Travis In Austin

Doesn't matter if you go on record or not, she has perogative, and she knows it. It is in their code somewhere.

John Hinkley has been out for 17 days a month for some time now. He stays with his mother, who is very old, while he is out of the hospital. He didn't murder anyone so that wouldn't really fit, and he wasn't convicted of anything. So band name suggestions; The Van Gough's NGBRI Foster's Nightmare Jody Foster, Really? Brady and the Billtones Thorazine Electric Shock Treatmemt Wish You Were Here Connecticut Avenue Band mates: Rick Derringer Lorena Bobbitt, also NGBRI

There is a "Comments" section below Lavorgna's blog post and one which I thought had some good thoughts about the methodology of reaching their conclusions was this one: Weighing-a-feather-while-the-kangaroo-is-jumping Submitted by PDQ.Bach on April 22, 2015 - 4:06pm I am not convinced by the Kalia data. Of course, the basic notion as such sounds plausible. Hardly new. The same could be shown with one's vocabulary. There are periods of logistic acquisition of words and idioms in early childhood and youth, followed by what amounts largely to a plateau. So what? It's the clean-slate-effect. Also, does the study take into account progression or retrogression in time? You could start with Joni Mitchell in 1967 and still be adventurous following her three decades later. (Or you could start with Sinead O'Connor in 1990 and, well, that's it, pretty much.) What if your interests expand sideways, from Joni Mitchell to Charles Mingus, then backwards to Ellington and Billy Strayhorn, then sideways again to Sofia Gubaidulina and Alfred Schnittke, while making a quaint ritual of listening to Gershwin or Percy Grainger every morning during your ablutions. Much of this would be pretty adventurous, though not exactly new — except to oneself. How would that play out on the Spotify scale? Regarding this specific study, to the extent that it can be called a study, I like the quip of one of my favourite physicists, Per Bak, in regard to a mystifying, “new and improved” project of a young colleague: “Excuse me, but what is actually non-trivial about what you did?” Methodological questions, doubts and frownings galore: how representative is Spotify clientèle in relation to age, gender, income, education, ethnicity? how representative is Spotify clientèle in relation to musical tastes, listening habits, width and scope of musical appreciation, and average duration and location of daily listening sessions? what does streaming frequency actually tell about real popularity (unless it is a matter of circular definition)? which statistical diagnostics were used? in particular, rank statistics? I could go on and on. But to quote my favourite statistical scientist, Andrew Gelman: “My best analogy is that they are trying to use a bathroom scale to weigh a feather—and the feather is resting loosely in the pouch of a kangaroo that is vigorously jumping up and down. … I like the weighing-a-feather-while-the-kangaroo-is-jumping analogy. It includes measurement accuracy and also the idea that there are huge biases that are larger than the size of the main effect.” Oh, and the graphs should go straight to Dr. Edward Tufte for rehabilitation. Cute, but misguided and deeply misleading. Edit: For typos, etc.

I am really glad you posted Michael Lavorgna's article. It is a great example of what the purpose of a great many blogs are, to sell you on something, whethet it be an idea, product or service. Michael Lavorgna is an audio journalist, and his particular niche is blogging for Audio Stream, Stereophile, Six Moons and others as well as writing articles about streaming services he submits to a variety of magazines such as Men's Health. What Mr, Lavorga did was to prepare a "book report" of sorts on a data report prepared by Ajay Kalia who works over at the streaming service, Spotify. Mr. KKalia's job there is to convince people that the future of music is Spotify. His point is that as we age we listen to less and less "popular" music. He doesn't define popular music in his article, but mentions that Spotify has ranked bands and performers, and uses his "ballsack" graph to show that we are listening to "top 500" acts in our teens and 20s and by the time of our 30s we are listening to acts who are way down at 2500. (Oldtimer, is that an industry term for that graph?). He hyperlinks an article on research that takes you here http://musicmachinery.com/2014/02/13/age-specific-listening/ If you read that article it says that a duplication of songs on a list of a 64-year-old man will 35% of a 13-year-old kid. Their lists will have 35% in common. The author of the research article says that he expects that the 35% overlap is an overestimate due to inaccurate age reporting, that multiple users use one account, and other factors. He acknowledges that his data is suspect and then concludes as follows: "This quick tour through the ages confirms our thinking that the age of a listener plays a significant role in the type of music that they listen to. We can use this information to find music that is distinctive for a particular demographic. We can also use this information to help find artists that may be acceptable to a wide range of listeners. But we should be careful to consider how popularity bias may affect our view of the world. And perhaps most important of all, people don’t like music from the 70s or 80s so much." Age plays a role in the type of music people listen to, what a revelation! This guy is a genius, what a waste of talent. He could be selecting what music could be going with commercials, movies, etc. Figure out the age of the target market of what you are trying to sell, select music that the target market listens to to grab their attention, and combine them. I think he is really on to something here. The guy at Spotify concludes by saying this: "All this is to say that yes, conventional wisdom is 'wisdom' for a reason. So if you’re getting older and can’t find yourself staying as relevant as you used to, have no fear — just wait for your kids to become teenagers, and you’ll get exposed to all the popular music of the day once again!" So research guy is saying people of different ages like different music, and people don’t like 70s or 80s music (without saying how he comes up with that notion). Spotify guy tells you that you are "iirrelevant" if you want to become relevant, have kids and listen to what they listen to. Spotify guy wants you to buy Spotify for your kids and you might as well have a listen too. None of them define what "popular" music is, other than to say that Spotify ranks the popularity of performers based on its users selection data. He gives no hint as to what percentage of users are below 30, below 20, etc. More importantly, he does not say that newer acts are always most popular, nor does he say that older bands and singers are always less pooular, but he tries to infer it because his whole misguided premise rests on this notion. He cannot say it, because in fact it is simply not true, and Spotify and Lavorgna both know that it is not true with music sales. Lovorgna concludes his little book report by saying "I'd also recommend trying avoid "lock-in" by listening to as much new music as you can handle." Stay young, be hip, become relevant again, listen to NEW music as much as possible. Whoops, now it is new music, not popular music. Why is that do you suppose? WIth streaming services their viability depends on getting new artists to list with them so that the demand for the new stuff will increase and more subscribers can be obtained, and it gives this business model more footing. Did you see all of the advertisers Lovorgna had on his blog for hardware used in connection with streaming? So what is popular music, is it really popular? It has to be popular with today's kids right? What else is out there, in terms of genres or classifications, and if I listen to that, how much in the minority am I? At what point am I no longer relevant? Those really are not the right questions, the question should be is streaming relevant, do streamers, specifically Spotify customers, reflect the real musical preferences of the under 20 and under 30 American market? The original blog post, and the "data" it was based on, are trying to sell you a bag of goods. You need to stream because it provides an easy way to stay up to speed with the popular music of today, AND, when you do stream you should do it on Spotify because we are going to be able to tell you who the hot artists are, and their hot tunes. The trouple is, popular music isn't what the teens and twenty-somethings are mainly listening to. AND, what America is buying does not line up with what Spotify claims are the more popular artists. Stay tuned. Edit: For clarity, spelling and grammar of a late night dictated post.

Thank you for taking the time to give a nice detailed response, I really enjoyed reading your response. Travis

What area ofnthe country did you sell them in? What else did you carry speaker wise? In that era, in the bay area there were 3 or 4 Klipsch dealers within a 20 mile radius, one McIntosh dealer, etc. Things have changed a great deal in 40 years.

There are no plans because it is patented. Watch the videos that Mike linked and you will understand why the mumps are critical to the sound. There is a reason why it is so highly regarded. Your best bet is to speak to Roy as he is the patent holder obo Klipsch and can figure out a way, if there is a way to get them to your country. What country are you in? Roy has installed 402s literally all over the world, but I am pretty sure he isn't going to help you clone or copy one of his patents. It is still patent infringement whether you intend to sell them or not and a patent holder can be deemed to abandon a patent if they don't seek to protect a patent when they have kmowledge that it is being infringed. Travis

I just "liked" a duck. You are at 965. Travis

Looks lie the gear shift is on the drivers right after looking at a couple of shots from the video. Didn't he say something like "anybody can just jump into it and drive fast right away"? I'd love to accept that offer.Well you can, if you want to pay the price, if not that car, something similar. The driver runs something called The Ferrari Experience at the Mont Tremblant race course. He also provides instruction and coaching to race car drivers. The owner of the car is a billionaire, he owns Mont Tremblant so he has a place to drive his cars.No idea what The Ferrari Experience costs, or what you get to drive, but you get instruction from the driver, Nick Longhi, and get to drive 'em around for a day or two.

Who, They were not valid then, and may only slightly valid now, and I think that is what Golbert's point was. They projected a 2% gas savings by going to 55. It turned out to be .05% to 1%. It remained as for over twenty years because it was political. It did see a bump up to 65. There is a great deal of debate as to how many lives were saved, if any, because of the reduction, but that became the political football. I think I am pretty much in agreement with Gilbert's sentiments, except in the terminology. We don't want politicians involved in the design and future planning of traffic systems. We want career professionals, free of polotical influences, doing the designing and planning. However, that is what a bureaucrat is. Whether it is State, local or federal, it is either departments of transportation that plan and design these things, or politicians, or both. They are all in competition for a limited supply of funds. I have quoted language from a federal law on AVs that as an example of Congress giving the DOT guidance on developing AVs, and told them to move forward. It is fairly general on purpose.

100M could be very close. He paid 27.5 million for a 275 GTB N.A.R.T. a couple of years ago, and there were 10 of those made, I think 9 remain. That 330 P4 he paid 9M for in 2000. I saw it in Monterey about 10 years ago, absolutely beautiful is right.

I loved these amps. Nelson Pass and his Stasis design. Have these had to be updated at all?

Great shots, thank you for posting these.

I thought the average American made about 26 to 27K and the average HOUSEHOLD income was 49 to 50K? 2/3 of the US make less than 41K. I agree with what you are saying Mark, but I thought it was even worse when it come to individual wages. Lots of numbers out there but here's one set.http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/20/news/economy/median-income/ That is what I was thinking, it was showing household income around 50K, this article explains how that number gets skewed by the 200 or so household in the US that earn in excess of 50 million a year. http://www.mybudget360.com/how-much-do-americans-earn-what-is-the-average-us-income/

I had all kinds of them. You are being a poor business man.... You need a tax attorney like my little brother to teach you the ropes, not an accountant! My best friend farms over 4,300 acres, is worth 7 figures, and his wife is eligible for government assistance for college. You NEED to buy some new toys for your business and depreciate them instead of giving Uncle Sam ANYTHING! Another buddy of mine is a micro biologist, owns his own lab and also raises and sells 40,000 Day Lilly's a year. He had a 1,400 horsepower 1969 Z-28 Pro Streeter that was on the cover of Hot Rod twice and the cover of Hot Chevy's once. He set up as a distributor with Wax Shop Products and incorporated his Wax Shop business with his others. He would set up a little cardboard stand of the Wax Shop products next to his Camaro at shows and wrote off the Camaro as a business loss for advertising. You need to start working SMART, not working Hard!!! Roger Great point. But what if you do not enjoy toys anymore? Seriosuly. If I buy a $50,000 car it will cost about $30 or $35K as a business expense, which is great, but that same $50,000, which nets $30K put into a piece of land will have massive growth and with 1031's it will grow tax free. A freind of mine as I are seeing a professional about this next week. If you have someone good let me know. As to the possessions and toys. Pick something to buy that you truely enjoy because it makes you happy, and is very inexpensive relative to your income, but do not buy toys to impress others. Who cares what they think? A useless quest if there ever was one. My other favorite is restaurants where you are put under enormous pressure to buy a $200 bottle of wine of a bunch of $15 martinis to impress the waiter. Who gives a crap what he thinks? He is a 27 year old kid husseling you. End of rant. With a 1031 it will grow tax deferred, but I know what you meant. I did several 1031 exchanges in Las Vegas on lots in Section 10 and 11 (Rainbow and Sahara). Buying is the easy part, when you sell is when all of the deadlines trigger. You have 45 days to identify the replacement property, it must be like kind, and you have 180 days from sale to complete the transaction. Otherwise, capital gains tax, plus depreciation recapture. In addition, the basis in the new property will be what your basis was in the original property, it does not step up, so in some cases it may not make sense to to a 1031 exchange. I had to teach the title company there how to do my first one, by the end all of the major title companies had all of the forms on how to do it, etc. Is the original Andre's still on 6th Street? They never acted snooty about the wine, nor did Pamplemouse. Travis

I thought the average American made about 26 to 27K and the average HOUSEHOLD income was 49 to 50K? 2/3 of the US make less than 41K. I agree with what you are saying Mark, but I thought it was even worse when it come to individual wages.

Great photos Seadog

"unless of course the bureaucrat responsible for the legislation that brought us the national maximum speed limit of 55 mph (now dead, thank you very much) had offspring with a JD degree serving in public office." You mean Nixon? Yes he had two daughters, Julie and Tricia. Tricia married a Harvard lawyer who is the head of the New York Republican party. Julie is an author and and is active in her dad's presidential library. Nixon was disbarred in New York and voluntarily surrendered his license to practice in California and the Supreme Court. I remember the "double nickle", I also remember when he asked everyone to not put up outdoor Christmas lights. Here is what Dick had to say when he signed that law into effect: "I AM pleased to sign into law H.R. 11372, an act aimed principally at helping to reduce gasoline and diesel fuel consumption during the energy crisis. This legislation will encourage State governments to establish maximum speed limits on their highways of 55 miles per hour. The continued receipt of Federal highway trust funds by the various States will be conditioned upon the establishment of these speed limits. I have been gratified and encouraged by the number of States which have already voluntarily reduced their speed limits in accordance with my request. I have also been pleased by the response of so many Americans to my request that they slow down on the highways even when the speed limits have not officially been lowered. Estimates indicate that we can save nearly 200,000 barrels of fuel a day by observing a national limit of 55 miles per hour. This bill also will permit the use of highway funds to support the cost of carpool demonstration projects, which can do so much to reduce the number of automobiles being inefficiently used on congested urban highways. The Department of Transportation is studying methods to improve the effectiveness of carpooling, and this legislation will require a report to the Congress on this matter by the Secretary of Transportation. These steps are just two of many that can and will be taken to help us through this period of acute energy shortages. With the attitude of cooperation and mutual concern expressed by a wide range of conservation actions by individual Americans, the social and economic impacts of the energy crisis can be minimized and we can look even more confidently to the day when we will become self-sufficient in energy."

So what did everyone end up getting today?

Happy Birthday

Medicine doesn't flow the way technology does, first, because it is constrained by medical ethics, religion, and politics. Second, technology is ancillary to medicine, it supports the profession, it does not replace it. There is no real technology involved in the head transplant. The two keys are cooling the body and head and using a chemical, to try and allow forba spinal cord fusion. It is chemistry primarily whick I consider to be scientific/medical advancement as opposed to technology. Major surgery is still done by the human hand. The head transplant announcement was quick to point out that it would take a team of 150 to do. Doesn't sound very technological to me, on the contrary, it requires a mass of highly skilled professionals. Human cloning, reproductive or therapeutic, is essentially at a stand still, because of medical ethics, religion and politics. It could have been achieved by now, but there is no public funding for it, and it has been banned in many countries, so it is on the back burner. Pretty much any surgeon you ask what the greatest advancement in surgery is to date, and they will tell you anesthesia. Technology helps to give a diagnosis, or monitor a patient during surgery, but you still need that guy or gal to go in and repair, remove or replace whatever the problem is. I think the most telling thing about how medicine is inextricably intertwined with religion and ethics is our organ donor system. There is always a shortfall in the number of organs available compared to the number who need them. We have an opt in system, a donor signed donor card. Why don't we have an opt out system? You are automatically a donor unless you opt out. Technology has nothing to do with it, the ability to successfully perform these procedures is well established. Robotic assisted surgery is where our most advanced technology is at today. That will continue to be our horizon for decades. Some day JC will be able to do prostate surgery from his home or office, Paul will be able to do a hysterectomy from a hotel room in Hope, but do we really want them to?

I known PPHS well, the shortcut to PCH goes right by there. Did your family get their groceries at Gelson's?

He was a rare Renaissance man, musician, painter, sculptor. I think that is why he and Ry were so compatible. He could figure out what was inside of Don's head because he is a musical genius in his own write. Don was great singer, great lyricist, but self-taught musician. RY came in and was able to arrange his stuff. For Trout he would bang the song out on piano top and the drummer, IIRC, would write it out and explain it to other band members. Died of MS, so sad