"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:YBpHb.42107$m83.34259@fed1read01...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:mqmHb.42067$m83.2649@fed1read01...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"normanstrong" wrote in message
news:vilHb.56707$VB2.101814@attbi_s51...

"Scott Gardner" wrote in message
...
Does anyone know the general equation that tells you how many
trials a subject must complete successfully to achieve a
desired certainty that the results weren't from guessing?

In other words, for "N" trials, what number "M" of them must the
subject complete successfully to be "X" percent sure the results
weren't from guessing?

If the probability of guessing right in a single trial is 50%,
and there are 10 trials, the chance of getting all of them right
is 1
in
1024 (1/2^10).

If you allow for 1 mistake, your chances are improved about 10
times
(1.1%)

2 mistakes improve the odds another 5 times (5.5%) This is as
far
as
I would go.

Another interesting question is: How many times do you have to
do this test before you have an even up chance of correctly
guessing
8
out of 10 tries? The answer is 12 times. IOW, if 12 people try
to
get 8 out of 10 right, half the time at least one will
succeed--by luck alone.

you are ready to dive into a cesspool of fallacy.
let me blow the whistle. GO!

I'll bite, what is the fallacy?

ScottW



he didn't make it yet, but I thought he
might infer that if such an event happened, the one
person would have been a lucky guesser.

I know that there are further circumstances
that might bear light on that, but Norm mentioned
a hypothetical that didn't include any further
listening by that one particular individual.

not that any of this matters in the 'real' world.

Thats easy enough to determine. Let that one person
take the test a few times. It will quickly become clear
if they are "golden ear" or just lucky.

ScottW


...or have their brains numbed by continual testing.

Doesn't have to be continual, Brain Trust!



Instead of wasting one day of your life, you are now
free to waste seven of them. All for the
equivalent of finding out if Heinz ketchup tastes
better than Hunt's. We don't do this for
other lifestyle choices, there is no need to do it
for audio




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...




Instead of wasting one day of your life, you are now
free to waste seven of them. All for the
equivalent of finding out if Heinz ketchup tastes
better than Hunt's. We don't do this for
other lifestyle choices, there is no need to do it
for audio

I don't suggest you do it.
I would like to see reviewers who get
paid for their opinions, do it.

ScottW

It's Yap Time!

We don't do this for other lifestyle choices, there is no need to do it
for audio

I would like to see reviewers who get paid for their opinions, do it.

Now I see where Krooger's missing commas ended up......

BTW, your agenda is completely transparent. Since reviewers would
never submit to the torture rituals on a regular basis, it's perfectly
clear that you harbor a desire to see these audio lovers driven from
their avocation of abetting the E.H.E.E.

You are *such* a 'borg.

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:ORFHb.42218$m83.31958@fed1read01...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...




Instead of wasting one day of your life, you are now
free to waste seven of them. All for the
equivalent of finding out if Heinz ketchup tastes
better than Hunt's. We don't do this for
other lifestyle choices, there is no need to do it
for audio

I don't suggest you do it.
I would like to see reviewers who get
paid for their opinions, do it.



well, as it stands now, you are getting
what they get paid for, 'their opinions'.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:ORFHb.42218$m83.31958@fed1read01
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...




Instead of wasting one day of your life, you are now
free to waste seven of them. All for the
equivalent of finding out if Heinz ketchup tastes
better than Hunt's. We don't do this for
other lifestyle choices, there is no need to do it
for audio

I don't suggest you do it.
I would like to see reviewers who get
paid for their opinions, do it.

They no doubt don't get paid enough.

I know of at least one reviewer who would probably pay a substantial fee to
be a "paid reviewer". If he gets paid to review audio gear, all of his
stereo system equipment purchases for the year become business expenses. He
can then deduct their total, up to about $17 K a year from gross income
(don't know if this is the current number, but order-of-magnitude), as
capital improvement expenses.

High End audio, both the equipment and the ragazines that support it, are
best understood as vanity items. Cool girls get liposuction and implants,
and nerdy boys get high end audio gear.

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 07:00:00 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

I know of at least one reviewer who would probably pay a substantial fee to
be a "paid reviewer". If he gets paid to review audio gear, all of his
stereo system equipment purchases for the year become business expenses. He
can then deduct their total, up to about $17 K a year from gross income
(don't know if this is the current number, but order-of-magnitude), as
capital improvement expenses.

I wish you were correct. One can deduct purchased equipment as a
business expense against the income from that business, not from all
income. Thus, if your only audio-related income is $1000, you can
deduct no more than that, regardless of your expenditures.

Kal

"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 07:00:00 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

I know of at least one reviewer who would probably pay a substantial
fee to be a "paid reviewer". If he gets paid to review audio gear,
all of his stereo system equipment purchases for the year become
business expenses. He can then deduct their total, up to about $17 K
a year from gross income (don't know if this is the current number,
but order-of-magnitude), as capital improvement expenses.

I wish you were correct. One can deduct purchased equipment as a
business expense against the income from that business, not from all
income. Thus, if your only audio-related income is $1000, you can
deduct no more than that, regardless of your expenditures.

True as far as it goes, but there are many unhh work-arounds. In many of
these situations your conscience truly is your guide, and nobody is going to
check up on your return in sufficient detail to pick up on the details
unless the monetary amounts are massive.

Kalman Rubinson wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 07:00:00 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
I know of at least one reviewer who would probably pay a substantial fee to
be a "paid reviewer". If he gets paid to review audio gear, all of his
stereo system equipment purchases for the year become business expenses. He
can then deduct their total, up to about $17 K a year from gross income
(don't know if this is the current number, but order-of-magnitude), as
capital improvement expenses.

I wish you were correct. One can deduct purchased equipment as a
business expense against the income from that business, not from all
income. Thus, if your only audio-related income is $1000, you can
deduct no more than that, regardless of your expenditures.

It's actually worse than that Kal, as according to the accountant who
does my taxes, your income from the business has to be sufficiently high
that the IRS is convinced it _is_ a business, not a hobby. If the latter,
you can't deduct _any_ purchases related to the venture. :-(

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile




Kal

On 29 Dec 2003 16:46:59 -0800, (John
Atkinson) wrote:

Kalman Rubinson wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 07:00:00 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
I know of at least one reviewer who would probably pay a substantial fee to
be a "paid reviewer". If he gets paid to review audio gear, all of his
stereo system equipment purchases for the year become business expenses. He
can then deduct their total, up to about $17 K a year from gross income
(don't know if this is the current number, but order-of-magnitude), as
capital improvement expenses.

I wish you were correct. One can deduct purchased equipment as a
business expense against the income from that business, not from all
income. Thus, if your only audio-related income is $1000, you can
deduct no more than that, regardless of your expenditures.

It's actually worse than that Kal, as according to the accountant who
does my taxes, your income from the business has to be sufficiently high
that the IRS is convinced it _is_ a business, not a hobby. If the latter,
you can't deduct _any_ purchases related to the venture. :-(

I know but I was simplifying.
Of course, you know how to help me convince the IRS. ;-)

Kal

Kalman Rubinson wrote:


On 29 Dec 2003 16:46:59 -0800, (John
Atkinson) wrote:

Kalman Rubinson wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 07:00:00 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
I know of at least one reviewer who would probably pay a substantial fee
to
be a "paid reviewer". If he gets paid to review audio gear, all of his
stereo system equipment purchases for the year become business expenses.
He
can then deduct their total, up to about $17 K a year from gross income
(don't know if this is the current number, but order-of-magnitude), as
capital improvement expenses.

I wish you were correct. One can deduct purchased equipment as a
business expense against the income from that business, not from all
income. Thus, if your only audio-related income is $1000, you can
deduct no more than that, regardless of your expenditures.

It's actually worse than that Kal, as according to the accountant who
does my taxes, your income from the business has to be sufficiently high
that the IRS is convinced it _is_ a business, not a hobby. If the latter,
you can't deduct _any_ purchases related to the venture. :-(

I know but I was simplifying.
Of course, you know how to help me convince the IRS. ;-)

Kal








I'd like to be convinced also, in the event that perhaps a psychologist's
perspective might be needed on the intergenerational fascination with and
perpetuation of tubed electronics, vinyl playback and/or Quad electrostatic
loudspeakers. I can supply plenty of audiophile-quality and more mundane
vinyl, but could always benefit from an upgrade in the other 2 equipment
categories.



Bruce J. Richman

Kalman Rubinson wrote in message
. ..
On 29 Dec 2003 16:46:59 -0800, (John
Atkinson) wrote:
Kalman Rubinson wrote in message
...
I wish you were correct. One can deduct purchased equipment as a
business expense against the income from that business, not from all
income. Thus, if your only audio-related income is $1000, you can
deduct no more than that, regardless of your expenditures.

It's actually worse than that Kal, as according to the accountant who
does my taxes, your income from the business has to be sufficiently high
that the IRS is convinced it _is_ a business, not a hobby. If the latter,
you can't deduct _any_ purchases related to the venture. :-(

I know but I was simplifying. Of course, you know how to help me
convince the IRS. ;-)

Its' a subjective judgment on the part of the IRS. Earn $1000 and deduct
$1000 and the IRS will judge it a hobby. Earn $100k and deduct the same
$1k and the IRS will have no problem with it being a business. THe
dividing line lies somewhere in the middle. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om...
Kalman Rubinson wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 07:00:00 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
I know of at least one reviewer who would probably pay a substantial
fee to
be a "paid reviewer". If he gets paid to review audio gear, all of his
stereo system equipment purchases for the year become business
expenses. He
can then deduct their total, up to about $17 K a year from gross
income
(don't know if this is the current number, but order-of-magnitude), as
capital improvement expenses.

I wish you were correct. One can deduct purchased equipment as a
business expense against the income from that business, not from all
income. Thus, if your only audio-related income is $1000, you can
deduct no more than that, regardless of your expenditures.

It's actually worse than that Kal, as according to the accountant who
does my taxes, your income from the business has to be sufficiently high
that the IRS is convinced it _is_ a business, not a hobby. If the latter,
you can't deduct _any_ purchases related to the venture. :-(

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile


So much for Arny's $20,000 'investment' in sound cards.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 22:11:28 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
wrote:


"John Atkinson" wrote in message
. com...
Kalman Rubinson wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 07:00:00 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
I know of at least one reviewer who would probably pay a substantial
fee to
be a "paid reviewer". If he gets paid to review audio gear, all of his
stereo system equipment purchases for the year become business
expenses. He
can then deduct their total, up to about $17 K a year from gross
income
(don't know if this is the current number, but order-of-magnitude), as
capital improvement expenses.

I wish you were correct. One can deduct purchased equipment as a
business expense against the income from that business, not from all
income. Thus, if your only audio-related income is $1000, you can
deduct no more than that, regardless of your expenditures.

It's actually worse than that Kal, as according to the accountant who
does my taxes, your income from the business has to be sufficiently high
that the IRS is convinced it _is_ a business, not a hobby. If the latter,
you can't deduct _any_ purchases related to the venture. :-(

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile


So much for Arny's $20,000 'investment' in sound cards.

Well, he *did* say this:

"True as far as it goes, but there are many unhh work-arounds. In many
of these situations your conscience truly is your guide, and nobody is
going to check up on your return in sufficient detail to pick up on
the details unless the monetary amounts are massive".

High End audio, both the equipment and the ragazines that support it, are
best understood as vanity items. Cool girls get liposuction and implants,
and nerdy boys get high end audio gear.

Sour grapes cied the nerd boy suffering from class envy. Do you assume all the
women that rejected you were under the knife in Beverly Hills?

"S888Wheel" wrote in message


High End audio, both the equipment and the ragazines that support
it, are best understood as vanity items. Cool girls get liposuction
and implants, and nerdy boys get high end audio gear.

Sour grapes cied the nerd boy suffering from class envy.

Say what? In the social circles I travel, cosmetic surgery is widely
performed and generally accepted. Two members of my extended family have had
significant amounts of plastic surgery, and I even had a little bit myself.
This is the 21st century and people of many different social classes attend
to these matters.

Do you assume all the women that rejected you were under the knife in
Beverly Hills?

It would take a real hopeless nerd to think that only people from Beverly
Hills availed themselves of cosmetic surgery or that Beverly Hills is the
only place to go as you ineligently put it, "Under the knife". Thanks for
volunteering for the *honor* of being one such nerd, sockpuppet wheel.

Arny said


High End audio, both the equipment and the ragazines that support
it, are best understood as vanity items. Cool girls get liposuction
and implants, and nerdy boys get high end audio gear.

I said


Sour grapes cied the nerd boy suffering from class envy.


Arny said


Say what?

My post was clear.

Arny said

In the social circles I travel,

LOL

Arny said

cosmetic surgery is widely
performed and generally accepted.

Well, I thought my post was clear. Interesting response to what you quoted."
Sour grapes cied the nerd boy suffering from class envy."

Arny said

Two members of my extended family have had
significant amounts of plastic surgery, and I even had a little bit myself.

That's nice.

Arny said


This is the 21st century and people of many different social classes attend
to these matters.

You didn't get what I said at all.

I said


Do you assume all the women that rejected you were under the knife in
Beverly Hills?

Arny said


It would take a real hopeless nerd to think that only people from Beverly
Hills availed themselves of cosmetic surgery or that Beverly Hills is the
only place to go as you ineligently put it, "Under the knife". Thanks for
volunteering for the *honor* of being one such nerd, sockpuppet wheel.


What an extraordinary display of twisted logic. Beverly Hills is well known for
plastic surgeons. I was speaking figuratively just as one does when they refer
to "Washington" or "Hollywood." There was no claim or implication that I
believe plastic surgery is exclusive to Beverly Hills.It would take a real
idiot to think that was my intention. I guess you just didn't want to talk
about all the rejection you have endured.