mas

Not everyone in TX owns an oilwell No. The trend right now is for everyone to have someone else drilling for gas in your backyard.[:|] Pardon me, i need to go move my car so they can get the crane into the backyard...

Sorry.... My bad...[]

First, they are not in a court of law. Nor are we suggesting the use of the polygraph to definitively determine strict guilt or innocence based solely upon the results in lieu of a jury. The common notion of using such a test as a substitute for a jury is a misuse of the test. Second, the test is very reliable, but it is not necessarily conclusive, and there is a significant difference. Additionally, the test's reliability is much greater in discerning innocence than guilt. Let me try to explain... This is because there are lots of situations where someone may have a 'guilty state of mind' due to many related issues and return a deceptive result, but not in fact be guilty. It's the same with flight. When a defendant runs away from the police or the scene of the crime, a jury is entitled to infer a guilty state of mind. But flight doesn't necessary equal guilt. Innocence, on the other hand, is much more unequivocal and reliability can be very high. But even here, some people are pathological, and so divorced from morality that they may test honest. It may also be possible to affect results by methods such as biofeedback, self-inflicted pain, or by the use of drugs. In other words, the test is not necessarily conclusive. Nor does it need to be. The reliability can be determined through a precision structured query. But the common notion that the test returns a simple "guilty or innocent" result is erroneous. Rather you receive a highly reliable or unreliable finding. But then, no one is suggesting its sole use as a determination of innocence or guilt. And as such, It CAN be used to bolster one's credibility in declaring innocence in a matter of questionable 'he said she said' situations where public opinion is at issue. This is perhaps its strongest use. And Clemens’ situation is that the onus is on him to substantiate his credibility, especially when other have not, or will not, subject themselves to such scrutiny. I mean, just take a look at the hearing. Not only do the politicians make this all look like a gigantic photo op, it’s hard to believe anyone completely. If someone is willing to undergo such scrutiny and they return a highly reliable test result substantiating an contention of innocence, they would be doing themselves a grave disservice by not to using this as a vehicle to bolster their credibility. And as far as why I think this, I am not an expert. But I do happen to have pretty easy access to a very credible legal expert in the technology; and this topic has been discussed at length in the past as it is quite a fascinating subject. If you want to know more about this aspect, PM me.

LOL! You know, i couldn't even think of an arguement to hassle you with here! And not even a play on the "Clemens" reference, despite my first 'automatic' thought that it was (literally, literary...sorry, couldn't resist) an allusion to Twain! (...and what did he ever do for the Yankees!?) LOL! Loved it!

LOL! You are the one that goes off into ancient tales of the benefits of the American Labor movement in the 30's and early 40's (despite its less than honorable history!) and of the laughable global economy defined by Marco Polo! And yes, political systems were largely responsible for fragmjented markets, and their fall the source of radically expanded markets. And this expansion is a very pertinent source of changes in the current market. Of course, you nonsensical notion that the global market of Marco Polo is the same as what is referred to as a growing global market today simply demonstrates that while you are lucid enough to use a dictionary for spelling, you simply cannot grasp the meanings of the terms. And now whether someone should buy an American made stereo is now subject to your ramblings about digging coal in West Virginia. well, ge wiz, thats not to far afield from discussing Marco polo! LOL! The point you have missed all along is the one originally mentioned by Ole Buck, and that was why is buying McIntosh, a product designed, and manufactured in the US by Americans, bad. Despite McIntosh being owned by a foreign company. You are the one who rambled on about the anything but glamous work of Big Labor! And we have listened to your quasi-religious explanations describing your attempts to bring social responsibility and the Tao into business and economics on several occassions!. But then I guess you aren't familiar with Esalen...Nevertheless, the association fits. As your lack of understanding does not lessen the validity of the topical nexus. And I only wish that I had the time to listen to talk radio, as I do like Rush, but he is on when i am not available to listen But I guess that your bold(sic) unsubstantiated statement was meant as some kind of insult - albeit as ineffectual as it was.. But then I am not a big Hannady fan as I am absolutely Not a social conservative. And unfortunately, few of the elected Right have figured out what fiscal conservatism or the more libertarian POV is as they rush to be the biggest pig in the trough, so bash away all you like. And yet - they still do a better job than the alternative - not that that is saying much... But with the increasingly diversified nature of mutlinational corporations in a global marketplace (and do we need to stop and figure out what stereo Marco Polo had????), it is increasingly hard to determine just what is American. In answer to Bucks question, I don't have a problem with buying McIntosh from the point of view of its origin, except that I think there are better values around for the money. And I don't have a problem buying a Toyota or Nissan or what have you produced in this country. But ultimately, I am going to buy the best product, regardless of where it is produced. And the last thing I am going to look for is a Union label where seniority rather than ability is the primary focus per the Union's standards! And that is a sad way to have to view the American worker - or any worker for that matter. But then, regarding big labor, I quoted the reviews as few are as unequivocal in their admiration of a well researched authoratative text. The difference between us here being that I have actually read the book, and the others in the series. And they develop a much less complimentary picture of the "willing fools" who populated the leadership rolls of the Unions. But don't let facts confuse your fantastic (as 'couched in fantasy') opinion of the Labor Unions.

That's a VERY good thing! Have you actually seen Aretha lately....Wow! ...to paraphrase Buddy Miles "Dem changes"! Any less room and we would all be hurtin'! Maybe they need to put the red and white striping common around many jet engine intakes around her mouth as a warning to stand clear![:|] [] And ole Marsh...I hear you regarding Beyonce! ...or Tina! []

I think the point many are missing in this debate is not which format of the two wins. I am willing to cede that to Blu_ray. But this notion that now that Blu-Ray as won that it will just continue onward and upward and take over the world simply isn't , not does it seem to have any momentum to do so. On any given week, several standard DVD releases witll sell multiple times the number of disks as the number of ALL of the HD DVD players (of both camps) sold. HD is a niche product, and for many , broadcast, cable and satellite is fine too. And now you have downloadable, essentially on demand, standard and HD content without the high entry and media costs. Standard and upscaled video has dominated the mainstream market, and I don't see that changing any time soon - especially with more options coming on scene with many more to come. So enjoy Blu-Ray for the next 3-5 years, if that long, and anticipate that it will then be superceded. It's a good format, although not competitively priced for the market who wants to build and archive a hard copy library. And that will continue to hurt it. In the meantime, you have many choices. And many that are much more affordable. With many more options becoming available.

Have not the various firms listed provided you with enough options? And even if your goal is to support local economies to the best of your abilities, sometimes it makes sense to acknowledge the diversity in the available market and to buy the best product in each niche at the best price, regardless of where it is made or who makes it. I can only imagine your dillemma when you reach the point of buying a new TV!

Oh well, if you are going to simply pick another addiction, it may as well be a well-behaved one! How long is this going to go on? If you like Amy , listen to her and stay glued to TMZ to see what dysfunctional behavior she is up too. If you don't, then why not go back to what you were doing when the topic about a performer that you don't care about came up? Everything is so difficult on this forum! LOL! [] Get over it folks...the plane flies!

Sure do! And yours was "Buy Union"! Which means we don't, and won't be buying any of your stuff! Your 'old left' views wrapped in your "New Age" moralism have grown very tired. Sorry if you can't keep up with the references... The irony is that your views are the very ones which failed and were supplanted in the last 25 years in the global markets, resulting in their substantial growth. LOL!

ROFLMAO! You need to take another vacation to Esalen and report back on the new "center for theory and research", Murphy's new "R&D arm" . And be sure to bring PowerPoints of the latest ideas regarding "eco-psychology" and the new papers with titles such as "Integral Business Planning Document". And folks, this stuff is real, I couldn't make up such nonsense. Yup, its failing everywhere Mark! Unfortunately it is the very succes of such programs overseas that are giving us fits!

Good, then I hope that means we won't have to be subjected any of your thoughts on the non-existent off-shoring and out-sourcing. And we won't confuse you with the concept that there can be a differnce in the degree to which the raw material and the finished product is sourced from or sold to foreign lands - where this becomes the norm rather than the exception. And we certainly won't confuse you with the facts that most of the examples you cite were financial failures, despite opening doors to future ventures. BTW, you left out the fabulously successful Jamestown Colony. Edit: Let me clarify Mark's insanity just a bit. The world is now a truley global market. It was not before. Oh sure, there was some international trade. but there have been two major shifts in the last several decades that ole' Mark simply missed out on. First, previously, the norm was that corporations located primarily in one country might have traded with entities in other countries. But you see, major change is that these corporations are no longer simply centered in one or two countries. Multi-national corporations have become the norm. No longer is a corporation limited to having the majority of its resources in just one country. And thus we now face corporations where their financial vested interest is distributed over many companies, and their fiscal health is not limited to the economy of just one country. For instance, Toyota was once a Japanese corporation, with all of its various divisions located in Japan. But now it is distributed about many countries. 50 years ago it would have been unheard of for Toyota to be manufacturing cars in the US. Both because they did not want to, and we did not want them to. Now we compete for their factories. Likewise, Jaguar was distinctively English and Saab distinctively Swedish. The idea that either might be owned by a corporation headquartered in another country, let alone another continent would have been laughed at. But now, this is not the case. Unlike what was common not too many years ago - in our lifetimes - Many companies and corporations are now either located in multiple countries and/or actively do business in multiple countries and continents. This evidently is a very complex concept for Mark to grasp. Additionally, the world has also changed in a very significant way. you see, for 60 some years, and to an even greater degree since WW2, the world was divided into two isolated regions: the so called Communist Block and the free world. And unknown to Mark, little open trade was conducted between these blocks - aside form occasional prisoner exchanges. But that could hardly be considered a vibrant market. But with the fall of the Soviet Union and the move towards a market economy by China, this 'other half' of the world arrived and discovered that they too wanted a piece of he pie - and the world market. And not only do they possess material resources, but they possess substantial intellectual capabilities as well. And many of them, wanting a share of the good life they saw in the West, are more than willing to work for less than their western counterparts, as the cost of living in their regions is substantially less. But you see, for Mark, a world consisting of only one half the globe is still the world. Nothing has changed. The world to Mark has always been a global economy. China and Japan always have been famous for cheap trinkets. Despite not being open to foreign markets until just this last century. But whose keeping time, right Mark? And until the last 20 years, the Soviet Block has been totally cut off from open commerce with the west - thus efectively eliminating them from any substantial trade for most of their industrial age. But again, whose paying attention to time...a few generations here, a few generations there...Its all so trivial isn't it. The fact is, the present world economy, with so many emerging markets moving into a state where they can and are actively able to compete with us does present a radically new economy. But Mark says that hey, Marco Polo got some Yak hair from China a thousand years ago (after a very warm welcome and being held prisoner for how long??? Sounds like they could have benefited from a NAFTA agreement, don't you think? And then to have that market close for centuries, and to have Japan order death to any foreigner who landed on its shores until the last century! Ah, but they are just technicalities! Its always been a global economy! This reminds me of a book my grandmother, who was very devoutly religious, gave me and which I still have. The topic was evolution. And we all know what nonsense that is! It chronicles a 6 inch tall horse, and then in several pages the horse reappears… only this time its 6+ feet tall. and the caption is essentially: Its was a horse then and its still a horse now! Walla! So you see, there is no evolution. …Never mind its slight bout with what some might call a slight hormonal problem over the ages. And so with Mark. It was a global economy in the days of Marco Polo and his captivity, and its a global economy now. Nothing has changed. And unfortunately, at least one individual's conception of world markets is just as stunted as the growth of the 5inch tall horse. But you see, to people like Mark, the only way that these people can enter into the world market is via slave labor, exploitation and overall human and societal suffering. And as such, I guess because ole' Mark cares so much for them that he is against people here supporting the exploitation and the ecological damage to those people's countries as he would rather we not allow them to enter the market here. And a good way to protect those poor people is to refuse to buy their products, as they are late to the party and have never belonged to the proper labor unions - despite many having been subjected to the tyranny of the very same dictatorial socialism that played such a large role in the formation and support of our very own labor movement! In fact, let me quote a passage from the reviews of a text that resulted from Princeton Universities admittance into the Soviet Archives following the fall of the Soviet Union. Oh, and this book does not editorialize. Rather it simply collects the specific records form the archive illuminating the actual activities and involvement of the Soviets in US domestic affairs. So in other words, we get to se the Russian records and receipts. Not someone’s notions or feeling or guesses about them. And in particular, please note the points mentioned in the Kirkus review regarding the CIO union activity. Oh, and also note that American names were also submitted for purging during the Stalin 'holidays in the country'. But then you don't hear too much now days about the full role that the Soviets played in the grand American Labor Union tradition! And the full extent is even more interesting. but don't take the reviews word for it. the records are those of the Soviet Archives - their records and receipts - not opinions and innuendo: (And you can find this on Amazon.com) The Soviet World of American Communism (Annals of Communism Series) Klehr, Haynes, Anderson Amazon.com In this follow-up to 1995's Secret World of American Communism, newly available documents from Russian archives firmly establish the deep relationship between the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA) and Moscow. The Soviet Union controlled CPUSA leadership and policy, including the crushing of dissent within the ranks. Among the revelations in this volume are confirmation that the criticisms which eventually led to the ouster of CPUSA head Earl Browder originated from within the Kremlin. The publication of these documents forces a harsh reevaluation of the notion that American Communists, as a whole, were simply idealistic patriots fighting for social justice. From Library Journal Histories of the Communist Party of the United States of America (CPUSA) all build on Theodore Draper's classic The American Communist Party: A Critical History, 1919-1957 (1957. o.p.). The recent opening of Soviet archives to scholars has generated a new spate of books. This one is a companion to the authors' earlier The Secret World of American Communism (Yale Univ., 1995), and follows the same format of interspersing reproduced documents with well-informed narrative. The authors focus on the CPUSA's relationship with the Communist International (Comintern), whose mission was to spread world communism from its inception in 1919. The Comintern, they conclude, closely directed the CPUSA, allowing little independence in the American party's daily functioning. The book concentrates on the period from about 1920 until Khrushchev's secret 1956 speech that condemned Stalinism and served to undermine communism's international cohesiveness. This valuable synthesis will complement Albert Fried's recent Communism in America: A History in Documents (Columbia Univ., 1997). Recommended.?Ed Goedeken, Iowa State Univ. Lib., Ames From Booklist This title continues the Annals of Communism series about documents found in Soviet-era archives. Important for students, the series might be too specialized for general-interest libraries, yet some installments coincide with serious-minded popular tastes, including The Fall of the Romanovs (1995) and this portrait of the Communist Party of the United States of America, which in the 1930s and 1940s was significant in domestic politics and about which Klehr has written previously (The Heyday of American Communism, 1984). The documents Klehr's team unearthed illustrate the total dependence of U.S. Communist Party members on the Soviet Union. Soviet influence inevitably extended from financial support to policies and personnel, and the most poignant documents here concern Lovett Fort-Whiteman, a black leader of the party who worked for the Comintern in the 1930s--then disappeared. But in his case, one of as many as a thousand accused Trotskyists that the American party turned over to Soviet police, there was a paper trail, which is reprinted here. Rich source material for history students. Gilbert Taylor From Kirkus Reviews With the publication of this book, the debate about whether the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA) was a genuinely home-grown movement or a tool of the Soviet Union has been finally answered. Based on the archives of the Communist International (Comintern) in Moscow, Klehr and Haynes (coauthors of The Secret World of American Communism, not reviewed) and Anderson (a Russian archivist) make it clear that, throughout the period from its founding in 1919 until the dissolution of the Comintern in 1943, the CPUSA was heavily funded by the Soviet Union, which selected and paid its leaders, and dictated its strategy. The volume doesn't purport to be a comprehensive history of the party but concentrates on the relationship with Moscow. It is clear that that subordination damaged the ability of the party to make the alliances and adjustments that would have increased its already considerable influence in the labor movement, where by the end of WW II Communists led or helped lead 18 CIO affiliates. While large numbers of individual members became disillusioned and resigned, the party obediently followed every twist in Soviet strategy, from the Nazi-Soviet Pact to its repudiation when Germany attacked the Soviet Union. Most shameful of all, the authors note, there is not a single document in which an official of the CPUSA tried to save anyone from Stalin's purges. Indeed, there were occasions in which they leveled accusations that sent Americans to the Gulag. This belief in Soviet perfection ``gave American Communists strength,'' convincing them that it was possible to create an American utopia; the Khrushchev revelations about Stalin's crimes lost the party more than three-quarters of its membership. This is one of those seminal books that do not merely contribute to a debate, but effectively end it. Book Description Drawing on documents newly available from Russian archives, this important book conclusively demonstrates the continuous and intimate ties between the Communist Party of the United States of America (CPUSA) and Moscow. Digging even deeper than the authors' earlier volume, The Secret World of American Communism, it conclusively demonstrates that the CPUSA was little more than a pawn of the Soviet regime. Yup, it was a global economy and marketplace during Marco Polo's time, and it continues unchanged today. ROFLMAO!!!!!!

There are many options for domestically sourced products, and that also includes the major pro amps of Crown, Crest and QSCas well as those mentioned. The question arises for some if companies such as McIntosh qualify as their operational base is still in the US made by Americans, although the company has since been bought bu a foreign holding company. And in this sense, like buying a domestically producted Toyota, one gets to decide to the degree that supporting such a product helps the workers and domestic economy in which the product is produced, and the ramifications of those workers' spending , or whether the fact that the corporate profits are distributed elsewhere is more important. And to a large degree, to see a locally produced foreign owned company 'go under' and close a local facility is little different that having a locally owned facility 'go under'. Thus, generally, to the degree that I can, I personally try to support the local economy. And that may even involve buying a locally made foreign branded item. As the majority of the money will be recirculated back into the local economy. But most items are not so simple, and the retailer benefits to a higher degre than the manufacturer by a local sale. So even a local sale of a foreign product may benefit the local community more than say buying an 'American' product via the web located somewhere else.may. So to that degree, you get to decide upon the degree of impact your decision has. But in any regard, the decision is not as neat and simple as "Buy Union" or "Buy American". And I guess if you adhere to that philosphy, I guess we should get out of the exposrt business as well, as a "moral"(sic) person would refuse to impose such heinous repercussions on others...I'll hold my breath while the Union reps pull out those signs!

HUH? First of all, terms need not be empty cliches, but they can also represent fundamental concepts regarding the scope and role of various bodies in a greater context. And to this degree they trancend the vacuous notions we hear everyday on the news(sic) and in the papers. Words CAN mean things! (Or at least I labor under the potential for such!) We got to listen to the overly generalized rant that Unions make the world better for the worker - a great line years ago before they became self-perpetuating self-interest organizations more concerned about maintaining power than in helping a constuency with which they have long since lost touch. And your support for them is simply a perpetuation of the very cliche'd world of labels you claim to eschew as you continue to promelgate them. No one operates in a vacuum. In fact, that is the very antithesis of the point that many here have have said! But as usual, we get to labor under the specious charge of "choos(ing) to live in a moral vacuum as a market cog". LOL! The fact is: the world market is no longer American and foreign, black and white, management versus worker, good versus bad. It is a far more complex environment than any simple linear model represents.The marketplace, for good or bad, is now a global market. And the simplistic "Buy American" or "Buy Union" slogan has become representative of an overly simplistic myopic vision that, in a zeal for a world as you might like it, has lost touch with the world as it is. And while some can lament the fact, and dream of putting the genie back into the bottle and returning to old industrial models of society and the economy, that fantasy is neither desireable nor practical. The fact is that each person has a choice to determine what represents their interests, however they perceive them to be, whether it is short term cost or larger long term global impact. And while I have my views, that really doesn't matter, as those views are only valid for me, and I don't try to impose them on others in the form of telling them what they should or shouldn't buy. Just as I am quite capable of making my decisions, they are capable of making theirs. And I eschew any group who in their zeal to solve everyone's problems, attempts to impose their course of behavior on others, be it politicians or unions. I am quite capable of making my own decisions and mistakes, and I certainly don't need any group who claims to represent my interests TELLING me how I must think and/or act. And here are far too many of them. And they do not operate in a vacuum, nor are they moral - despite how self-righteous their altruistic claims of caring for others may be. If they are so moralistic, there efforst should be to eliminate the source of their claimed need for existence - not reinforcing the need of their ever continued presence! Folks, if you want a good overview of the battle of ideas and markets over the past 100 years, you could do much worse than to get a copy of the video "The Commanding Heights". And you can avoid the sloganeering of the old tired ideas that history has left largely behind us and look forward to a more challenging, and changing environment with something other than simply the fear of change. Yup, and attempt to denigrate concepts such as the flat tax by attaching it to Rush Limbaugh. But I guess one has to if they are not familiar with the theories of inconsequential folks like Milton Friedman. At least its not the brainstorm of Al Franken.

Don't really care about the issue between Aretha and Tina Turner. But no one can accuse Aretha of being "a" queen... 5 or 6 maybe, but not just one! Man, what a transformation from what was...[][:|]

As much as I hate to say this, in the midst of a media frenzy and a popular society where an accusation is tantamount to a conviction, Clemens had 2 options. To admit that he, like everyone else dabbled in them as it was the policy de jour - as everyone did following the "I didn't inhale" BS, or if he is indeed innocent and wants to place himself above the frey, he must 'prove' himself credible. And in that case, the onus is on him not simply to persist in saying he didn't, but to present some evidence that establishes his postion, such as a independently administered polygraph test. And contrary to many who think state of the art polygraph tests are easily falsified - they are not. What happens is that either they have a high degree of reliability or they do not, and this is rather easily determined. But you do not simply 'fool' the measurements (unlike in the movies). I wish such actions were not necessary to establish credibility, but simply saying "I'm innocent" or giving some lame 'I thought it was oregano' excuse while refusing to be subjected to any other means that could help substantiate his position and help exonerate him is not, I fear, the path that will ultimately succeed. Oh, and as mentioned earlier, why is this considered to be within the scope of Congress and not the courts? Well, now you have opened up Pandora's Box and illuminated a much larger problem than steroids and baseball. And how 'bout them unions!? Yup, we are getting a much better idea of how they are bettering society in this mess! No moral vacuum there! Its a legitimate cesspool!

We'll see what wins in the long term in the mass market And the competition begins... I prefer hard copy, but look at the prices below and tell me where you think the mass market will go? And why do you think the network attached capability is so important to both the XBox360 and the PS3. Both parents have a longer term and larger vision than simply online gaming. And did anyone watch the CBS feature regarding rappers complaining about piracy and online downloads hurting them? Rap/Hip hop sales are down 20%. I almost wish I could say I was sorry![] Apple TV update goes live with high-definition rentals By Nate Mook and Ed Oswald, BetaNews February 12, 2008 Apple silently pushed its promised update to customers with its Apple TV device on Tuesday. The update will take about six minutes to download over a broadband connection, and another five to ten minutes to install. The update will install in three parts, with the Apple logo and progress bar reappearing each time. Users can find the download by locating the Update Software option in Apple TV's menu. Apple TV Take 2 most notably brings high-definition movie content to the device, as well as a completely redesigned user interface. About 1,000 different movies are currently available for rent, with about 100 of them also available in high-definition. Rentals come at a price of $2.99 (or $3.99 for HD) for DVD-quality, and new releases are priced at $3.99 (or $4.99 for HD). Apple had originally promised the update at the end of last month, but the company was unable to finish the software in time for that deadline. No specific reasoning was given for the delay, which it announced at the beginning of this month. Devices built from here on out will come with the software preinstalled, Apple said. Apple TV is available from both Apple and its authorized resellers for $229 for the 40 GB model, and $329 for the 160 GB model.

Gee Guy, Union meetings are only so long !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And even shorter when they tell you what your opinion is and their goons make sure no one dissents. Especially when a newer but larger facility, regarding the access to benefits, chooses to vote themselves priority over a smaller facility where the members have greater seniority but fewer votes. Kind of like a city annexing an area without the area being able to decide whether they want to be annexed! TO me, seniority is a asinine system, and skill should prevail, but hey, wouldn't it be nice if an organization that lives by such Neanderthal rules actually played by them? Teamsters = Protection Racket

Don't you just love the ever emotional moralistic rants that extol the virtues of some as they denigrate the efforts of others? You see, if you sell more product, whatever it is, be it books, records, tickets, electronics, whatever - that makes you somehow guilty of some perceived moral infraction. And its simply not fair to those who work hard but whose efforts address a smaller market. The folks in the entertainment biz, be it music, movies or sports, etc., don't make the big bucks because of their specific talent or any other immoral or imagined reason for which SOME would fault them. Rather they make the big bucks because whatever it is they do sells to a HUGE extended audience. In other words, instead of doing something of value for one person, they do something that hundreds or thousands or millions will pay for - be in media sales, concerts, ball games, TV, manufacturing or whatever. And I can't get over how some self righteous folks denigrate that fact and confuse it with their moralistic judgment of what it is that they do. But then, when was the last time you ever saw some chauffer driven Union bigwig suffer while the minions who pay their salaries were out on strike or got laid off? Hmmm? As if they are any different than the lobbyists who the moralists also denigrate. What makes those overpaid fatcats worth more than the minions they claim to represent? Oh...or do they claim that their work benefits SO many so they are entitled to more? The logic is great when you can quote it to support your own self interest...but suddenly it fails when they are talking about others! And while we are on lobbyists... Let's discuss that. What is their purpose? Well.2 things. One is to obtain special consideration in each years tax budget structure (in other words, tax breaks!) and to minimize the impact of regulatory intervention. Funny how the Libs universally oppose a flat tax where EVERYONE over about $50K pays a set rate. EVERYONE. That's you, me, and Exxon. Period. No corporate welfare and exhaustive deductions leading to large corporations and politicians and labor union bosses paying no tax. No deductions for that grandiose 2nd house in the DC suburbs that the politicians awarded themselves a raise to buy because property values were just so high - that then becomes their own personal appreciating asset that they are under no obligation to return once they leave office. (Seems to me they could live in a Congressional dorm while the Congress was in session until they have to actually go HOME. And how many actually do except for a photo op publicity fund raising tour? Heck, Al Gore didn't grow up in Tennessee!) And revenue actually increases. And what is the major secondary benefit. A major role of the lobbyist is eliminated. And the last 40 years of groups like Common Cause who talk a great moralistic game but whose goal has been totally ineffectual is achieved simply and easily. Swoosh. The lobbyists and the IRS have to get real jobs! Sounds good to me, despite the subsequent increase in unemployment. But don't ask where Big Labor is on that topic...You know, the one's who care about the little people, but who they themselves are no longer of... And Don't ask the position of the others who are so moralistic and claim to represent the 'little guy'! No! They are too busy enjoying rubbing elbows and living the life of the rich and powerful as they issue their diatribes extolling the virtues of the 'common man'. But listening to the NE equivalent of OJ talking about the rights of others is rather entertaining . But back to regular people... Remember them? Gee, say if someone makes a product that MANY people over a non-restricted geographical area will buy, versus say something I do that only benefits one other person in my neighborhood, why shouldn't they be entitled to make more? Are they bad? And does that make me entitled to the fruit of their efforts? But some here would lament the fact that some people's efforts are better compensated by virtue that MORE PEOPLE find value in their efforts And that has nothing to do with the amount of talent or education. Nor should it. I am tired of others sanctimoniously judging what the value of other's effort and labor is worth. The market decides, which is to say, you, me and everyone else decides by virtue of how we spend our money. And we spend it in a way that brings us the most satisfaction (as I cannot say it brings us the most value, or we wouldn't be spending it on expensive doodads instead of investing in wealth generating assets/investments!). But it is our choice, however flawed we may be. And I have been in a union, (several without choice actually), thank you. And I only wish that they ever asked me my opinion. But I have had it explained in no uncertain terms that if we spoke up at a meeting to disagree with a proposal that it would be at great risk to our physical integrity - IOW, our @sses. And I don't need anyone telling me what I am worth, be in politicians or some equally divorced union boss surrounded by his chauffeur and non-neck body guards. And if someone writes a book that millions want to read, or hits a ball that millions want to see in person and on TV, or designs a piece of electronic gear that millions want, or records a record that millions want to buy, or anything else that leverages the power of he non-linear market space, congrats to them. That makes them no better nor worse than anyone else. And it certainly does not entitle me nor anyone else to decide how much money they should be entitled to make - meaning of course, that we decide how much of their income that we self-righteously entitle ourselves! In that sense, the moralistic 'cure' is worse than the perceived disease.

Huh? Ok, I'll bite... The only 'rollerballs' of which I am familiar are computer mice and pens. What in the heck are rollerballs and (at the risk of falling out of my chair), what mystical improvement are they supposed to impart to the sound of the speakers? This isn't some radically new approach being marketed by the folks up at Esalen is it? (Hey, since Price died meditating when a boulder fell on him, they have had to reinvent themselves! HT accessories just might be the ticket!)

Curmudgeon alert!!!! At the risk of zigging when so many are zagging (as someone had to put those ideas into your head!), why not just put them in the corners???? Now I know(sic) that most worry more about aesthetics than the quality of the sound, but I simply don't see the dilemma here. And if you are worried about someone seeing the speakers when the lights are dimmed and the movie is playing, i would suggest the problem lies with those staring at the speakers instead of the screen, and I would think that it is easier to find more intelligent friends who can figure out where the picture is than to find better speakers. This reminds me of all the folks who are convinced that a LaScala is too tall to place a TV atop or above it and instead want to flip the M/H horns onto their side and radically change the polars for the 'much worse' orientation, and thus dramatically increasing the amount of acoustical energy directed towards, and reflected off, the floor and ceiling. And this early arriving first order reflections constitutes energy that must be absorbed or effectively diffused. In these cases the cure is much worse than the imagined problem...and it represents 'simply changing things in an effort to correct...well we aren't quite sure what we are correcting, but we are sure it needs correcting' at its best/worst.... Soffit mounting is possible for some speakers, but it is neither a trivial issue nor a matter of simply framing in a box! The speaker must be isolated from the surrounding wall in order to prevent energy transmission to the wall and to prevent the wall from becomeing a secondary radiative source; and the framed space acts as a tuned space that will adversely modify the response of the speaker as well as detrimentally coupling with the room. Again, such mounting can be done, but it is not trivial and not simply a matter of framing in an alcove... Additionally, for HT and mutlichannel use, I would focus on having 3 identical front speakers. If you don't trust me, I can dig out quotes from folks such as Russ Berger who insist that this is fundamental and it is observed in the multi quadrillion dollar mixing and mastering suites - despite so many feeling D'Appolitto inspired sideways mounted MTM configurations are best for center speakers - I guess because Best Buys features them.....And yes, I am being sarcastic. As it bothers me to see so many, in an attempt to do the right thing, fall victim to so many myths based upon some fancy picture that features more velvet and aesthetics than acoustical sense. The fundamentals are actually quite easy. Don't make them harder than they need be! {Oh, and to run off in one more tangent...I also get a perverse sense of enjoyment (as I cringe in horror/humor) watching a pending trainwreck as so many lust over some $3-5000 multichannel receiver when they could get a perfectly good front end processor /pre-amp for a fraction of the price and simply add 3-4 Crown Xtis amps for $1200-$1600 that will so totally exceed the puny integrated amps that all share the same puny power supply that cost twice what the Crown amps cost.} I guess the power of marketing is really that strong. If only ratonal thought were.... So please relax and focus on room treatment to maximize the acoustical properties of the room. You are already 2/3 of the way there with fine speakers and a dedicated room! Don't get sidetracked manufacturing problems with mediocre solutions. And if you still have some say in the room topology, PM me and I can suggest a few very simple mods that can make the room better and eliminate some of the necessary treatment by avoiding the problems from the outset rather than having to correct for them afterwards.

If i am not mistaken, HDMI is necessary for the XBox360 and the PS3 to dsplay 1080p in particular, but HDMI is not necessary for many upscaling DVD players to display the upscaled signal. I have a Pioneer upscaling DVD player that also plays DVD-A and SACD and it displays upscaled video via the component connection for 720p (which is what i watch). It also has HDMI. And since we are not dealing with 1080p here, HDMI, while convenient and smart to have for compatibility purposes, is not necessarily required. But then, going one step further, I cannot imagine too many upscaling DVD players that do not now have HDMI capabilities. In fact, I am not aware of any current models that lack this capability (although I suspect that a few exist...) Just make sure that the unit supports your resolution via the interface that supports your TV. Short of the Oppo OPDV981HD that uses the fine Faroudja deinterlacer/scaler up to 1080p and plays DVD-A and SACD. For the very small price difference between it and the 980 that lacks the Faroudia deinterlacer/scaler - for which you must spend 4-5 times more to get the same feature on Denon, it is well worth the small price diferential. I also like the Pioneer DV578AS that plays all formats of DVD-A and SACD and upscales as well for a fraction of the price and can be found for between ~$100 and $125.. There may be a newer model available.

Here is a diagram of an idealized crossover region. But hopefully it will help you to visualize the crossover function more easily. The overlapping slopes ('orders' which equal 6 dB/octave each) which 'decrease' in magnitude relative to a specified crossover 'corner' freq oriented about a specifiec crossover frequency according to design create a region where the two regions sum to a flat magnitude. What is not illustrated is the phase response which will only cooperate and allow for a simple summing if the two signals are in phase (aligned in the time domain). ...Hope that helps a bit...

It looks like it could be an very trendy Kleenex dispenser.

GM would do better to build cars more efficiently and charge less for them rather than assuming the role of charging more and redistributing our income for us as if they are better at deciding how our money should be spent than we are. Thanks GM. I have. That is why I support right to work and not forced membership in a self-perpetuating organization that comprises a mirror image of the 'evil' management structure they claim to oppose. If I need to be physically threatened against disagreeing with a 'party line', it will be from something other than an organization for whom we have no say as to whether we belong. The world would be better off without protection agencies like the Teamsters and the CWA.