| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#41
|
|||
|
|||
DeserTBoB wrote:
On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 19:37:05 -0600, "jakdedert" wrote: Were those the GE Superadios? snip Circa 1961-64? I am just not sure. I know they were pricey in their day, but wow, great sound from a small portable box. So-so FM tuner prone to drift, OK AM section. Had a dial light. No, they were not. The Superradio was introduced in the mid-1980s, mostly as a reaction to the terrible performance of most portable radios at the time. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#42
|
|||
|
|||
|
Well Bose has Paul Harvey, the radio personality hawking these things, and he can sell an 80 year old eskamo, snow. I think a lot of older people buy these things thinking they are getting a cutting edge sound instead of mearly getting gouged. Kind of sad really. |
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
|
Pops just moved into a new place and bought the Blows 5.1 Cube system
or whatever. I was quite angry he didn't wait for me to email him back with a recommendation. I was even more angry when I heard them and how much he paid. But I didn't burst his bubble. He thought it was "good" I mean it is Bose after all. cheers garrett p.s.2 Yah VW/Audis are terrible. I have 2 and regretting it. Saddly the 92 is way more reliable than my 2002. The people over there refer to them as "Blows" as in "the sound of the stock stereo really BLOWS." They have to charge $300 - $1200 to pay for those late night endorsements by people like Herbie Hancock is what I figure... Analogeezer p.s. Another car stereo story, my old boss bought an Audi A4 with the "Bose System"....as with many Audis the car turned out to be a POS (it tended to blow all it's oil out of the crankcase at random intervals) so he traded it on a Honda Accord. He thought the Bose in the Audi was the shiznit (mainly because like many middle aged yuppies he's been brainwashed by advertising to think Bose = Good), but after he bought the Accord he said the stock Honda stereo in it sounded far better than the Blose in the Audi. |
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 7 Dec 2004 14:17:08 -0800, "db" wrote:
Well Bose has Paul Harvey, the radio personality hawking these things, and he can sell an 80 year old eskamo, snow. I think a lot of older people buy these things thinking they are getting a cutting edge sound instead of mearly getting gouged. Kind of sad really. snip They picked up Paul Harvey when sales started flagging from their massive TV campaign. Amar Bose...king of audio fraud strikes again! Makes me sick to see all that Bose crap used in PA now. Disgusting. dB |
|
#45
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 17:35:13 -0800, Garrett wrote:
He thought the Bose in the Audi was the shiznit (mainly because like many middle aged yuppies he's been brainwashed by advertising to think Bose = Good), but after he bought the Accord he said the stock Honda stereo in it sounded far better than the Blose in the Audi. snip I bought a new '92 Cadillac with Blowz in it, mainly because of an order screwup. So, I got it for the price of the base Delco system. I got robbed. Single 6X9 for bass, two tiny door speakers, Blaupunkt head in the transport which could NOT be lined up because of horrid gap scatter and a really ****ty transport. I finally, after three replacement heads, got one that worked OK. People would ask about the sound system in that car, and I'd just give 'em the same jingle I've been giving people about Blowz for 30 years: "Got no highs? Got no lows! Only midrange...MUST BE BOSE!" dB |
|
#46
|
|||
|
|||
|
DeserTBoB wrote:
On 7 Dec 2004 14:17:08 -0800, "db" wrote: Well Bose has Paul Harvey, the radio personality hawking these things, and he can sell an 80 year old eskamo, snow. I think a lot of older people buy these things thinking they are getting a cutting edge sound instead of mearly getting gouged. Kind of sad really. snip They picked up Paul Harvey when sales started flagging from their massive TV campaign. Amar Bose...king of audio fraud strikes again! Makes me sick to see all that Bose crap used in PA now. Disgusting. And now you know... the rest of the story. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#47
|
|||
|
|||
|
"db" wrote in message
ups.com Well Bose has Paul Harvey, the radio personality hawking these things, and he can sell an 80 year old eskamo, snow. Figures, Paul must be about 80 by now. I think a lot of older people buy these things thinking they are getting a cutting edge sound instead of mearly getting gouged. There might be a market out there - older people who want audio equipment with exceptional clarity, especially for speech. However, the Wave Music System's technology isn't how you do that. The biggest detriment to intelligibility is room acoustics. If anything the Wave Music System goes out of its way to excite room modes. |
|
#48
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
... DeserTBoB wrote: On 7 Dec 2004 14:17:08 -0800, "db" wrote: Well Bose has Paul Harvey, the radio personality hawking these things, and he can sell an 80 year old eskamo, snow. I think a lot of older people buy these things thinking they are getting a cutting edge sound instead of mearly getting gouged. Kind of sad really. snip They picked up Paul Harvey when sales started flagging from their massive TV campaign. Amar Bose...king of audio fraud strikes again! Makes me sick to see all that Bose crap used in PA now. Disgusting. And now you know... the rest of the story. Here's more of the story...there are stories that Amar Bose is donating the company to his alma mater, M.I.T.. Not sure exactly what "donating the company" means (assigning all his stock to the M.I.T. Corp.?), but they're sure gonna have an interesting in Cambridge. Peace, Paul |
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 09:07:47 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: There might be a market out there - older people who want audio equipment with exceptional clarity, especially for speech. However, the Wave Music System's technology isn't how you do that. snip Amar Bose and his minions just don't "get it." His 901 fraud years ago obliterated intelligibility of the critical midrange due to having it ride on overly extended cones of cheesy 4" drivers. To add insult to injury, the sound was then blasted in a bipolar pattern, smearing it all the more. How people ever considered these things (and some of his other lulus) to be "high fidelity" is way beyond my compreshension, other than there was a LOT of money (read that "payola") involved. This isn't to say others haven't used the room as an integral part of their systems. Paul Klipsch did so with stunning results in 1940, but he only used a 90° corner as the final extension of a roughly exponential folded bass horn. Top end was, and still is, direct field only. Refer to Stan Freeberg's "Herman Horn" routine, an obvious poke at Julian Hirsch of High Fidelity..."The whole HOUSE becomes a big speaker!" dB |
|
#50
|
|||
|
|||
|
DeserTBoB wrote:
On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 09:07:47 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: There might be a market out there - older people who want audio equipment with exceptional clarity, especially for speech. However, the Wave Music System's technology isn't how you do that. snip Amar Bose and his minions just don't "get it." His 901 fraud years ago obliterated intelligibility of the critical midrange due to having it ride on overly extended cones of cheesy 4" drivers. To add insult to injury, the sound was then blasted in a bipolar pattern, smearing it all the more. How people ever considered these things (and some of his other lulus) to be "high fidelity" is way beyond my compreshension, other than there was a LOT of money (read that "payola") involved. Amar Bose gets it. Amar Bose is a marketing genius, who has managed to figure out how to make vast amounts of money selling cheap equipment at high prices. First he has figured out that most potential customers have no clue how a system is supposed to sound. So a system that sounds radically different stands out from the others in a store, even if it sounds radically worse. Secondly he has discovered what my psychology professor called the "Duncan Hines Effect," that a product that sells for more money is perceived to be better. Thirdly, he has discovered that making systems hard to destroy impresses the potential customer, as is adding a substantial presence rise to make things sound more exciting in the store. Bose products are all about sounding more exciting for the first five minutes of listening, because that's what sells. If you listen to a flat speaker and then to a Bose 901 for a minute or so each, the 901 sound really jumps out at you. Only after a good bit of listening does the customer realize that he gets a terrible headache listening to these speakers all the time, and by that time it's too late because he has convinced himself that he has bought wonderful speakers. If they weren't so wonderful, they wouldn't have cost so much, right? This isn't to say others haven't used the room as an integral part of their systems. Paul Klipsch did so with stunning results in 1940, but he only used a 90° corner as the final extension of a roughly exponential folded bass horn. Top end was, and still is, direct field only. Refer to Stan Freeberg's "Herman Horn" routine, an obvious poke at Julian Hirsch of High Fidelity..."The whole HOUSE becomes a big speaker!" Yes, but these speakers all predate stereo. Most speakers that are designed for stereo can't use the corner effects very well, because they have to be set up for proper stereo imaging in a wide variety of rooms as well. What is interesting is that while most speaker manufacturers have attempted to produce a realistic soundfield, Bose has gone out of their way to destroy the soundfield in the original recording and make a very distinctive sound that bears no connection to the original imaging. This again makes their speaker system sound very different in the store, and that's what they count on to make sales. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#51
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#53
|
|||
|
|||
|
Picked up a Sherwood receiver for $75 that looked like it would do
the job just fine. Set it up, found that the receiver was not up to par (admittedly I'm in a lousy signal area, worse than any of the other FM receivers in the house. It was OK, I could live with it, but I ended up returning it. Other than the display, nothing on the panel was illuminated, and I couldn't read the small dark letters on the black background so I had to fumble with the buttons (the "senior" part). It has a remote control, and I suspect that the manufacturer's idea is that everyone would use the remote. Fine for the living room, lousy for the workbench. Maybe I need a Wave Radio. Does it have a line input and recorder output? I believe it's self-contained, but don't hold me to that. Also, the new Bose depends on its remote. Regardless, get one of those little "executive" systems. They cost a lot less, include a CD player, and shouldn't have any trouble driving your current speakers. Most have the important controls on the front panel. |
|
#54
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#55
|
|||
|
|||
|
U-CDK_CHARLES\Charles wrote:
There were several bands in my area (NW Jersey/NE PA/Southern Tier NY) that used Bose 8-somethings (Looked like the 901, more or less) as the midrange driver for short-medium throw club applications. Seemed to work great in the 250-1000Hz range. 801. PA speakers on stands. They have I controller that is suppose to balance the sound. Maybe it dips down the mids so you can hear the bass and highs (that aren't there)? |
|
#56
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 10:22:57 -0600, Joe Sensor wrote:
U-CDK_CHARLES\Charles wrote: There were several bands in my area (NW Jersey/NE PA/Southern Tier NY) that used Bose 8-somethings (Looked like the 901, more or less) as the midrange driver for short-medium throw club applications. Seemed to work great in the 250-1000Hz range. 801. PA speakers on stands. They have I controller that is suppose to balance the sound. Maybe it dips down the mids so you can hear the bass and highs (that aren't there)? Something like that. Doesn't the 901 have a similar controller? For this SR application, all that was bypassed and just run from the mids power amp. |
|
#57
|
|||
|
|||
|
William Sommerwerck wrote: I believe it's self-contained, but don't hold me to that. Also, the new Bose depends on its remote. No buttons on the box. What's up with that? I _love_ buttons. The more the merrier. I rarely use a remote. Bose really has a lot of balls to sell the lack of buttons as a _feature_! Joe |
|
#58
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
Joe Sensor wrote: U-CDK_CHARLES\Charles wrote: There were several bands in my area (NW Jersey/NE PA/Southern Tier NY) that used Bose 8-somethings (Looked like the 901, more or less) as the midrange driver for short-medium throw club applications. Seemed to work great in the 250-1000Hz range. 801. PA speakers on stands. They have I controller that is suppose to balance the sound. Maybe it dips down the mids so you can hear the bass and highs (that aren't there)? That's basically the idea, yes. The 801 has these little full-range drivers in there, and it uses the EQ box to compensate for the cabinet response (which has little top or bottom end). The thing is that the speaker itself isn't linear, so if you do a sweep at 85 dB it'll look flat, but at 65 dB it will have exaggerated top and bottom end, and at 105 dB it'll have rolled-off top and bottom end. We won't even talk about the distortion spectra. The problem is that the 801 is basically the only thing that exists in that market that has wide dispersion and isn't a horn speaker. So if you want a wide dispersion cabinet for low levels of acoustic music in a wide and narrow room, it may actually be better than the alternatives. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#59
|
|||
|
|||
|
Joe Sensor wrote:
801. PA speakers on stands. They have I controller that is suppose to balance the sound. Maybe it dips down the mids so you can hear the bass and highs (that aren't there)? It's the "grimace" version of the "smiley" EQ curve, boosting the living **** out of the highs and the lows, for obvious reasons. Properly employed it means you need to increase the power of the amp driving the speakers so that it has enough headroom at the bottom and top to live after that curve. Since this increases the cost of the system lots of cheapo installers omit the EQ, saving that cost plus the money for a bigger amp. -- ha |
|
#60
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mike Rivers wrote:
Maybe I need a Wave Radio. Does it have a line input and recorder output? Dunno, but I can vouch for the Tivoli Model Two as something that both meets those requirements and has a decent tuner section (and is all analog!) |
|
#61
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article znr1102595769k@trad, Mike Rivers wrote:
Hey, that's me (except for the part about accountants)! I have a 30 year old Kenwood receiver in my workshop that I use for listening to music on the radio when I'm working and also as a convenient signal source that's more interesting than a tone and a way to listen to a line level output. The FM tuner section is in bad need of alignment and it barely works as a radio any more. I don't have service documentation for it and I no longer have a sweep generator so I couldn't align it myself, and I figured that a shop job would cost $100 or so, so I paid a visit to Circuit City the other day to see what I could replace it with. There's a Sam's for it, and I will loan you a sweep generator. With RF spectrum analyzers now being cheap, I tend to do FM alignment with a noise source and an analyzer, though. Picked up a Sherwood receiver for $75 that looked like it would do the job just fine. Set it up, found that the receiver was not up to par (admittedly I'm in a lousy signal area, worse than any of the other FM receivers in the house. It was OK, I could live with it, but I ended up returning it. Other than the display, nothing on the panel was illuminated, and I couldn't read the small dark letters on the black background so I had to fumble with the buttons. (the "senior" part) It has a remote control, and I suspect that the manufacturer's idea is that everyone would use the remote. Fine for the living room, lousy for the workbench. Yes, and the RF section is supposed to be connected up to your cable TV line so the poor selectivity and sensitivity is a non-issue for most customers. Maybe I need a Wave Radio. Does it have a line input and recorder output? You probably need a GE Superradio, actually. No line outs, but you can get WPFW in Fredricksburg with it. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#62
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#63
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 02:02:49 -0500, herman wrote:
...well, at least if your being woken out of a deep sleep and the phone is ringing, the radio alarm goes off, and then you hear this incredible loud static sound ( as a result of RFI from the cell phone ringing ). This to me tells me that the radio waves flying off a cell phone is rather worrying..no? snip Cell phones suck. I won't have one. dB |
|
#64
|
|||
|
|||
|
DeserTBoB wrote:
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 02:02:49 -0500, herman wrote: ...well, at least if your being woken out of a deep sleep and the phone is ringing, the radio alarm goes off, and then you hear this incredible loud static sound ( as a result of RFI from the cell phone ringing ). This to me tells me that the radio waves flying off a cell phone is rather worrying..no? snip No, to me that says that the front end of your receiver is rather worrying, because it should be totally immune to signals that are THREE OCTAVES higher than FM broadcast. Cell phones suck. I won't have one. I agree, but the problem isn't RF, the problem is people who expect you to be in contact with them twenty-four hours a day. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#65
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 2004-12-15, Scott Dorsey wrote:
I agree, but the problem isn't RF, the problem is people who expect you to be in contact with them twenty-four hours a day. I have yet to see a cell phone that does not feature a power switch. If I really want to be sure that I won't be the one with the ringing phone, I go as far as to take the battery off, and I even put the battery in one pocket and the phone in the other. Somebody's ringer went off with a stupid Mozart theme during the final act of La Boheme. I truly believe the punishment for that should be death by stoning. |
|
#66
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#67
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 17:18:45 GMT, james of tucson
wrote: Somebody's ringer went off with a stupid Mozart theme during the final act of La Boheme. I truly believe the punishment for that should be death by stoning. snip ....on stage...with the lights up...with the cast performing the stoning to a standing ovation. dB |
|
#68
|
|||
|
|||
|
DeserTBoB wrote:
On 15 Dec 2004 09:20:54 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: DeserTBoB wrote: Cell phones suck. I won't have one. I agree, but the problem isn't RF, the problem is people who expect you to be in contact with them twenty-four hours a day. snip I worked in the telecom industry for over 20 years. Phones have a copper pair. If someone has business to discuss with me, they can call me on the ol' tip 'n ring. If they MUST get me on a cell phone, they probably suffer form ADHD and aren't worth doing business with anyway. Screw cell phones. Overpriced toys for hyperactive cases who can't linearize their workday. dB wrong 90% of my work is in places where if it wasn't foor cell phones , phone just simply would not exist if I am not available to assist other clients while I am at a festival 30 miles from the nearest town my clients will find another supplier And how is needing to call a tow truck to get a new tire for my cabover rationalized into I can not"Linearize" my workday It must be nice to live a life where there are hard lines available when ever you need them but some of us actually are productive George |
|
#69
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 11:18:04 -0800, DeserTBoB
wrote: I worked in the telecom industry for over 20 years. Phones have a copper pair. If someone has business to discuss with me, they can call me on the ol' tip 'n ring. If they MUST get me on a cell phone, they probably suffer form ADHD and aren't worth doing business with anyway. Getting much work now? CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm "Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect |
|
#70
|
|||
|
|||
|
Screw cell phones. Overpriced toys for hyperactive cases who can't
linearize their workday. Perhaps. But they're great for emergencies. And long-distance is Really Cheap. |
|
#71
|
|||
|
|||
|
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message ... Screw cell phones. Overpriced toys for hyperactive cases who can't linearize their workday. Perhaps. But they're great for emergencies. And long-distance is Really Cheap. How cheap? Per minute. I can see cell-phones as tools for many vocations such as salesmen, contractors, and others where quick response is important. But it seems like teens are one of the prime users which makes little sense at all. Peer pressure is probably the primary reason. Sucks! |
|
#72
|
|||
|
|||
|
Perhaps. But they're great for emergencies.
And long-distance is Really Cheap. How cheap? Per minute. Ignoring taxes, my Sprint PCS service costs $35 for 300 peak minutes. That's almost 12 cents per minute, which isn't cheap. But off-peak minutes are unlimited. Because I have a two-year contract, there's a 5% discount, and off-peak runs from 7PM to 7AM. The point is that I get cell-phone service _and_ essentially unlimited long-distance service for (including taxes) less than $40 a month. That's a good deal. |
|
#73
|
|||
|
|||
|
The point is that I get cell-phone service _and_ essentially unlimited
long-distance service for (including taxes) less than $40 a month. That's a good deal. Only if you're addicted to lengthy long-distance calls. "Addicted" is too strong a word, but I do have friends I like to jabber with. We pay 2.5 cents per minute any where / any time. That usually runs about $10 per month and can be used from any phone any where. That's about 400 minutes a month which allows my better half her half-hour weekly call to her mother and still have almost 300 minutes left to kill. We're not stuck to one telephone -- we have 4 -- or using the service from one location. I used to have a relatively cheap long-distance phone service that let me call from just about anywhere, even when I was outside the house. The issue, I think, is whether or not you "need" a cell phone. I rarely use mine outside the house, but when I need it, I need it. For my purposes, I'm getting a good deal, as you seem to be for yours. How do you attach a fax machine, TiVo or any other instrument to a cell phone? Do you also have a land line? Yes. I use it for local calls and Internet access. |
|
#74
|
|||
|
|||
|
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message ... Perhaps. But they're great for emergencies. And long-distance is Really Cheap. How cheap? Per minute. Ignoring taxes, my Sprint PCS service costs $35 for 300 peak minutes. That's almost 12 cents per minute, which isn't cheap. But off-peak minutes are unlimited. Because I have a two-year contract, there's a 5% discount, and off-peak runs from 7PM to 7AM. The point is that I get cell-phone service _and_ essentially unlimited long-distance service for (including taxes) less than $40 a month. That's a good deal. Only if you're addicted to lengthy long-distance calls. We pay 2.5 cents per minute any where / any time. That usually runs about $10 per month and can be used from any phone any where. That's about 400 minutes a month which allows my better half her half-hour weekly call to her mother and still have almost 300 minutes left to kill. We're not stuck to one telephone -- we have 4 -- or using the service from one location. How do you attach a fax machine, TiVo or any other instrument to a cell phone? Do you also have a land line? |
|
#75
|
|||
|
|||
|
DonC wrote:
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message ... Screw cell phones. Overpriced toys for hyperactive cases who can't linearize their workday. Perhaps. But they're great for emergencies. And long-distance is Really Cheap. How cheap? Per minute. After nine pm with my service (Cingular) it's totally free. I have unlimited talk-time nights (9p-7a) and weekends. Long distance is the same as local call. Roaming is also included, so for example, I make a long distance call while out of town during the 'free' times, it costs me nothing beyond my monthly charge. Daytime ld calls probably don't cost any more than normal ld calls on a wired phone...the talk-time being offset by the free ld time. In addition, I can call my wife--or any other Cingular customer (like my son in Atlanta) for free any time...no minutes used, no ld charge. I can see cell-phones as tools for many vocations such as salesmen, contractors, and others where quick response is important. ....or moms trying to hook up with their kids, emergencies on the road...the list is endless. The tool is for anyone, *anytime* they must (or wish to) communicate, but don't want to be tied to a wire. But it seems like teens are one of the prime users which makes little sense at all. Peer pressure is probably the primary reason. Sucks! Why does this not make sense? Teens/kids/people talk to one another. That's a fact of life. It's not inherantly negative. Why would you denigrate one of the most important innovations of the age because of your annoyance with teenagers? My teen spends far too much time on the internet. I don't wish for the net to disappear because of it. jak |
|
#76
|
|||
|
|||
|
jakdedert wrote:
Why does this not make sense? Teens/kids/people talk to one another. That's a fact of life. It's not inherantly negative. Why would you denigrate one of the most important innovations of the age because of your annoyance with teenagers? Text messaging in class, whether or not a test is in progress. |
|
#77
|
|||
|
|||
|
jakdedert wrote:
Why does this not make sense? Teens/kids/people talk to one another. That's a fact of life. It's not inherantly negative. Why would you denigrate one of the most important innovations of the age because of your annoyance with teenagers? My teen spends far too much time on the internet. I don't wish for the net to disappear because of it. I don't know, but I can say that when my landline was out after the hurricane last fall, it was absolutely wonderful. Two weeks with no phone.... I was actually considering getting the thing pulled out completely when the telco finally fixed the line and the morning spate of kids asking for internships began again. Thank God that I don't have a cellphone... I would never get any work done at all. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#78
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 2004-12-16, S O'Neill wrote:
Text messaging in class, whether or not a test is in progress. Your property will be returned to you in May. If you cannot pass this course after dropping this test, you may take it again next term. Classroom discipline problems are an indication of the teacher's ability. |
|
#79
|
|||
|
|||
|
"jakdedert" wrote in message .. . DonC wrote: "William Sommerwerck" wrote in message ... Screw cell phones. Overpriced toys for hyperactive cases who can't linearize their workday. Perhaps. But they're great for emergencies. And long-distance is Really Cheap. How cheap? Per minute. After nine pm with my service (Cingular) it's totally free. I have unlimited talk-time nights (9p-7a) and weekends. Long distance is the same as local call. Roaming is also included, so for example, I make a long distance call while out of town during the 'free' times, it costs me nothing beyond my monthly charge. Daytime ld calls probably don't cost any more than normal ld calls on a wired phone...the talk-time being offset by the free ld time. In addition, I can call my wife--or any other Cingular customer (like my son in Atlanta) for free any time...no minutes used, no ld charge. You didn't answer the question. "Free after nine pm." is only part of the equation. I can see cell-phones as tools for many vocations such as salesmen, contractors, and others where quick response is important. ...or moms trying to hook up with their kids, emergencies on the road...the list is endless. The tool is for anyone, *anytime* they must (or wish to) communicate, but don't want to be tied to a wire. How did we ever survive? : ) I mean "we" as parents and "we" once as teens. Seems to me that we did exceedingly well without having a parent-child electronic tether. But it seems like teens are one of the prime users which makes little sense at all. Peer pressure is probably the primary reason. Sucks! Why does this not make sense? Teens/kids/people talk to one another. That's a fact of life. It's not inherantly negative. Why would you denigrate one of the most important innovations of the age because of your annoyance with teenagers? My teen spends far too much time on the internet. I don't wish for the net to disappear because of it. #1, Teens/kids/people can talk to one another without being continually in contact. While it's not inherently negative, IMHO it's excessive. See above: "How did we ever survive..." Face to face talking is far more important. #2, "one of the most important innovations of the age" ???? Surely you jest! If not, I think you need to reexamine your priorities. #3, I agree that many may people spent too much time on the internet. But it's also is not inherently negative. The internet, properly used, is a vastly more important innovation of our age. I sure that any educated person would place it miles ahead of cellular phones. |
|
#80
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 00:57:51 GMT, "DonC"
wrote: How did we ever survive? : ) I mean "we" as parents and "we" once as teens. Seems to me that we did exceedingly well without having a parent-child electronic tether. The world as it is today was created by us. :-) CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm "Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Artists cut out the record biz | Pro Audio | |||
Linear Mode
