropriate for humans. Rather, find me something in the Bible that says (or can even be interpreted) to mean 'because some animals are gay, it's alright for a human to be gay as well'.
In the end I think the whole discussion is pretty much irrelevant. People are not here to judge (that's someone else's job), we are here to forgive each other's trespasses as best we can and help each other through this thing called life. That's the way it was taught to me at least.
That depends. Forgiveness for those who seek it, yes. However, those who pursue a sinful lifestyle are different. They should first be gently rebuked and counseled (Galatians 6:1-2), yet if they are unrepentant they should be removed from the church (1 Corinthians 5). Note the difference is pride in the actions. Galatians speaks of teaching each other to live free from sin, with an echo of the grace and forgiveness they have already received from God. In Corinthians, we are speaking of unrepentant sin (and sexual sin at that, making the determination of the sinfulness of homosexuality incredibly important) from those who refuse to acknowledge their sin. Also note that there is an exclusion for those who are not Christians, since they will already be judged for their sins, they need no additional guilt.
Anyway Parables are a great way for someone to completely miss the point while thinking they understand what you area saying. It's possible that God does not care about the minor details (and it's a reasonable argument to make), however that's also a massive assumption. (Both in how God feels and what's minor.) (EX: "Is eating specific things at specific times important or minor?" is really two question "is it minor?" and "Is it important?")
I can agree that it is an assumption. However, I disagree on the risk. We're talking about the risk that God would send his son Jesus to teach partly through parables and to die by crucifixion while we were still unsaved, only to exclude people purely on a 'gotcha!'
So what exclusions are you anticipating would exclude a person? Are they consistent with the principle that sinful man is incapable of doing anything by himself to be worthy of salvation?
PS: My point is simply one of clarity. It's easy to shape what you read/hear/see to fit your prior assumptions, but be careful when you assume you completely understand a given sentence let alone a book and or things of importance.
But this isn't my original assumption. It's not even my second or third assumption. I'm constantly looking at my faith critically, and have lost count of the number of times I've realized I was previously wrong. For example, I originally assumed that being 'bad' would be reason to lose forgiveness, but I have since determined through further study that this isn't what the Bible teaches. I would be willing to concede if presented with a convincing argument, but I'm not seeing that here.