Y2HH

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 2, 2012 -> 09:37 AM) I'm a big Sheldon Cooper fan... As am I.

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 1, 2012 -> 05:23 PM) Damn dude. While mostly good, keep in mind a single crown or root canal will cost 1200$ or more...and the maximum is 2000$. So, essentially, don't let something major happen more than once a year and I'm ok. Even with good insurance, dental work tends to be pretty overpriced. But once again, this isn't the insurance company screwing us, it's the dentists. One of my best friends father is a dentist (just retiring), so I have a bit of insider info on these types of things...if you get a crown, the tooth they have to make in a lab costs about 200$-230$ to make, $230 model using top end base metals...yet they charge you upwards of 800$ for that tooth, and then the labor makes up for the remaining 1000-1200$ bill your insurance company will receive. I know, because I just received one. But once again, not the insurance companies fault that the markup on what should cost about 400$ to have done costs 1200$ instead.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Oct 1, 2012 -> 10:36 PM) Try behind the neck bluetooth headphones. I got one from Motorola two years ago. Great for working out and hands-free calling (not in a car obviously). Will also work splendidly on your computer if your bluetooth adapter isn't crappy. What brand...do you have a link? I've been thinking about buying something like this.

QUOTE (flippedoutpunk @ Oct 1, 2012 -> 04:43 PM) anyone try those new iphone 5 earbuds yet? do they make any kind of difference? They're actually pretty damn good. They're way better than the old iPod/iPhone earbuds, and probably on par with most mid range headsets. If you pay 100$+ for a paid of headphones, they'll be better than the new Apple earpods, but for regular people that won't pay 100$+ for a set of earphones, they're actually more than good enough. And yes, the difference is quite noticeable in sound quality.

QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Oct 1, 2012 -> 12:08 PM) My dad bought one of those $100 Monster HDMI cables when we got our big HDTV 5 or 6 years ago. I argued against him, but he wouldn't listen. I bought a 4-pack of HDMI cables for $7 about 7 years ago now, and they still work perfectly. Some of that is these companies exploiting leftover feelings from the analog era, where higher quality cables DID make a noticeable difference. With digital, unless you are talking greater distances, it doesn't matter.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 1, 2012 -> 09:49 AM) Also a rip-off: "Hi-speed" or "3D" HDMI cables. Hahaha, high speed HDMI cables. That's awesome. I haven't seen that yet.

QUOTE (flippedoutpunk @ Oct 1, 2012 -> 09:43 AM) This is what was said about HDTV's a long time ago in a galaxy far far away. Alright guys i guess 1080p is as advanced as it gets forever and ever, carry on. Uh, no...they didn't say that about HDTV's, and way to ignore my entire post which went pretty in depth as to why 4k/8k is years out. I never said "never" either, and furthermore, I never said 1080p is as advanced as it gets. Maybe you should try reading next time before clicking reply.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 1, 2012 -> 08:35 AM) I read a pretty in-depth review and test of some HDMI cables a few months ago but I can't find the link now. If you have a long run, say 50+ feet, it can make a difference. It's a digital signal, but you can still get bit errors if you have poor connectors or long lengths. But for most cases, where you've got a 1-2m cable going from your cable box to your TV all on the same stand, the $1 cable on Amazon will work just fine. As bad as the video cables are, nothing will ever come close to the lunacy of "audiophile" cables. They're both pretty bad...and essentially, that high-end industry was created specifically for suckers with money.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 1, 2012 -> 08:24 AM) Oh sure and next you'll tell me that you can't see the difference between a $10 cable and this clearly superior $300 HDMI cable! I cannot tell you how often I've had this conversation trying to convince people there is no difference in HDMI cables...and you wouldn't believe how adamant they are that it makes a difference.

QUOTE (flippedoutpunk @ Sep 30, 2012 -> 10:57 AM) In regards TVs, unless you REALLY need to invest in one right this instant, I would wait until the new 4k/8k television technology becomes less pricey. Those sets absolutely poop on anything that is out right now. http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57364...tion-explained/ First, TV's aren't an "investment"...they're an entertainment purchase. Second, and more importantly, nothing supports 4k/8k, and for the foreseeable future, nothing will. And when I say foreseeable future, I mean at *least* 5 years, so people looking to purchase a TV need not wait on these. While the hardware may be ready, the software/media is non existent for these. They will be this generations Laserdisc. The content delivery infrastructure required for this technology for most people isn't a reality, and this alone will prevent widespread adoption. BluRays max out at 1080p -- 4k/8k TV's are, respectively 2000+p/4000+p. A single movie would take up almost 200gigs on 4k and almost 600gigs on 8k (and if your talking uncompressed, your now into the terabyte range for both)**. The bandwidth to transmit wirelessly would require 802.11ac, which isn't even available yet. The physical media to even purchase movies that support this resolution doesn't exist, and downloading them is out of the question since 2 movies would essentially get you kicked off of whatever internet provider you use from sheer bandwidth abuse. Also, there is the fact that the majority of people cannot discern the difference in 720p vs 1080p, and those people sure as hell wouldn't be able to differentiate between 1080p and 4k. This is mostly hype/overkill tech, especially for the home user, reserved for the richest videophiles that swear they can tell the difference while being unable to point out a single difference when you ask them too. Without a screen the size they use in movie theaters, there is no need for resolution this high, it's superseding the sheer space requirement to make it useful. For people that want to buy a 200" television, fine...but I don't see too many people looking to buy 200 inch screens anytime soon. It's the same as cell phone providers starting to make 1080p 'screens', when anything less than 50" negates the need for 1080p, as a person cannot see the difference in 720p/1080p unless a screen size is > than 50". Manufacturers will say you can...tests have shown that people cannot. Keep in mind manufacturers will also tell you a 1000$ hdmi cable is better than the 10$ one***, too. Oh, and it isn't. ** http://www.techradar.com/us/news/televisio...lace-hd-1065703 *** Thanks to SS below for this reminder. EDIT: The data use is even beyond what I estimated (from the article above): "On the basis that three hours of 4K video takes up 3.16TB, this would be 212 standard 25GB Blu-rays – although the quality of image and amount of Blu-rays used all comes down to the amount of compression applied."

With insurance my fillings and checkups are 100% covered...crowns and root canals are 80%. That is, to a maximum of 2,000$ a year.

QUOTE (justBLAZE @ Sep 29, 2012 -> 03:27 AM) Thanks guys. Do you know if it's worth spending the extra buck for 240Hz vs 120Hz ? I take 120Hz is a must have in the HDTV / Blue Ray world? It depends, this is mostly personal preference. I feel it looks great for cartoons, but makes movies look fake/terrible and very easy to spot flaws. Also, those refresh rates only apply to non plasma screens. While plasma has been somewhat replaced by LED/LCD as of late, Plasma is the most mature of the technologies, it's downside is that it uses more electricity. But IMO, a properly calibrated plasma screen looks amazing. I also think Samsung makes the best televisions.

These are basic lessons we all learned in grammar school. Seriously, who here hasn't had a class at some point in their childhood where the first person starts a story and TELLS it to the second person in class to write down AFTER the story has been told (adding both of their names to the paper). That person passes that story to the next person, who reads it and THEN retells it from memory to the person behind them, who then writes it down after having heard it (writing both of the 3rd and 4th names down). Rinse/repeat. If you do it this way you can track the changes, where and how they happened, what was added, and by whom. By the time you get to the end of the class the story is completely unrelated to the original... These are BASIC lessons in life...people apparently need to remember them.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 28, 2012 -> 10:26 AM) That may be so, but those emails are read and the claim is spread uncritically around the blogs, forums and websites. Idiocy spreads like a virus...but the cure is simple. Think for yourself, use the SAME device you just used to read that chain letter, and see if what you've just read is fact or fiction. I mean, sure, it'd be awesome if we had some sort of search thingy where we could search a vast array of fact checked knowledge, compete with citations, in mere minutes...if only something like that existed on the same systems we use to read chain emails...

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 28, 2012 -> 10:22 AM) More people need social safety net spending after the economy collapses and before it fully recovers. This is not surprising. But more to the point, these chain emails and the post that started this are, in fact, pointing directly at Obama. Anyone that reads chain emails is an idiot.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 28, 2012 -> 09:58 AM) TDS had a great segment last week with clips left over from both the RNC and DNC. Hahah, that was awesome. And pretty much spot on.

QUOTE (MexSoxFan#1 @ Sep 28, 2012 -> 09:50 AM) Repubs really are shameless. What truly scares me is that when people say things like this...what they've really said is "...and democrats are without shame." And even scarier is that they believe that.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 28, 2012 -> 09:32 AM) The USF is funded through fees paid by the telecoms, though. http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/contributi...agement-support I am not sure but it seems to me that the USF is not funded by taxes but solely through fees. That's still a tax, they're just not calling it that. As we are still the ones paying it as part of our cell phone bills. This is why I balk when people say taxes are low...because megatons of fees like this exist that 'aren't taxes', only they actually are.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 28, 2012 -> 09:24 AM) Well sure, but without the legal ramifications of getting caught. Near the end of my freshman year we had a frat house that was visited by the FBI (in f***ing bloomington, IL) because they were basically one of the world leaders in distributing bootleg movies. Needless to say the T1 lines became heavily restricted after that. Not quite... Nobody gets in trouble for downloading, nearly impossible to convict on that...you get in trouble for uploading. So don't.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 28, 2012 -> 09:25 AM) Assuming that the global economy itself doesn't collapse, I'm willing to wager that we'll have a single-payer system in this country within our lifetimes. Assuming the same, I'm willing to wager time travel will exist within our lifetimes. In which I will become a Looper. And in which I will be forced to kill you when they send back from the future. Sorry.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 28, 2012 -> 09:28 AM) Government is involved via collecting fees from FCC licensees. It's a self-funded program. Do you believe advertising claims are always 100% true and accurate? Why does it matter what some stupid sign says if you're wrong on the facts of the program? Government is involved because they subsidized the providers that are part of the program.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 28, 2012 -> 09:26 AM) Why would it say government cell phone if the government isn't involved? Because that fact check isn't telling 100% of the truth... http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/cellphone.asp

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 28, 2012 -> 09:24 AM) temper your rage, bro That fact check isn't quite right. The telcos provide the service, but they are subsidized by the government, so yes, taxes are involved. However, it wasn't Obama that enacted this, Reagan did for land lines, and later in 2008, cellular phones were added on.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 28, 2012 -> 09:21 AM) For-profit insurance companies serve no social good as far as I've ever seen. There is nothing that they do that a single-payer system couldn't do, and often couldn't do cheaper and more efficiently. It's a bit silly to think that I meant we should just get rid of all health insurance period when I've always been strongly in favor of a single-payer system here. ...and I'm in favor of time travel. But we don't have that, either.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 28, 2012 -> 09:20 AM) I'm 30, went to college from 2000-2004. I'll never forget my freshman year, my school (Illinois Wesleyan) had a bunch of T1 lines newly installed. Everyone and their mother was downloading everything possible on their computers. The good old days of Napster and Limewire. How I miss thee. Those days still exist, you just have to know where to look.