I'm as excited as the next guy, but long lines and crowded theaters make this a "wait for the video" situation. Plus, I've heard Lucas has made some hefty requirements for theaters to show this movie, ($$$). I'd rather not contribute to this type pressure when it basically says "even if this movies dissapoints, George will be richer".
This is fabulous! Sites like/. demonstrate what can happen in this global village that we call the net. The power of the network allows the entire world to meet on these forums (not all at once please). Few realize how amazing it is that a small group of very dedicated people can create such an amazing thing. As long as innovative and captivating services like/. continue to grow the future of the net, and the world, looks very bright. Thank you soooo much!
Mmm... I'm hoping we can get 2.4 (Or 3.0???) out before Win2000 (Wouldn't that be a scoop!)
What would be the point of that? Does anyone really measure the quality and utility of their OS by the version number or how fresh the bytes are? It is better to have a stable kernel like Linux or a flashy new kernel somewhat stable kernel like NT.
Complete with his very own licensed copies of Bloatlook and IE5 - hell, I'd have thrown in "Visual C++!" At least we haven't seen "Visual Perl" or "Visual Python" - yet.
I know one place that has lots of piracy, the Philippines. I went there to do something for Intel, and I went to one of their video game stores and they were selling copied video games and copied dvd's. The copied dvd's were turned into vcd's which can be played by windows media player or put a modchip in your playstation. if he really wants to stop piracy, he should first start in the Philippines, the land of piracy.
He didn't state any facts. He made claims not backed up by anything.
If you are saying you would like to make the same claims, go ahead--but it proves nothing.
If you are saying you have facts to back up his (and presumably your) claims go ahead and present them. For instance, show us a before and after satellite photo (be sure to prove which is before and which after) AND show that the difference is due to systematic policy and not merely accident.
Re:How does the GPL infect a code tree?
on
BSD vs GPL
·
· Score: 1
Posted by The Masked Miscreant >:):
You can "infect" your code tree with the GPL iff (that's 'If and Only If') you borrow some previously GPL'd code and use it in said code tree.
..."assuming we have an infinite amount of/.'ing resources."
Re:In defense of the article
on
BSD vs GPL
·
· Score: 1
Posted by The Masked Miscreant >:):
The GPL doesn't prevent someone repackaging your code and selling it. It prevents them from creating a closed-system out of your GPL'd code and selling it to lock you out of the market.
If I understand it correctly, the gist of the BSD license is, 'Give the original author(s) credit for the work they did. Feel free to re-license this however you like.' That means if I want to, I could take a BSD'd project, steal it, re-release it under a different license, and then say, 'Golly, gee! This new license doesn't require me to give you poor suckers credit anymore, so I'm going to claim this was all MY work!'
Re: Foggy thinking, and an ad hominem attack
on
BSD vs GPL
·
· Score: 1
Posted by The Masked Miscreant >:):
"Surely that's no worse than Microsoft taking BSD code and putting it in their product. How can you complain about the GPL when an expressed aim of the BSD license is to make it available for the use of those who might keep derivatives closed? I think you missed the context of that quote, I was responding to someone who suggested if you don't like the license then don't use the code, I'm pointing out that GPL advocates don't necessarily live by that."
Quite the contrary, GPL advocates LOVE the terms of the BSD license, because they can use the code in their project(s) and still release it under the terms of the GPL. They just don't think the BSD license offers enough protection of their code to prevent a corp. from hi-jacking the code and re-releasing it as proprietary, thereby screwing the original writier out of the potential benefits of his work.
If there was one person that I look up to in this world.. It's him.. The amount of pure focus radiating from him is a driving force in my life... (almost equal to Max Cohen in Pi:)
Thanks JC...
-D.Alphaeus
My wonderfull virtual life on the net
on
Infinite Space
·
· Score: 1
Posted by garden_hero:
This is exciting. After reading Jon's article I just want to get out and go virtual. Soon I'll never have to stop playing games, that will be my whole life, sitting in front of the computer all day. My friends will desert me, my family will disown me and people will think I'm wierd, but that's all right. I'll have virtual friends, virtual money, virtual reality, and a virtual life. How fun. If only I could get a real life.
In the manner in which the term 'respect' was used, yes. At least to the best of my knowledge, there is no non-free source used in GPL products. I can respect YOUR LICENSE without respecting YOU.
Bill Clinton's stale old excuse that we're not really at war with the serbian people is looking more and more tired.
Re:Who's making up false claims? Let's test!!
on
"Invisible" Speakers
·
· Score: 1
Posted by Invisible1:
First, it's obvious that you don't understand that the RSATs mount on the inside of the sheetrock wall surface, not the outside. Either it's installed at the building stage or retrofitted. People who are interested in NOT SEEING ANY speakers are instantly in love with I.S., and people who own/build houses do not have the same mindthink as apartment dwellers/renters. A House wide a/v system, either zoned or a composite grouping of rooms, (even 16 in some big homes) is looked upon as an asset, a selling feature, and something that is used everyday, everywehere, throughout the house. I can't beleve that you totally ignorant of the Market out there for Distributed audio, and if your own tastes and budget scream,"I'd never want that many rooms!" at least acknowledge that not everyone shares your views. Like the last 3000 clients I've had, virtually all of which had Home Theater rooms, an average of 7 rooms in Audio, and EVERY ONE OF THEM HAD TRANSDUCERS IN THIER SHOWERS...For FREE! That's a perk that I've always offered any client that did at least 5 rooms in Audio that included the master Bathroom. NO other In-wall speaker can claim such 'per home' averages, and certainly not going back 22 years. It's all in the targeted market and your marketing skills.
I Have two different offers so far from legitimate Magazines to reveiw Invisible Stereo. In extensive multi-room appa w/Home Theaters. Do you think that you could install them and hear them in thier best light, when installations in existing homes are so much more representitive of thier potential and capabilities? I have never touted the RSAT as a do-it-yourselfer product, but just as well I have not denied access to the product to those with an open mind. It so happens I'm in the process of acquiring a Dealer in K.S. MO Shold that result, I'll be there personally to train thier Installer/s and then you can check out I.S at your conveinence, which seems to be the only way it will happen. Or the invitation is open to spend $60 or so on gas, 9 hours on the road, and come see as many REAL installations as you can stomach, talk to real customers, some of which are 2 and 3 time repeaters, (they don't mind leaving it behind because they alway go a little more crazy with the next house they build.) and those who have had the system for over 10 years without a failure, and are still just as snthusiastic about telling newbees about it now as they were 10 years ago. can you think of ANY other speaker system that can hold such loyalty? It may not be for everyone, but it is a real option for the MAJORITY of people who belive in owning thier own homw and who do not want visable speakers. Is that clear enough?
I'll email you @ your private address an perhaps this will get rectified. and for the record, I can't recall ever calling you dishonest, just someone who is too free with speculative claims of malfeasence and unwarrented and biased criticisims without even knowing the real facts or the product at all.
Terrorism: Any coordinated violent action by the people of one nation against the people of the same, or another nation which IS NOT officially supported by the national government of the acting people.
Act of War: Any coordinated violent action by the people of one nation against the people of the same, or another nation which IS officially supported by the national government of the acting people.
This whole conflict is a pathetic failure and waste!
What has it acheived? Who is better off for it? Who's going to foot the huge bill to pay for the damage and military expenses?
Clinton is trying so desparately to have some sort of legacy other than lecherism and dishonesty, and it's a huge failure. You don't solve problems in a region with such a long history of problems by simply dropping bombs. So much rationalism for this that could be applied for so many other conflicts in the world such as Rwanda, that nothing was done about. To risk global conflict for this is utterly insane. It was bad enough, now they "accidently" drop a bomb on the Chinese embassy (China, by the way, is the country who was able to get missle technology from the US due to to political favours by transfering technolical trade regulation from the State dept. to the commerce dept. making it all that much more easy for them to get this information from the US) was that a mistake, or another distraction on top of a distraction? Now something that the Chinese really weren't involved in (this conflict) they have been drawn into (and are more likely to be against it) What a pathetic sham of a campaign. On top of that, Yeltsin's rule is in question, and the Russians aren't exactly thrilled about this conflict. This is a volitile situation that Clinton and alot of the american public doesn't understand the repercussions of. There's two sides to every story, and only one is being propagated in this situation.
Just another example of Clinton's inability to properly utilise the military (which he's professed in the past to "dispise the military"). and inability to comprehend effective foreign policy.
This "technological innovation" rears its ugly head every fifteen-odd years.
////Maybe you were the one that had to raise your u__y head to see what was happening around you. The RSAT has been utilized in a big way by many industries for over 40 years. And in the largest of Custom Homes for over 20 years throughout the nation. The Mfg. 'DID' ignore Retail for OEM and Custom Installation, but only because....
A.)More units per customer are sold that way. B.)Quality installations are more likely with trained installers. C.)A low profile meant less chance of a 'clone' being developed by another concern. Popularity breeds envy.
The first time I saw them was about '65 in "Popular Science" or "Popular Mechanics".
////...and reveiwed by no less than Julian Hirsch in DB magazine.////
Originally, they were designed for car doors [because 8-track music speakers were losing the battle against the overall volume of SSs, GTOs, SuperBirds, Mules with blowers, Cudas, and such].
///Thats just a plain, false statement. The Cardboard kick panels prevailent in Automobiles of that period was wholey inadaquate for the task, and never ever a consideration by anyone who was remotely familiar with the product. I know of NO instance where ANY product was installed in a car application prior to the Mid-70s. And then, Front & Rear windows were the accepted medium, and power was supplied most often by the first Fosgate 50 wpc Amp around '76'////
The fundamental problems for dwelling installation WERE power and media. How much power does it take to vibrate sheetrock at 20 or 22,000 Hertz? LOTS! And, how can you get ACCURATE sound reproduction [20-20,000Hz] from an amorphous, wall-melange of sheetrock, brick, wood, paint, fiberglass, asbestos, dried pizza, pipes, nails, SuperModel posters, bookcases, conduit cables, cola-stains, electric cables, telephone cables, computer cables, poorly-framed diplomas, circuit boards, and, [insert personal collection here]? YOU CAN'T!
////I included all the above tripe just so everyone could witness a juvenile attempt to make a humorous point with NO knowledge to back it up. Any well made Home is a good prospect for the RSAT. And usually, a new home is just a little better suited than you clame too. As for power, 50 wpc minimum for a multi-room system circa 1968 thru 1975 was NOT out of hand, just not the type of gear that the 35 to 65 year old market who built those Homes had on hand. And Retail prices of such equipment were disproportionatly high. Though we worked with MacIntosh, Fisher, SAE, Marantz, and almost all the early overseas 'Big Boys' from Pioneer, Sansui, and such, thier prices limited the RSAT to a very select market. But around 1975, the introduction of 100 wpc Receivers by the several of the afforementioned that retailed for less than $600.00 broke open new markets for the everyday human who could be talked into spending those lessor sums. In fact, we placed equipment with customers that would NEVER have considered anything but a 8 Track/TV Console. Such is the influence and warm & fuzzy feeling our customers got when antacipating thier systems.////
Note: When you go testdrive Bose 901 speakers, the room is EMPTY, and, the reflecting wall is covered with plexiglass.
////I love it! Bose 901s, and the current 'Lifestyles' designs are next to worthless if they cannot take FULL advantage of the 'Direct/Reflecting' aspect of thier design. And you better be positioned 'just so' to get the full benefit. In the real world, people do not have perfect cubes or rectangles for rooms, nor are the walls covered with Pexi-glass to enhance reflection. Any fool would pick up on such a biased way of demo-ing a product. But the there were a lot of fools back then, and still are, Mr. 901 owner. One aspect we can be thankful for. Bose's piss poor Bass response did help make the term 'Sub Woofer' a reconized phrase in the late 70s. (Though few could afford a $1500 Velodyne the size of a coffee table back then) Magnaplane and similar Electrostatic speakers also need assitance, but atleast thier dispersion characteristics were cabable of filling thier rooms on thier own merit. The RSAT produces such a wide dispersion,(up to 8' for each unit) and creates so few standing waveforms from of it's affected surface that reflection, reverberation, or unwanted absorbsion cease to be anywhere near the concern the conventional speakers have to deal with. These characteristics are what made esoteric designs like the Magnaplanr's so desirable...and so expensive.////
Is YOUR room empty, and, the reflecting wall covered with plexiglass?
////see above/////
[My 901s, on the top of a bookcase, delivered all their power into the wall, up the main apartment complex load-bearing beams, and, into an apartment three floors up and one apartment over... ]
////Which is why the 901s were not that popular among those really in the know. Now the old 301s; there was a product that knew it's place....on the stage!////
Unless the developers have some wonderful technical innovation [for $60?], this sounds very much like Silicon Valley snake-oil.
////Wonderful close. You sound like someone confused, scared, and uncertain about what is real and what is not, but compelled to rattle on about the subject anyway. I hope you got a little insight with all this and wish you well dispite it all. I have the feeling you and your dog need well wishing.;-)/////
I agree it would be a very bad thing to cut off the internet connection. We need more information flowing back and forth not less.
Here's the big difference between NATO and the Serbian military though: the Serbs are trying to hurt and murder people while NATO is trying not to.
I'm not saying the bombing is the right thing to do but when you talk about NATO propoganda you're disregarding the voices of thousands upon thousands of suffering people. If you do disregard these people you're just one step above the raping, murderous scum at work in Kosovo.
Slashdot Mirror
Posted by AlexBanach:
I'm as excited as the next guy, but long lines and crowded theaters make this a "wait for the video" situation. Plus, I've heard Lucas has made some hefty requirements for theaters to show this movie, ($$$). I'd rather not contribute to this type pressure when it basically says "even if this movies dissapoints, George will be richer".
Posted by kenmcneil:
/. demonstrate what can happen in this global village that we call the net. The power of the network allows the entire world to meet on these forums (not all at once please). Few realize how amazing it is that a small group of very dedicated people can create such an amazing thing. As long as innovative and captivating services like /. continue to grow the future of the net, and the world, looks very bright. Thank you soooo much!
This is fabulous! Sites like
Mmm... I'm hoping we can get 2.4 (Or 3.0???) out before Win2000 (Wouldn't that be a scoop!)
What would be the point of that? Does anyone really measure the quality and utility of their OS by the version number or how fresh the bytes are? It is better to have a stable kernel like Linux or a flashy new kernel somewhat stable kernel like NT.
Posted by MrKurtz:
Complete with his very own licensed copies of Bloatlook and IE5 - hell, I'd have thrown in "Visual C++!"
At least we haven't seen "Visual Perl" or "Visual Python" - yet.
Posted by !ErrorBookmarkNotDefined:
You would think a large company
like Microsoft would sweeten the award
with a free copy of Microsoft Office
or something.
-----------------------------
Computers are useless. They can only give answers.
Posted by Chimichanga:
I know one place that has lots of piracy, the Philippines. I went there to do something for Intel, and I went to one of their video game stores and they were selling copied video games and copied dvd's. The copied dvd's were turned into vcd's which can be played by windows media player or put a modchip in your playstation. if he really wants to stop piracy, he should first start in the Philippines, the land of piracy.
Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:
Microsoft didn't give money to RMS. They (and Sun) gave money to an award. The award was given to RMS.
Why not get the facts before patronizing us all?
Posted by airborn603:
Note that one of the two testers is PC Week, which is OWNED by Microsoft.
Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:
I'm using a real NE2000 and 2.2.3. I'm having a couple problems that I didn't think were related to the network card, but who knows...
1) Does this problem affect real NE2000's?
2) What else (besides just having the card installed) is required to make the problem occur?
Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:
He didn't state any facts. He made claims not backed up by anything.
If you are saying you would like to make the same claims, go ahead--but it proves nothing.
If you are saying you have facts to back up his (and presumably your) claims go ahead and present them. For instance, show us a before and after satellite photo (be sure to prove which is before and which after) AND show that the difference is due to systematic policy and not merely accident.
Posted by The Masked Miscreant >:):
You can "infect" your code tree with the GPL iff (that's 'If and Only If') you borrow some previously GPL'd code and use it in said code tree.
Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:
/.'ing resources."
..."assuming we have an infinite amount of
The GPL doesn't prevent someone repackaging your code and selling it. It prevents them from creating a closed-system out of your GPL'd code and selling it to lock you out of the market.
If I understand it correctly, the gist of the BSD license is, 'Give the original author(s) credit for the work they did. Feel free to re-license this however you like.' That means if I want to, I could take a BSD'd project, steal it, re-release it under a different license, and then say, 'Golly, gee! This new license doesn't require me to give you poor suckers credit anymore, so I'm going to claim this was all MY work!'
"Surely that's no worse than Microsoft taking BSD code and putting it in their product. How can you complain about the GPL when an expressed aim of the BSD license is to make it available for the use of those who might keep derivatives closed? I think you missed the context of that quote, I was responding to someone who suggested if you don't like the license then don't use the code, I'm pointing out that GPL advocates don't necessarily live by that."
Quite the contrary, GPL advocates LOVE the terms of the BSD license, because they can use the code in their project(s) and still release it under the terms of the GPL. They just don't think the BSD license offers enough protection of their code to prevent a corp. from hi-jacking the code and re-releasing it as proprietary, thereby screwing the original writier out of the potential benefits of his work.
Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:
LibGGI doesn't not require ANY kernel mods to run.
You may be thinking of KGI. I don't know how (or if) KGI differs from fbcon.
Posted by DextiusAlphaeus:
:)
If there was one person that I look up to in this world.. It's him.. The amount of pure focus radiating from him is a driving force in my life... (almost equal to Max Cohen in Pi
Thanks JC...
-D.Alphaeus
This is exciting. After reading Jon's article I just want to get out and go virtual. Soon I'll never have to stop playing games, that will be my whole life, sitting in front of the computer all day. My friends will desert me, my family will disown me and people will think I'm wierd, but that's all right. I'll have virtual friends, virtual money, virtual reality, and a virtual life. How fun. If only I could get a real life.
Garden Hero - Ace of SpadesPosted by The Masked Miscreant >:):
Hmm, lost some text without realizing it. That last sentance was supposed to read.
"I can respect the TERMS of YOUR LICENSE without respecting YOU.
Posted by The Masked Miscreant >:):
In the manner in which the term 'respect' was used, yes. At least to the best of my knowledge, there is no non-free source used in GPL products. I can respect YOUR LICENSE without respecting YOU.
Posted by The Mongolian Barbecue:
Bill Clinton's stale old excuse that we're not really at war with the serbian people is looking more and more tired.
Posted by Invisible1:
First, it's obvious that you don't understand that the RSATs mount on the inside of the sheetrock wall surface, not the outside. Either it's installed at the building stage or retrofitted.
People who are interested in NOT SEEING ANY speakers are instantly in love with I.S., and people who own/build houses do not have the same mindthink as apartment dwellers/renters. A House wide a/v system, either zoned or a composite grouping of rooms, (even 16 in some big homes) is looked upon as an asset, a selling feature, and something that is used everyday, everywehere, throughout the house. I can't beleve that you totally ignorant of the Market out there for Distributed audio, and if your own tastes and budget scream,"I'd never want that many rooms!" at least acknowledge that not everyone shares your views. Like the last 3000 clients I've had, virtually all of which had Home Theater rooms, an average of 7 rooms in Audio, and EVERY ONE OF THEM HAD TRANSDUCERS IN THIER SHOWERS...For FREE! That's a perk that I've always offered any client that did at least 5 rooms in Audio that included the master Bathroom. NO other In-wall speaker can claim such 'per home' averages, and certainly not going back 22 years. It's all in the targeted market and your marketing skills.
I Have two different offers so far from legitimate Magazines to reveiw Invisible Stereo. In extensive multi-room appa w/Home Theaters. Do you think that you could install them and hear them in thier best light, when installations in existing homes are so much more representitive of thier potential and capabilities? I have never touted the RSAT as a do-it-yourselfer product, but just as well I have not denied access to the product to those with an open mind. It so happens I'm in the process of acquiring a Dealer in K.S. MO Shold that result, I'll be there personally to train thier Installer/s and then you can check out I.S at your conveinence, which seems to be the only way it will happen. Or the invitation is open to spend $60 or so on gas, 9 hours on the road, and come see as many REAL installations as you can stomach, talk to real customers, some of which are 2 and 3 time repeaters, (they don't mind leaving it behind because they alway go a little more crazy with the next house they build.) and those who have had the system for over 10 years without a failure, and are still just as snthusiastic about telling newbees about it now as they were 10 years ago. can you think of ANY other speaker system that can hold such loyalty? It may not be for everyone, but it is a real option for the MAJORITY of people who belive in owning thier own homw and who do not want visable speakers. Is that clear enough?
I'll email you @ your private address an perhaps this will get rectified. and for the record, I can't recall ever calling you dishonest, just someone who is too free with speculative claims of malfeasence and unwarrented and biased criticisims without even knowing the real facts or the product at all.
Maurice
How about these definitions:
Terrorism: Any coordinated violent action by the people of one nation against the people of the same, or another nation which IS NOT officially supported by the national government of the acting people.
Act of War: Any coordinated violent action by the people of one nation against the people of the same, or another nation which IS officially supported by the national government of the acting people.
Any feedback?
Posted by patg:
This whole conflict is a pathetic failure and waste!
What has it acheived? Who is better off for it? Who's going to foot the huge bill to pay for the damage and military expenses?
Clinton is trying so desparately to have some sort of legacy other than lecherism and dishonesty, and it's a huge failure. You don't solve problems in a region with such a long history of problems by simply dropping bombs. So much rationalism for this that could be applied for so many other conflicts in the world such as Rwanda, that nothing was done about. To risk global conflict for this is utterly insane. It was bad enough, now they "accidently" drop a bomb on the Chinese embassy (China, by the way, is the country who was able to get missle technology from the US due to to political favours by transfering technolical trade regulation from the State dept. to the commerce dept. making it all that much more easy for them to get this information from the US) was that a mistake, or another distraction on top of a distraction? Now something that the Chinese really weren't involved in (this conflict) they have been drawn into (and are more likely to be against it)
What a pathetic sham of a campaign. On top of that, Yeltsin's rule is in question, and the Russians aren't exactly thrilled about this conflict. This is a volitile situation that Clinton and alot of the american public doesn't understand the repercussions of. There's two sides to every story, and only one is being propagated in this situation.
Just another example of Clinton's inability to properly utilise the military (which he's professed in the past to "dispise the military").
and inability to comprehend effective foreign policy.
What an embarassment!
Posted by Invisible1:
... ]
;-) /////
This "technological innovation" rears its ugly head every fifteen-odd years.
////Maybe you were the one that had to raise your u__y head to see what was happening around you. The RSAT has been utilized in a big way by many industries for over 40 years. And in the largest of Custom Homes for over 20 years throughout the nation. The Mfg. 'DID' ignore Retail for OEM and Custom Installation, but only because....
A.)More units per customer are sold that way.
B.)Quality installations are more likely with trained installers.
C.)A low profile meant less chance of a 'clone' being developed by another concern. Popularity breeds envy.
The first time I saw them was about '65 in "Popular Science" or "Popular Mechanics".
////...and reveiwed by no less than Julian Hirsch in DB magazine.////
Originally, they were designed for car doors [because 8-track music speakers were losing the battle against the overall volume of SSs, GTOs,
SuperBirds, Mules with blowers, Cudas, and such].
///Thats just a plain, false statement. The Cardboard kick panels prevailent in Automobiles of that period was wholey inadaquate for the task, and never ever a consideration by anyone who was remotely familiar with the product. I know of NO instance where ANY product was installed in a car application prior to the Mid-70s. And then, Front & Rear windows were the accepted medium, and power was supplied most often by the first Fosgate 50 wpc Amp around '76'////
The fundamental problems for dwelling installation WERE power and media. How much power does it take to vibrate sheetrock at 20 or 22,000 Hertz? LOTS! And, how can you get ACCURATE sound reproduction [20-20,000Hz] from an amorphous, wall-melange of sheetrock, brick, wood, paint, fiberglass, asbestos, dried pizza, pipes, nails, SuperModel posters, bookcases, conduit cables, cola-stains, electric cables, telephone cables, computer cables, poorly-framed diplomas, circuit boards, and, [insert personal collection here]? YOU CAN'T!
////I included all the above tripe just so everyone could witness a juvenile attempt to make a humorous point with NO knowledge to back it up. Any well made Home is a good prospect for the RSAT. And usually, a new home is just a little better suited than you clame too. As for power, 50 wpc minimum for a multi-room system circa 1968 thru 1975 was NOT out of hand, just not the type of gear that the 35 to 65 year old market who built those Homes had on hand. And Retail prices of such equipment were disproportionatly high. Though we worked with MacIntosh, Fisher, SAE, Marantz, and almost all the early overseas 'Big Boys' from Pioneer, Sansui, and such, thier prices limited the RSAT to a very select market. But around 1975, the introduction of 100 wpc Receivers by the several of the afforementioned that retailed for less than $600.00 broke open new markets for the everyday human who could be talked into spending those lessor sums. In fact, we placed equipment with customers that would NEVER have considered anything but a 8 Track/TV Console. Such is the influence and warm & fuzzy feeling our customers got when antacipating thier systems.////
Note: When you go testdrive Bose 901 speakers, the room is EMPTY, and, the reflecting wall is covered with plexiglass.
////I love it! Bose 901s, and the current 'Lifestyles' designs are next to worthless if they cannot take FULL advantage of the 'Direct/Reflecting' aspect of thier design. And you better be positioned 'just so' to get the full benefit. In the real world, people do not have perfect cubes or rectangles for rooms, nor are the walls covered with Pexi-glass to enhance reflection. Any fool would pick up on such a biased way of demo-ing a product. But the there were a lot of fools back then, and still are, Mr. 901 owner. One aspect we can be thankful for. Bose's piss poor Bass response did help make the term 'Sub Woofer' a reconized phrase in the late 70s. (Though few could afford a $1500 Velodyne the size of a coffee table back then) Magnaplane and similar Electrostatic speakers also need assitance, but atleast thier dispersion characteristics were cabable of filling thier rooms on thier own merit. The RSAT produces such a wide dispersion,(up to 8' for each unit) and creates so few standing waveforms from of it's affected surface that reflection, reverberation, or unwanted absorbsion cease to be anywhere near the concern the conventional speakers have to deal with. These characteristics are what made esoteric designs like the Magnaplanr's so desirable...and so expensive.////
Is YOUR room empty, and, the reflecting wall covered with plexiglass?
////see above/////
[My 901s, on the top of a bookcase, delivered all their power into the wall, up the main apartment complex load-bearing beams, and, into an apartment three floors up and one apartment over
////Which is why the 901s were not that popular among those really in the know. Now the old 301s; there was a product that knew it's place....on the stage!////
Unless the developers have some wonderful technical innovation [for $60?], this sounds very much like Silicon Valley snake-oil.
////Wonderful close. You sound like someone confused, scared, and uncertain about what is real and what is not, but compelled to rattle on about the subject anyway. I hope you got a little insight with all this and wish you well dispite it all. I have the feeling you and your dog need well wishing.
Posted by noflesh:
I agree it would be a very bad thing to cut off the internet connection. We need more information flowing back and forth not less.
Here's the big difference between NATO and the Serbian military though: the Serbs are trying to hurt and murder people while NATO is trying not to.
I'm not saying the bombing is the right thing to do but when you talk about NATO propoganda you're disregarding the voices of thousands upon thousands of suffering people. If you do disregard these people you're just one step above the raping, murderous scum at work in Kosovo.