In article , dave
wrote:

I merely want to point out that memory is cheap, hearing is not.

doesn't matter. you can't hear the difference.

Psychoacoustics matters too and unheard artifacts can annoy one on a
subliminal level.

nonsense. if you can't hear it, it makes no difference whatsoever.

double-blind tests have proven this time and time again.

On 04/11/2014 05:57 PM, wrote:

On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 15:25:33 -0700, The Real Bev
wrote:

On 04/08/2014 08:10 PM, wrote:

On Tue, 8 Apr 2014 18:42:57 +0000 (UTC), "Danny D."
wrote:

On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 18:15:52 +0000, Danny D. wrote:

However, look at this PC Magazine review of the phone:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2411883,00.asp

And look at the (much worse) CNET review of the phone:
http://www.cnet.com/products/lg-optimus-l9-t-mobile/

While they did correctly summarize that the T-Mobile L9
"comes preloaded with too much bloatware, they never
stated that there was only 600MB of usable storage space
for apps.

They repeated, in the so-called review "the L9 has way
too much bloatware", but they never said how much was
left for them, as a user, to store apps.

And this reptition don't spur you to find an answer to your question
yourself?

Where, if not the sources previously listed, might one look for this
information? Thus far nobody has answered that question.

If you read a dozen articles and NOBODY mentions the fact that (a)
there's not a lot of internal memory available to additional apps the
user might want to download and (b) that the external sdcard can't be
used to run applications, there's no reason to suspect that either of
those things might be true.

But when they say there is too much bloatware, won't you wonder what
the consequences of that were?

Annoyance at having to delete it just so you don't have to look at it.
Like ads. I'm not going to respond to them and I just don't want to
look at them. I'm trying to decide whether I would assume they took up
significant amounts of space or not, but I'm leaning toward "How could a
company be stupid enough to put all this crap on something if it keeps
users from doing something else that they want to do?"

How about asking on the section for the phone of interest on any of
the more than a few android forums. Of course if you don't trust
anyone, then no source will be of value.

Good writers who don't say something stupid or that I know to be wrong
get more trust. Most people are assholes. Haven't you discovered that?

Considering the fact that they glossed over the fact
there was only 600MB of usable memory, can you blame
a naive consumer for thinking what they do?

They'd never sell the phone if they told the truth!



--
Cheers,
Bev

Subscribe today to "Fire in the Hole - the Quarterly Journal
for Incinerator Toilet Enthusiasts" -- Andrew

On 04/12/2014 02:45 PM, The Real Bev wrote:


Good writers who don't say something stupid or that I know to be wrong
get more trust. Most people are assholes. Haven't you discovered that?

Only on Usenet. And those who comment on news articles, of course. But
face-to-face, no. I deal with the general public in a seasonal retail
situation on a daily basis, and I find that most by far are decent,
honest folk.

TJ

"josephkk" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 11:16:05 -0400, TJ wrote:


Buying a cellphone, especially the first one, is very different.
First-time buyers don't know what they don't know. Since this is
relatively new technology aimed partially at first-time buyers, the
decent thing is to provide more and better explanation.

Unless the intent is to screw the customers, of course.

Every motor vehicle I've ever owned had a spec for how many miles you
can drive on a tankful of fuel. And none of those vehicles met that spec
in Real Life.

TJ

Real bad leadfoot eh?

?-)



I told a friend the other day that I drove a Ford Focus Digital Edition.
"What's that then ?" he asked. "I've never heard of that model".

"Ah... " said I. "It only has two speeds - going and stopped ..." d:-)

Needless to say, I don't get very good mpg ...

Arfa

On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 14:08:30 -0400, nospam wrote:

if you can't hear it, it makes no difference whatsoever.

Tell that to an epileptic driving north past a stand of roadside trees at
sunset. Can't hear the rapid cycling of sun and shade, but it can sure
trigger a fit. (You're welcome.) Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

On 04/12/2014 11:08 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , dave
wrote:

I merely want to point out that memory is cheap, hearing is not.

doesn't matter. you can't hear the difference.

Psychoacoustics matters too and unheard artifacts can annoy one on a
subliminal level.

nonsense. if you can't hear it, it makes no difference whatsoever.

double-blind tests have proven this time and time again.


I guess Fraunhofer[sic] wasted their money then.

On 04/12/2014 09:40 PM, tlvp wrote:
On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 14:08:30 -0400, nospam wrote:

if you can't hear it, it makes no difference whatsoever.

Tell that to an epileptic driving north past a stand of roadside trees at
sunset. Can't hear the rapid cycling of sun and shade, but it can sure
trigger a fit. (You're welcome.) Cheers, -- tlvp


Autistic people can see with their skin.

http://www.aes.org/events/129/broadc...sions/?ID=2411

Seminar on psychoacoustics and listening fatigue and digital playback

In article , dave
wrote:

I merely want to point out that memory is cheap, hearing is not.

doesn't matter. you can't hear the difference.

Psychoacoustics matters too and unheard artifacts can annoy one on a
subliminal level.

nonsense. if you can't hear it, it makes no difference whatsoever.

double-blind tests have proven this time and time again.

I guess Fraunhofer[sic] wasted their money then.

mp3 works by removing what you can't hear.

Den 13-04-2014, skrev nospam:
In article , dave
wrote:

I merely want to point out that memory is cheap, hearing is not.

doesn't matter. you can't hear the difference.

Psychoacoustics matters too and unheard artifacts can annoy one on a
subliminal level.

nonsense. if you can't hear it, it makes no difference whatsoever.

double-blind tests have proven this time and time again.

I guess Fraunhofer[sic] wasted their money then.

mp3 works by removing what you can't hear.

By removing what can't be heard in noisy environments and/or on bad
equipment.
I'm not sure if mp3's by themselves removes dynamics, or if it is
possible to keep the original dynamics.

Leif

--
Husk kørelys bagpå, hvis din bilfabrikant har taget den idiotiske
beslutning at undlade det.

In article , Leif Neland
wrote:

I guess Fraunhofer[sic] wasted their money then.

mp3 works by removing what you can't hear.

By removing what can't be heard in noisy environments and/or on bad
equipment.

nope. it's in normal listening conditions, including using top quality
equipment.

in a double-blind test, people consistently *can't* tell the difference.

I'm not sure if mp3's by themselves removes dynamics, or if it is
possible to keep the original dynamics.

they don't, since a quality mp3 is indistinguishable from the original.
again, double-blind tests confirm this.

On Sun, 13 Apr 2014 21:18:39 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Leif Neland
wrote:

I guess Fraunhofer[sic] wasted their money then.

mp3 works by removing what you can't hear.

By removing what can't be heard in noisy environments and/or on bad
equipment.

nope. it's in normal listening conditions, including using top quality
equipment.

in a double-blind test, people consistently *can't* tell the difference.

I'm not sure if mp3's by themselves removes dynamics, or if it is
possible to keep the original dynamics.

they don't, since a quality mp3 is indistinguishable from the original.
again, double-blind tests confirm this.


How about some links to these double blind tests? I'd like to see the
details of how they were performed.

On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 11:45:24 -0700, The Real Bev
wrote:

On 04/11/2014 05:57 PM, wrote:

On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 15:25:33 -0700, The Real Bev
wrote:

On 04/08/2014 08:10 PM, wrote:

On Tue, 8 Apr 2014 18:42:57 +0000 (UTC), "Danny D."
wrote:

On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 18:15:52 +0000, Danny D. wrote:

However, look at this PC Magazine review of the phone:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2411883,00.asp

And look at the (much worse) CNET review of the phone:
http://www.cnet.com/products/lg-optimus-l9-t-mobile/

While they did correctly summarize that the T-Mobile L9
"comes preloaded with too much bloatware, they never
stated that there was only 600MB of usable storage space
for apps.

They repeated, in the so-called review "the L9 has way
too much bloatware", but they never said how much was
left for them, as a user, to store apps.

And this reptition don't spur you to find an answer to your question
yourself?

Where, if not the sources previously listed, might one look for this
information? Thus far nobody has answered that question.

If you read a dozen articles and NOBODY mentions the fact that (a)
there's not a lot of internal memory available to additional apps the
user might want to download and (b) that the external sdcard can't be
used to run applications, there's no reason to suspect that either of
those things might be true.

But when they say there is too much bloatware, won't you wonder what
the consequences of that were?

Annoyance at having to delete it just so you don't have to look at it.
Like ads. I'm not going to respond to them and I just don't want to
look at them. I'm trying to decide whether I would assume they took up
significant amounts of space or not, but I'm leaning toward "How could a
company be stupid enough to put all this crap on something if it keeps
users from doing something else that they want to do?"

They do. It's a different issue. It's there. When I'm told there's
lots of bloatware, my first response would be "how much and what does
it cause to happen?".

How about asking on the section for the phone of interest on any of
the more than a few android forums. Of course if you don't trust
anyone, then no source will be of value.

Good writers who don't say something stupid or that I know to be wrong
get more trust. Most people are assholes. Haven't you discovered that?

You just convinced me. Paranoid assholes are the worst.

Considering the fact that they glossed over the fact
there was only 600MB of usable memory, can you blame
a naive consumer for thinking what they do?

They'd never sell the phone if they told the truth!

nospam sendte dette med sin computer:


I'm not sure if mp3's by themselves removes dynamics, or if it is
possible to keep the original dynamics.

they don't, since a quality mp3 is indistinguishable from the original.
again, double-blind tests confirm this.

So it is deliberate by the mp3-"producers", that Dark Side of the Moon
has twice the dynamics on CD as on mp3.

Leif

--
Husk kørelys bagpå, hvis din bilfabrikant har taget den idiotiske
beslutning at undlade det.

On 04/13/2014 11:36 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , dave
wrote:

I merely want to point out that memory is cheap, hearing is not.

doesn't matter. you can't hear the difference.

Psychoacoustics matters too and unheard artifacts can annoy one on a
subliminal level.

nonsense. if you can't hear it, it makes no difference whatsoever.

double-blind tests have proven this time and time again.

I guess Fraunhofer[sic] wasted their money then.

mp3 works by removing what you can't hear.


I know what perceptual coding means.

On 04/13/2014 06:18 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Leif Neland
wrote:

I guess Fraunhofer[sic] wasted their money then.

mp3 works by removing what you can't hear.

By removing what can't be heard in noisy environments and/or on bad
equipment.

nope. it's in normal listening conditions, including using top quality
equipment.

in a double-blind test, people consistently *can't* tell the difference.

I'm not sure if mp3's by themselves removes dynamics, or if it is
possible to keep the original dynamics.

they don't, since a quality mp3 is indistinguishable from the original.
again, double-blind tests confirm this.


Please show us the "double blind" testing of which you speak.

On 04/12/2014 04:44 PM, TJ wrote:

On 04/12/2014 02:45 PM, The Real Bev wrote:

Good writers who don't say something stupid or that I know to be wrong
get more trust. Most people are assholes. Haven't you discovered that?

Only on Usenet. And those who comment on news articles, of course. But
face-to-face, no. I deal with the general public in a seasonal retail
situation on a daily basis, and I find that most by far are decent,
honest folk.

That doesn't mean they're not assholes. When I was in school I worked
for Bullock's and Sears. I was really good at helping people even if
they WERE assholes, but that doesn't mean I didn't want to slap them
silly. The members of the general public that I come in contact with
are generally people I'd rather not come in contact with

I sometimes read others' comments under facebook posts or news articles
and the vast majority should have just sat on their hands. Even my
'friends' sometimes say things I wish they hadn't, but they probably
think the same of me.

Anyway, I am truly thankful for usenet. Less so for facebook, but I'm
still glad it's there.

--
Cheers, Bev
------------------------------------------------------------------
"If you were trying to be offensive, you would have succeeded if I
hadn't realized you have no idea what you are talking about."
-- FernandoP

"tlvp" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 14:08:30 -0400, nospam wrote:

if you can't hear it, it makes no difference whatsoever.

Tell that to an epileptic driving north past a stand of roadside trees at
sunset. Can't hear the rapid cycling of sun and shade, but it can sure
trigger a fit. (You're welcome.) Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.


I'm not sure I'm following that line of reasoning. Surely, that has nothing
to do with hearing ?

Arfa

Arfa Daily skrev:

"tlvp" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 14:08:30 -0400, nospam wrote:

if you can't hear it, it makes no difference whatsoever.

Tell that to an epileptic driving north past a stand of roadside trees at
sunset. Can't hear the rapid cycling of sun and shade, but it can sure
trigger a fit. (You're welcome.) Cheers, -- tlvp
-- Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.


I'm not sure I'm following that line of reasoning. Surely, that has nothing
to do with hearing ?


It is a (stupid) comment to "if you can't hear it, it makes no
difference whatsoever"

There are lots of things, you cannot hear, which makes a difference,
like light, smell, heat, chemicals.

But they are irrelevant in relation to the sound of mp3's

Leif

--
Husk kørelys bagpå, hvis din bilfabrikant har taget den idiotiske
beslutning at undlade det.

On Thu, 10 Apr 2014 00:42:59 -0700, josephkk
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Apr 2014 06:22:40 -0700, dave wrote:


this isn't about grados versus cheap $2 headphones included with a
device. obviously there would be a difference between those.

this is about mp3/aac versus uncompressed, a difference which is
inaudible.

and this isn't a matter of my opinion or anyone elses opinion. once
again, in double-blind tests, people consistently *can't* tell which is
which. set up your own double-blind test and you'll get the same
results everyone else who has done so. they do no better than chance.


Oh. So now by headphones you mean ear buds? I never said Apple owned
aac. I asked you what flavor aac you are talking about? When I got my
iPod Touch v3 I tried Apple aac and it sounded like doggie waste in a
leaky bag. Again, you say an MP3 at 320k sounds as good as an
uncompressed file and I say at 320k there is very little Mpeg
compression happening. The device has 32 GB SSD and it has never been
more than half full, even with all my .wav files (Apple won't play flac
or vorb files). If you are having storage issues there are plenty of
cloud solutions.

Let's see, how to say this? So you believe like most audiophools that the
marketing swill in audio magazines is more reliable than actual properly
performed scientific tests? Have you ever tried managing over 10,000
tracks of music in any form?

BTW i use flac as a matter of personal choice, because it is lossless like
PKzip. Not that i can discern any difference even with my best equipment
between 256k mp3 and flac. I have done A vs B testing and honest enough
that for most of my material 256k/s mp3 is effectively distinguishable
from flac or wav.
Umm make that indistinguishable.

Suck it up.

?-)

On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 07:35:26 -0700, dave wrote:

On 04/11/2014 01:16 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 10 Apr 2014 00:42:59 -0700, josephkk
wrote:

BTW i use flac as a matter of personal choice, because it is lossless like
PKzip. Not that i can discern any difference even with my best equipment
between 256k mp3 and flac. I have done A vs B testing and honest enough
that for most of my material 256k/s mp3 is effectively distinguishable
from flac or wav.

Suck it up.

?-)


And yet many find that CD and SACD are indistinguishable when made
from the same master. Often the SACD versions are remastered so sound
different.

On a similar line, I was using an aptX Bluetooth receiver in my
bedroom to feed an Onkyo stereo receiver and AudioEngine P4 speakers.
Switching to a source that also uses aptX was instantly
distinguishable from standard Bluetooth on the same streaming Internet
radio music.

We have the audiofools on one side, that believes in magic, and the
audio atheists on the other, who thinks everything sounds the same.
Both are wrong.


I merely want to point out that memory is cheap, hearing is not. And
that Android file manager will tell you the device can only be used to
store or transfer "flac" and "wav" files, when the default player gladly
renders beautiful sound when fed these massive files. It must be a deal
with Microsoft or something. "flac" is open source. MP3 is not.

Mp3 is a patented compression technology. M$ does not own it, but patent
trolls do. Be glad that patents expire.

?-)

On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 11:45:24 -0700, The Real Bev
wrote:

On 04/11/2014 05:57 PM, wrote:

On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 15:25:33 -0700, The Real Bev
wrote:

On 04/08/2014 08:10 PM, wrote:

On Tue, 8 Apr 2014 18:42:57 +0000 (UTC), "Danny D."
wrote:

On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 18:15:52 +0000, Danny D. wrote:

However, look at this PC Magazine review of the phone:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2411883,00.asp

And look at the (much worse) CNET review of the phone:
http://www.cnet.com/products/lg-optimus-l9-t-mobile/

While they did correctly summarize that the T-Mobile L9
"comes preloaded with too much bloatware, they never
stated that there was only 600MB of usable storage space
for apps.

They repeated, in the so-called review "the L9 has way
too much bloatware", but they never said how much was
left for them, as a user, to store apps.

And this reptition don't spur you to find an answer to your question
yourself?

Where, if not the sources previously listed, might one look for this
information? Thus far nobody has answered that question.

If you read a dozen articles and NOBODY mentions the fact that (a)
there's not a lot of internal memory available to additional apps the
user might want to download and (b) that the external sdcard can't be
used to run applications, there's no reason to suspect that either of
those things might be true.

But when they say there is too much bloatware, won't you wonder what
the consequences of that were?

Annoyance at having to delete it just so you don't have to look at it.
Like ads. I'm not going to respond to them and I just don't want to
look at them. I'm trying to decide whether I would assume they took up
significant amounts of space or not, but I'm leaning toward "How could a
company be stupid enough to put all this crap on something if it keeps
users from doing something else that they want to do?"

Um, the advertisers pay them to do so? Of course they do.

How about asking on the section for the phone of interest on any of
the more than a few android forums. Of course if you don't trust
anyone, then no source will be of value.

Good writers who don't say something stupid or that I know to be wrong
get more trust. Most people are assholes. Haven't you discovered that?

Or willful idiots.

Considering the fact that they glossed over the fact
there was only 600MB of usable memory, can you blame
a naive consumer for thinking what they do?

They'd never sell the phone if they told the truth!

On 04/15/2014 04:03 AM, josephkk wrote:
On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 07:35:26 -0700, dave wrote:


I merely want to point out that memory is cheap, hearing is not. And
that Android file manager will tell you the device can only be used to
store or transfer "flac" and "wav" files, when the default player gladly
renders beautiful sound when fed these massive files. It must be a deal
with Microsoft or something. "flac" is open source. MP3 is not.

Mp3 is a patented compression technology. M$ does not own it, but patent
trolls do. Be glad that patents expire.

?-)

..wav is Microsoft .mp3 is Fraunhofer .aac is Coding Technologies. flac
and vorb are open source.

On 04/14/2014 07:13 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
On 04/12/2014 04:44 PM, TJ wrote:

On 04/12/2014 02:45 PM, The Real Bev wrote:

Good writers who don't say something stupid or that I know to be wrong
get more trust. Most people are assholes. Haven't you discovered that?

Only on Usenet. And those who comment on news articles, of course. But
face-to-face, no. I deal with the general public in a seasonal retail
situation on a daily basis, and I find that most by far are decent,
honest folk.

That doesn't mean they're not assholes. When I was in school I worked
for Bullock's and Sears. I was really good at helping people even if
they WERE assholes, but that doesn't mean I didn't want to slap them
silly. The members of the general public that I come in contact with
are generally people I'd rather not come in contact with

I sometimes read others' comments under facebook posts or news articles
and the vast majority should have just sat on their hands. Even my
'friends' sometimes say things I wish they hadn't, but they probably
think the same of me.

Anyway, I am truly thankful for usenet. Less so for facebook, but I'm
still glad it's there.

Each of us has his dark side, and occasionally each of us lets it
escape. That doesn't mean that we are all always like that.

I feel sad that you seem to have such a bitterness inside. Someone,
sometime, must have hurt you very deeply.

TJ

Paul Miner wrote:

They might have sold fewer, granted, but I'd venture to guess that most
people don't care, or they don't know that they don't care.

Kids will care when they can't download a game to the phone.

On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 20:12:14 -0700, it was written:

If enough L9 customers cared, there'd be a groundswell for a class
action suit. I guess I missed it.

There are many similar complaints on the LG web and on Amazon for the L9.
Don't know if there are enough for a CAS though.

Arfa Daily wrote:

is not the same as the
pre-installed bloatware not being moveable. I think that is more to do with
them not wanting that to be /re/ movable, which of course it would be if you
could shift it to the card ...

T-Mo doesn't want you to remove all their self-serving adware!

If you could /move/ an app to the sd card, you could subsequently
/delete/ that app outside of the phone.

Michael Black wrote, on Tue, 08 Apr 2014 14:22:06 -0400:

Well that's one reason to buy used or cheap to begin with

Good point.
I learned how to skid into a guardrail in icy conditions on
my first (used) card. Thank god it was a clunker!

This L9 seems to be a clunker.

I read most of the reviews on Amazon and it seems like the
only ones happy with it are people who never had a phone
before and they're just overjoyed that the thing can
show videos on youtube.

No serious smartphone user would even think it usable
though so I don't know how the op was tricked since the
phone specs, even taken at face value, suck.

With only 4gb to start with, and everyone knows that the sd
card can't be used, nobody in his right mind should buy this
phone, even as a gift.

Paul Miner wrote:

I went another way when I bought my first smart phone and got what was then
a better-than-average device, the Galaxy S3. As it turned out, I like it
quite a lot, but there are obvious risks associated with not buying cheap.

Anyone can buy a great $700 phone but it takes an expert Android user
to buy a good $200 phone.

The only good $200 phone I know of is the 16gb MOTO-G.
Do you know of any other 16GB $200 phones?

On Tue, 15 Apr 2014 20:04:32 +0000 (UTC), Kerry Blethan
wrote:

Paul Miner wrote:

They might have sold fewer, granted, but I'd venture to guess that most
people don't care, or they don't know that they don't care.

Kids will care when they can't download a game to the phone.

Poor babies!

On Tue, 15 Apr 2014 15:36:22 -0500, Rodruigo Garcia
wrote:

Michael Black wrote, on Tue, 08 Apr 2014 14:22:06 -0400:

Well that's one reason to buy used or cheap to begin with

Good point.
I learned how to skid into a guardrail in icy conditions on
my first (used) card. Thank god it was a clunker!

This L9 seems to be a clunker.

I read most of the reviews on Amazon and it seems like the
only ones happy with it are people who never had a phone
before and they're just overjoyed that the thing can
show videos on youtube.

No serious smartphone user would even think it usable
though so I don't know how the op was tricked since the
phone specs, even taken at face value, suck.


Really? Define "serious smartphone user". Not everyone needs gobs of
memory.

With only 4gb to start with, and everyone knows that the sd
card can't be used, nobody in his right mind should buy this
phone, even as a gift.

Kerry Blethan wrote:

Anyone can buy a great $700 phone but it takes an expert Android user
to buy a good $200 phone.

Excellent summary!

-- chris

On Sun, 20 Apr 2014 11:17:58 +0100, "Chris Uppal"
wrote:

Kerry Blethan wrote:

Anyone can buy a great $700 phone but it takes an expert Android user
to buy a good $200 phone.

Not really. You just have to do some research. Lots of people by
great cars for $20,000 without having to be an automotive engineer or
even a mechanic.

Excellent summary!

-- chris

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Apr 2014 20:04:32 +0000 (UTC), Kerry Blethan
wrote:

Paul Miner wrote:

They might have sold fewer, granted, but I'd venture to guess that most
people don't care, or they don't know that they don't care.

Kids will care when they can't download a game to the phone.

Poor babies!


That's an odd thing to say. Kids are major customers for these phones, and
for an awful lot of them, the fact of it being a phone is only one small
consideration. A 'smart'-phone is better defined as a hand-held computer,
and that is how they are sold, so kids will rightly expect to be able to
download and use gaming apps, in much the same way as I expect to be able to
download and use apps that satisfy my requirements ...

Arfa

On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 01:48:16 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:



wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 15 Apr 2014 20:04:32 +0000 (UTC), Kerry Blethan
wrote:

Paul Miner wrote:

They might have sold fewer, granted, but I'd venture to guess that most
people don't care, or they don't know that they don't care.

Kids will care when they can't download a game to the phone.

Poor babies!


That's an odd thing to say. Kids are major customers for these phones, and
for an awful lot of them, the fact of it being a phone is only one small
consideration. A 'smart'-phone is better defined as a hand-held computer,
and that is how they are sold, so kids will rightly expect to be able to
download and use gaming apps, in much the same way as I expect to be able to
download and use apps that satisfy my requirements ...

Arfa

Kids are major customers for anything that keeps their attention so
parents don't have to deal with them. Kids are not entitled to
smartphones and games on them. Kids need more than access to computers
and games at all times. Putting a kid on a computer to play is not
parenting. It's not hard to see why the product of our education
system is waining.

On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 19:14:53 -0700, wrote:

... why the product of our education
system is waining.

Yup. The product "is waining" ... 'cuz the system is *faling* :-) .

Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 02:17:44 -0400, tlvp
wrote:

On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 19:14:53 -0700, wrote:

... why the product of our education
system is waining.

Yup. The product "is waining" ... 'cuz the system is *faling* :-) .

Cheers, -- tlvp

And the system includes the parents, the kids, and the schools and
teachers. The land of opportunity has morphed into the land of
entitlement.

On 04/23/2014 02:17 AM, tlvp wrote:
On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 19:14:53 -0700, wrote:

... why the product of our education
system is waining.

Yup. The product "is waining" ... 'cuz the system is *faling* :-) .

Cheers, -- tlvp

One could possess the best education possible, yet still be
fumble-fingered and careless. In my rather limited experience, the
higher the education, the more overconfident, and the more prone to
carelessness. And, the less forgiving of carelessness in others.

TJ

On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 09:29:45 -0400, TJ wrote:

On 04/23/2014 02:17 AM, tlvp wrote:
On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 19:14:53 -0700, wrote:

... why the product of our education
system is waining.

Yup. The product "is waining" ... 'cuz the system is *faling* :-) .

Cheers, -- tlvp

One could possess the best education possible, yet still be
fumble-fingered and careless. In my rather limited experience, the
higher the education, the more overconfident, and the more prone to
carelessness. And, the less forgiving of carelessness in others.

TJ

People can be "fumble-fingered and careless" regardlesst of their
level of education. Unless you have some real evidence to back up your
claim that "the higher the education, the more overconfident, and the
more prone to carelessness". You did say "In my rather limited
experience", so perhaps you should get more education and see if it
makes you "fumble-fingered and careless".

But I will still support improving the education level in the country
and take the risk of you unbased claims.

On 04/23/2014 04:32 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 09:29:45 -0400, TJ wrote:

On 04/23/2014 02:17 AM, tlvp wrote:
On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 19:14:53 -0700, wrote:

... why the product of our education
system is waining.

Yup. The product "is waining" ... 'cuz the system is *faling* :-) .

Cheers, -- tlvp

One could possess the best education possible, yet still be
fumble-fingered and careless. In my rather limited experience, the
higher the education, the more overconfident, and the more prone to
carelessness. And, the less forgiving of carelessness in others.

TJ

People can be "fumble-fingered and careless" regardlesst of their
level of education. Unless you have some real evidence to back up your
claim that "the higher the education, the more overconfident, and the
more prone to carelessness". You did say "In my rather limited
experience", so perhaps you should get more education and see if it
makes you "fumble-fingered and careless".

But I will still support improving the education level in the country
and take the risk of you unbased claims.


My post wasn't aimed at you. It was aimed at the person who pointed out
your obvious typos, implying that they negated your point.

There are many kinds of education. I have a BSEE, so I am not entirely
uneducated in the sense that you mean in your posts. I am also the son
and grandson of men who, while they never completed high school, were
some of the smartest people that I've ever known - in the ways that
really matter.

From time to time I find myself fumble-fingered when it comes to
typing, and careless when in a hurry or when my mind is on something
else. I am, after all, human - a point my father and grandfather took
great pains to teach me.

Most of those I've met who can put strings of letters after their names
won't readily admit to that kind of thing, even though I've seen them
make as many or more mistakes than I do.

TJ

"tlvp" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 19:14:53 -0700, wrote:

... why the product of our education
system is waining.

Yup. The product "is waining" ... 'cuz the system is *faling* :-) .

Cheers, -- tlvp

:-)

Arfa