raelalt


quality posts: 0 Private Messages raelalt
dbcooper wrote:AND, because it is the most malleable of metals (I think mercury and possibly lead may be more malleable), it also wears out faster. So if you connect and disconnect a lot (like in a patch bay application) gold connectors may not be your friend.


db



You are correct sir on both points, I was confusing malleability with ductility of which gold is both.

Ever had one of those days where you just felt like:
BadDay

*** 6/1/2007 Bollocks Of Cthulthu ***
Nyah, nyah, na-yah, nyah!

kreegah


quality posts: 7 Private Messages kreegah
treedweller wrote:Oh, sure, these will work, but to really get the best results you need to disassemble your electronics and solder them together directly. Then you build a lead-lined entertainment center to block any outside interference. Anyone who doesn't do this may as well go get a 1950's B&W TV and hook it up to rabbit ears. You just don't understand what it means to be a true technophile.



I....I think I love you.

Tim42


quality posts: 0 Private Messages Tim42

Darn you Woot! I saw the button bouncing and panicked. First impulse purchase I've made in weeks. I don't even have a use for these; guess I have two spares now.

Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.

jkane


quality posts: 2 Private Messages jkane
justin42 wrote:Wow, what in the world are you talking about? Please let us know the name of your store so we can steer our friends and family away from shopping there. There's no such thing as a 60hz source signal. It's defined by the HD resolution-- in frames per second. The amount of data your TV is getting has NOTHING to do with the refresh rate of the TV. If the HDMI cable is working, your TV is receiving 30 or 60 frames of data per second. (maybe 120 if it's doing 3D). The TV then does all the work converting that signal to whatever refresh rate the panel is working at.

If the TV wasn't getting enough data fast enough, your image would be breaking up. Period. It's not going to look smoother because you're running a "faster" cable.

http://www.tvlampsnbulbs.com/2009/03/what-does-600hz-subfield-motion-mean/

http://www.tvlampsnbulbs.com/2009/08/120hz-vs-600hz-which-is-better/



Huh? Methinks thou art mixing thy knowledge with bull refuse. The refresh rate of the display may not match the source? But every source signal has a refresh rate measured in hertz. It's the number of times per second the display 'draws' the screen. That may be less or more than the source signal.

Charter member-Blushing Over Compliments club

  • 9/28/2004 Bag O' carp II
  • 8/13/2004 Random carp

dalem589


quality posts: 0 Private Messages dalem589
bop13 wrote:I am a little ignorant in HDMI technology but when I bought my last cable I was told to look for Htz. some HDMI cables are only capable up to 60 Htz, some 120, and some are capable up to 240 Htz. Obviously the 240 Htz cable cost much more but my TV's refresh rate is 240 Htz, so does this mean that I have to have a cable that will carry this, and if so what Htz are these cables?


That specification is completely irrelevant to the capacity of the cables. It applies only to the TV refresh rate. It is only an internal TV spec, and you don't have to beconcerned about the cables being able to work with any specific refresh rate. Plasma TVs ALL and ALWAYS have had a 600mhz refresh rate.

stickywicket


quality posts: 0 Private Messages stickywicket
nmachen wrote:Shoot. Just bought four 10' yesterday on Monoprice for the same $$ as the woot offer. I could have had eight more feet!!



Lie down on the couch, Mr. Nmachen, and tell me about your desire to be an octopod.

kreegah


quality posts: 7 Private Messages kreegah
jkane wrote:Huh? Methinks thou art mixing thy knowledge with bull refuse. The refresh rate of the display may not match the source? But every source signal has a refresh rate measured in hertz. It's the number of times per second the display 'draws' the screen. That may be less or more than the source signal.



I think he's saying that though the display may be refreshing at 60/120/240Hz, that number is irrelevant to the Hz at which the source (say, Blu-Ray player or XB360) is transmitting its 1's and 0's over the HDMI cable, because the TV is just taking those packets of information and reassembling them to construct the images to be displayed...at it's display refresh rate Hz.

In other words, a Hz rating on HDMI cables is about as useful as headlight fluid and muffler bearings...Now, throughput and Gbps...

dalem589


quality posts: 0 Private Messages dalem589
justin42 wrote:Wow, what in the world are you talking about? Please let us know the name of your store so we can steer our friends and family away from shopping there. There's no such thing as a 60hz source signal. It's defined by the HD resolution-- in frames per second. The amount of data your TV is getting has NOTHING to do with the refresh rate of the TV. If the HDMI cable is working, your TV is receiving 30 or 60 frames of data per second. (maybe 120 if it's doing 3D). The TV then does all the work converting that signal to whatever refresh rate the panel is working at.

I have to agree- what are you talking about? Congrats tho, you did find a great way to pretend that the expensive cables are worth it, so that the retail stores can get more profit. Seriously, check the reviews on HDMI cables, and see that NO ONE disagrees with the statement that if the cables are made to the same standard they are equal at any price. Sure, some may have bigger outside diameter, or even better connectors. As long as they are rated for HDMI, and have gold plated connectors, price does not matter.

If the TV wasn't getting enough data fast enough, your image would be breaking up. Period. It's not going to look smoother because you're running a "faster" cable.

http://www.tvlampsnbulbs.com/2009/03/what-does-600hz-subfield-motion-mean/

http://www.tvlampsnbulbs.com/2009/08/120hz-vs-600hz-which-is-better/



justin42


quality posts: 14 Private Messages justin42
jkane wrote:Huh? Methinks thou art mixing thy knowledge with bull refuse. The refresh rate of the display may not match the source? But every source signal has a refresh rate measured in hertz. It's the number of times per second the display 'draws' the screen. That may be less or more than the source signal.



The message I was replying to was confusing field rate, and the refresh rate of the TV. I should have been more clear in my response.

For LCD/plasma, field rates are largely (entirely?) irrelevant as the 50/60hz was tied (in CRTs) to the refresh rate of the electron gun. But the refresh rate of the panel still exists. Nowadays, 50/60hz is kind of outdated and refers more to the frames-per-second of data that are being sent to the TV.

Data is not transferred in some magical 60hz "speed". It might be encoded at a 60-frames-per-second rate. But that rate has nothing to do with the refresh rate inside the TV, such as 120hz, or a 600hz plasma. A 600hz plasma is refreshing the pixels at that speed, but it's doing it from a 24, 30, 50 or 60frame-per-second signal (1080i60, etc).

A 600hz plasma can flash the pixels 10 times per frame for a more stable picture. But it doesn't need a 480hz cable to work because **the refresh rate happens inside the TV, after the data has already gone through the cable**.

It's not like a "240hz" cable is going to feed a "600hz" TV any better. The data gets to the TV, and the TV processes it.

kreegah


quality posts: 7 Private Messages kreegah
justin42 wrote:The message I was replying to was confusing field rate, and the refresh rate of the TV. I should have been more clear in my response.

For LCD/plasma, field rates are largely (entirely?) irrelevant as the 50/60hz was tied (in CRTs) to the refresh rate of the electron gun. But the refresh rate of the panel still exists. Nowadays, 50/60hz is kind of outdated and refers more to the frames-per-second of data that are being sent to the TV.

Data is not transferred in some magical 60hz "speed". It might be encoded at a 60-frames-per-second speed. But that rate has nothing to do with the refresh rate inside the TV, such as 120hz, or a 600hz plasma. a 600hz plasma is refreshing the pixels at that speed, but it's doing it from a 24, 30, 50 or 60frame-per-second signal (1080i60, etc).

A 600hz plasma can flash the pixels 10 times per frame for a more stable picture. But it doesn't need a 480hz cable to work because **the refresh rate happens inside the TV, after the data has already gone through the cable**.

It's not like a "240hz" cable is going to feed a "600hz" TV any better. The data gets to the TV, and the TV processes it.



Well, I was close-ish. :D

jeffamex63


quality posts: 3 Private Messages jeffamex63

I have a rock that repels tigers. It's made out of feldspar. I had the rock installed about 10 years ago by a local outfit for just under 10 grand and let me tell you I have not seen one tiger in my yard since.

Now I know what your thinking, that perhaps any regular rock would do the same thing. Or that you can order a rock off the Internet. Well let me tell you that you might be able to get schist or simple igneous lava to repel one or two tigers, but feldspar is really the way you want to go if you want to keep multiple tigers away. It's all about the bandwidth. Plus, if there's a problem with my rock I can go right back into the local outfit and they will make it right. That's important in my book.

You might get away with cheaper rocks, but you'll have to keep replacing them and they might not work right if they have to repel more than half a dozen tigers at the same time.

And why would you take a chance with tigers?

kreegah


quality posts: 7 Private Messages kreegah
jeffamex63 wrote:I have a rock that repels tigers. It's made out of feldspar. I had the rock installed about 10 years ago by a local outfit for just under 10 grand and let me tell you I have not seen one tiger in my yard since.

Now I know what your thinking, that perhaps any regular rock would do the same thing. Or that you can order a rock off the Internet. Well let me tell you that you might be able to get schist or simple igneous lava to repel one or two tigers, but feldspar is really the way you want to go if you want to keep multiple tigers away. It's all about the bandwidth. Plus, if there's a problem with my rock I can go right back into the local outfit and they will make it right. That's important in my book.

You might get away with cheaper rocks, but you'll have to keep replacing them and they might not work right if they have to repel more than half a dozen tigers at the same time.

And why would you take a chance with tigers?



You're too late. I already think I love someone else earlier in the convo. But if things don't work out, hey, you got a good shot.

kh99


quality posts: 8 Private Messages kh99
timmyd24601 wrote:... And also you get what you pay for, ...



I hate when people say this because it's not true - the saying should be "you rarely get more than you pay for" because you often get less if you're not smart about it.

michalmurphy


quality posts: 2 Private Messages michalmurphy
chaospearl wrote:I've always wondered about the "quality" thing when it comes to HDMI cables...



Yes, of course there is no signal degradation because the signal is *digital*. There is no wave/frequency transmitting through the cords so there is nothing that can be decreased or distorted, assuming that the cable is intact through the whole length.

So-called High Quality hdmi cables are a scam. Every hdmi cable will work exactly the same as every other, assuming that the connections are good and the innards are not broken anywhere. The most likely spot for a bad signal would be at the connections if they are not seated well, and even that would not result in 'degradation' but in a total or intermittent loss of the audio, video, or both, which would be very obvious to notice.

Technophiles can rave about cheap vs. quality hdmi cords but the fact is you will never notice a difference as long as the connection is made and maintained.

thomesandy


quality posts: 0 Private Messages thomesandy
Cameraman wrote:Last time I bought HDMI cables from here, the first one I opened had faulty wiring straight out of the packaging. Thanks, woot!



It's not like Woot manufactures them. They get them from whatever company and send then straight to you. Blame Memorex or Dynex or whoever.

richrmg


quality posts: 0 Private Messages richrmg

sold out just go to monoprice.com same price for hdmi cables

toby4408


quality posts: 0 Private Messages toby4408
NightGhost wrote:Yes, Texas charges sales tax on shipping of taxable goods.

Texas Sales Tax
Frequently Asked Questions
Sales Tax Collection



Thank you

8ate8


quality posts: 0 Private Messages 8ate8
michalmurphy wrote:Yes, of course there is no signal degradation because the signal is *digital*. There is no wave/frequency transmitting through the cords so there is nothing that can be decreased or distorted,



Exactly, because there's just a bunch of 1's and 0's putting on their jogging suits running inside the wire....

*rolls eyes*


kreegah


quality posts: 7 Private Messages kreegah
8ate8 wrote:Exactly, because there's just a bunch of 1's and 0's putting on their jogging suits running inside the wire....

*rolls eyes*



Well, in the sense that the signal is either "on" or "off" there is no loss of signal. However, the "on" signal degrading to the tripping point where it is no longer considered of a db level to be considered an "on" anymore is possible, of course. For the lengths we're talking about, that's seldom a possibility, unless you buy the cable from "Mamorex" or "Manster" or "Dienex" or something.

mikes123


quality posts: 1 Private Messages mikes123
dalem589 wrote:Plasma TVs ALL and ALWAYS have had a 600mhz refresh rate.

Wow. 600 milliHertz is really, really slow. And 600 MHz would be really, really fast. ITYM 600 Hz.

jwcarlson


quality posts: 0 Private Messages jwcarlson
sssprinkle wrote:Here's an excellent article on HDMI vs. Component video without the personal animosity evidenced in some earlier posts...

http://forum.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/34579/122868.html



Great take on cables... from 2005.
Literally 6 years ago. HDMI was only 3 years old when that artical was written.


Sigh...
Anyone thinking they can see the difference in picture quality between their $100 12 foot cable and anyone buying today's Woot is on something.

inked281


quality posts: 0 Private Messages inked281

you can use these as a tool an assassin might use

nbjeter3


quality posts: 0 Private Messages nbjeter3
albuquerquemat wrote:So what goes wrong with a cable over time? The way I would use these cables would probably not involve a lot of moving around and repeated flexing and unplugging.



Well I mean if your swinging from them on a tire swing, you want the $99 cables right? Cuz then you'd get a lot more swinging time!!

jaamzw


quality posts: 5 Private Messages jaamzw
DDorrell86 wrote:I was looking for a cheap 12 foot one just a couple days ago and the cheapest one they had at best buy near me was $99.99. This is a fantastic buy if you're wanting to condense audio and hi def video into one cable. However if your hooking up a 10 grand entertainment system, cough up the money and get some higher end cables... you'll be glad you did.



that is so Jatravartid to advise people to spend any more than they need to on cables. the signal is digital, meaning 1/0, on or off. it either works or does not work...never works, but not as good. the only advantages a quality cable might have over a cheap cable is its insulation, so its thicker and wont get crimped as easily, but thats avoidable by not being an human and exposing it to that hazard. and the ends might be built stronger, again avoidable by not tugging on them while plugged in or moving things around while plugged in.

BeckyZ


quality posts: 0 Private Messages BeckyZ
jeffamex63 wrote:I have a rock that repels tigers. It's made out of feldspar. I had the rock installed about 10 years ago by a local outfit for just under 10 grand and let me tell you I have not seen one tiger in my yard since.

Now I know what your thinking, that perhaps any regular rock would do the same thing. Or that you can order a rock off the Internet. Well let me tell you that you might be able to get schist or simple igneous lava to repel one or two tigers, but feldspar is really the way you want to go if you want to keep multiple tigers away. It's all about the bandwidth. Plus, if there's a problem with my rock I can go right back into the local outfit and they will make it right. That's important in my book.

You might get away with cheaper rocks, but you'll have to keep replacing them and they might not work right if they have to repel more than half a dozen tigers at the same time.

And why would you take a chance with tigers?



Nice mini you got there Sir - You RAFreak!

kawooda1


quality posts: 0 Private Messages kawooda1

You can get these for a great price over a monoprice.com; They've got good deals on all kinds of cables, in case this sold out before you got a chance to see them.

johnsonium


quality posts: 6 Private Messages johnsonium
jmo05001 wrote:Disagree with your argument regarding fuel . High performance engines (Merc, BMW) are tuned for high octane. Although they will detune automatically for lower-octane, you are better off running them as specified. Running the engine outside it's manufacturer-designated parameters will put undue stress on the engine over time. I'm not saying that it will ruin your engine...but high octane fuel is not a scam...

that being said...buy cheap hdmi cables, and if you can't afford high octane fuel, buy regular gas until you can sell your car.



I didn't say anything about 'high performance engines'. Obviously, you should run the octane that is recommended by the manufacturer. However, the vast majority of cars on the road will see no difference in performance by using high octane gas. None. They are made for 87 octane. Using higher-octane gas is akin to flushing $20 bills down a toilet.

The point, reiterated, is that a smart person will spend more money were it counts and none where it doesn't. Now, there are video/audiophiles that will pay $10,000 for a cable simply for the bragging rights amongst their AV enthusiast friends. Those kinds of folks deserved to be ripped off I guess.

johnsonium


quality posts: 6 Private Messages johnsonium
garbyrator wrote:Damn, you beat me to it, love it when people that don't understand compression ratio and volatility of gasoline claim that higher octane gas is a rip off.

But agreed, cheap cables for the win.


It is a ripoff for normal cars. Cars that are tuned for 87 octane will see no performance improvement with higher octane gas. The only exception is if the car is old and has predetonation.

johnsonium


quality posts: 6 Private Messages johnsonium
kreegah wrote:My point is, the signaling of the HDMI cable generally has nothing to do with the refresh rate of the television...I'm sure an expert (or cable salesman) will beg to differ if I'm wrong.



I'm not an expert, just a home theater enthusiast. You are 100% correct. There are no chips in an HDMI cable. It's simply wires with shielding and a connector on each end. The refresh rate of the TV is provided after the signal gets to it. It has nothing to do with the cable, though it wouldn't surprise me if cable salesman would tried to confuse someone in that way.

To my knowledge, the actual signal going over an HDMI cable is going to represent only a few different refresh rates (NTSC): 24p, 60i, 60p, and 120p (for 3D,60p x2). After the signal gets to the TV, it will be converted to the native refresh rate of the TV, either down or up depending on the rate involved.

The key stat is bandwidth. Each HDTV format has a different bit rate, with 1080p 60fps 3D consuming the most at the moment. As has been said before, high-speed cables is all you should need and you can probably get away with low-speed ones. The rating of HDMI cables is just that; a rating. It's very conservative. Does anybody remember how Intel used to rate their chips even though with overclocking they could run much faster? It's kind of similar concept.

My recommendation is to use the cheapest cable you can find that results in satisfactory performance. Unlike analog, you'll definitely notice any possible degradation as you'll lose the signal entirely, so there's no risk of substandard performance that you don't notice due to lack of a comparison.

johnsonium


quality posts: 6 Private Messages johnsonium
overdoer wrote:As a brick & mortar guy, I'll openly tell people that most will not "see" a difference between cheap & expensive cables. That said, I'd rather have the 240/480 hz cables if I can afford them. Yes, the audioholics site does a great job debunking myths about HDMI cables, but it makes one mistake: the "hertz" rating has nothing to do with bandwith. Bandwidth just determines how much information can be contained per packet, not per second. Faster HDMI cables--10.2 gbps, 14.3 gbps, up to 17.8 gbps--move these packets along faster, hence the increased frame rate capabilities. Yes, the device only provides a 60hz signal, but if the TV can't pull those packets faster than 60hz, all you will see is a 60hz picture. If you have a 600hz plasma, your "ideal" cable is something rated 240/480hz at the moment. That said, most people will not be able to tell the difference. Resolution, color, brightness, hue, saturation - no difference (thank you digital signal). Motion will be the biggest difference...you'll have slightly less blur on fast-moving scenes, and less "perceived" lag in video games with higher rated cables. Is Monster expensive? Of course. Is it worth it? Not unless you're super picky and don't feel like shopping around. Result? If you're shopping here on Woot anyways - buy these cables, duh. If you come talk to me in a brick & mortar store, I'll tell you which cables are technically superior. The choice is yours.



There are so many factual errors in the post, I barely know where to begin.

1. HDMI cables do not have a refresh rate. So your reference to 240/480hz cables is meaningless

2. You are right, the "hertz" rating doesn't have to do with bandwidth because there is no such thing as a hertz rating for HDMI cables.

3. Bandwidth is all about bit/bytes per second. You are completely wrong here.

4. The cables don't move anything. They are conveyances for electrons, just like any other wire. They are passive. It's the speed of the switching circuitry, both input and output that matters. Higher-speed capability would only matter if the bandwidth of your signal exceeded the practical capacity of the wire. Current HDTV standards, even with 3D do not approach this.

5. A bad HDMI cable would have no effect on motion blur. This is just horribly wrong. A bad cable would have the signal drop, not slow down.

6. Your reference to a 600hz plasma takes the cake. The 600hz rating of plasma devices is marketing trick to try to compete stat for stat with LCD's increasing frame rate (which is silly because plasma doesn't need a super high refresh rate). It's not a true 600hz refresh rate. In addition, even if it were (like it is in LCD), the processing would all take place in the TV itself long after the cable has terminated. Once again, there are only a handful of refresh rates that will travel over a HDMI cable using current NTSC sources: 24P, 60P, 60P, 120P. Take the size of one 1920x1080 frame, multiply it by 120 and add some extra for audio and that is all the bandwidth you need for the highest demand signal currently available.

7. I hope nobody walks in to your store and asks your advice. You don't know what you are talking about. My experience with big box store clerks is that they very rarely know anything about home theater. I spend a lot of time correcting misinformation they've told my family and friends. You and your coworkers' ignorance has cost me a lot of time.

johnsonium


quality posts: 6 Private Messages johnsonium
bop13 wrote:Thanks for the info. That said, I think I will buy these for my cable box and game console, and get the 240/480 for my blu ray player. Let me know if you think this is mixed up.



Ugh. Don't listen to that guy. He doesn't know a thing about home theater. Get cheap cables for both.

johnsonium


quality posts: 6 Private Messages johnsonium
akronharry wrote:I'm sorry but my Monster Cables work great. While I spent some money on them I know I am getting top notch quality from a great company!!! I would rather spend the money up front now then keep buying inferior cables!



Um. You go right ahead and line some fat cat's wallet all because of good marketing. A sucker is born every minute.

jwcarlson


quality posts: 0 Private Messages jwcarlson
johnsonium wrote:Um. You go right ahead and line some fat cat's wallet all because of good marketing. A sucker is born every minute.



Two suckers overpay for something every minute.

johnsonium


quality posts: 6 Private Messages johnsonium
kpk021 wrote:Yes and no. Digital signals are sent over these cables in an analog form. Interference and signal degradation can still play a role. Yes it's digital at both ends, but you can still run into problems if the signal gets messed up enough to cause issues with that signal level is considered on or off (1 or 0). Otherwise, HDMI cable length limitations wouldn't vary so greatly depending on cable conductor (28 awg vs 24 awg, etc.).

With that said, I haven't read up on any studies to know what the real world differences in performance are (if any) between the various cable sources and quality. So for the majority of purposes, the money saved on cheap cables might well be worth it. And obviously running out to Best Buy to buy a $90 HDMI cable is never worthwhile.



This sentence:

Digital signals are sent over these cables in an analog form.

..will simply mislead more people. I'm assuming you are talking about how a digital signal is effectively encoded on an analog signal? Well, all digital signals are sent this way. This isn't something relegated to HDMI. The reason that digital is less prone to interference is twofold:

1. Error correcting protocols. If some bits are lost they can be reconstructed up to a point.

2. Quality of the signal output is not tied to the signal strength in a linear fashion.

Regarding 2, consider a conventional TV with rabbit ears. As I move the rabbit ears, I'm changing their ability to pick up a given frequency. In one position I may have a strong picture and in another position I could have snow and ghosts. Because it is an analog signal, there are an infinite number of gradations of signal quality between no signal at all and the highest signal possible. Between the two, the quality of the picture will also change in a linear fashion.

In the digital world it doesn't work like this. The signal is really a bunch of 1's and 0's. Consider picking up a digital channel over the air today using a UHF antenna. As you move that antenna, your signal from the source transmitter will vary in a similar fashion as the analog example above. However, as you move the antenna away from the perfect position, the picture and sound will not degrade at all until you've moved the antenna to a position where the signal is so poor bits are dropped and aren't able to be recovered by the error correcting mechanism. At this point, your picture and sound will stutter, freeze or dropout altogether. There will be no ghosts, snow or other intermediary visual or audio degradation.

Let's say for argument the following signal strength readings were taken in analog:

Position 1. 100
Position 2. 85
Position 3. 60
Position 4. 45
Position 5. 20

At position 2, you might start seeing snow on the picture. At position 3, the vertical sync starts to go and the screen rolls intermittently. At position 4, there's barely a discernible picture at all. At position 5, there's just snow.

Now consider digital. At position 2 you still get a perfect picture and sound. At position 3, there's enough bits along with error correction that you still have a perfect picture. At position 4, you start to notice occasional stuttering and freezes. At position 5, there is no signal at all.

Signals traveling through a wire act the same way. There are many forces at work that can attenuate a signal over a wire. Mainly there's resistance/impedance (length of cable, material and guage) and interference (shielding). The analog signal quality will go down in a linear, analog fashion with as the amount of attenuation occurs. The analog receiving circuitry cannot replace missing information. It's gone for good. In the digital realm, all the receiving circuitry has to do is faithfully reproduce the bit stream. If the attenuation is not enough to drop enough bits to prevent the receiving chips from receiving the entire stream, the signal will continue on in a perfect state, bit for bit the same as the original.

This is the beauty of digital, and it's why you can get away with cheaper cables when dealing with digital signals.

Sorry for going all Cliff Claven on you guys.

jaamzw


quality posts: 5 Private Messages jaamzw
timmyd24601 wrote:HDMI can not beat a nice set of component video cables...



that is just Jatravartid EVERY hdmi cable can beat any set of component video cables. just set your monitor to 1080p and see the difference. the component will not be able to improve over 720p/1080i.

unksol


quality posts: 13 Private Messages unksol
Tim42 wrote:Darn you Woot! I saw the button bouncing and panicked. First impulse purchase I've made in weeks. I don't even have a use for these; guess I have two spares now.



Sell them to me :D. I was totally up till 1 AM last night for work, and I cannot believe I forgot to woot. I remember thiniking it at 1230 before they switched products. "Must... get... off.... couch... at 1..... for..... wooooootttttttt...."

Just remebered now, no HDMI cables for me

I got the 25ft $80 philips cables off woot for $9 last month, but i really need some shorter ones since woot suckered me in with that 47 inch vizio

garbyrator


quality posts: 2 Private Messages garbyrator
jeffamex63 wrote:I have a rock that repels tigers. It's made out of feldspar. I had the rock installed about 10 years ago by a local outfit for just under 10 grand and let me tell you I have not seen one tiger in my yard since.

Now I know what your thinking, that perhaps any regular rock would do the same thing. Or that you can order a rock off the Internet. Well let me tell you that you might be able to get schist or simple igneous lava to repel one or two tigers, but feldspar is really the way you want to go if you want to keep multiple tigers away. It's all about the bandwidth. Plus, if there's a problem with my rock I can go right back into the local outfit and they will make it right. That's important in my book.

You might get away with cheaper rocks, but you'll have to keep replacing them and they might not work right if they have to repel more than half a dozen tigers at the same time.

And why would you take a chance with tigers?



I've been looking for a good tiger propelling rock, so you'd recommend the feldspar one? I'm rampant with Tigers.

garbyrator


quality posts: 2 Private Messages garbyrator
johnsonium wrote:It is a ripoff for normal cars. Cars that are tuned for 87 octane will see no performance improvement with higher octane gas. The only exception is if the car is old and has predetonation.



Yes, you are correct, for a car tuned for 87 will run great with 87 and wasteful for anything higher (however, gasoline providers to tend to put more cleaning agents in their higher grades, but you really don't need them.) The problem I have with your argument is that there is a place where high octane gas comes into play, i.e performance engines. Under your argument, performance AV equipment could mean that you need expensive cables, which I think the majority here would agree that you DON'T.

Don't mind me, I'm just messing with you now.

wootdustin


quality posts: 0 Private Messages wootdustin
jfield1 wrote:These would go great as backups for my Monsters! In for 1!



Monster?...you are a fool

unksol


quality posts: 13 Private Messages unksol
johnsonium wrote:Um. You go right ahead and line some fat cat's wallet all because of good marketing. A sucker is born every minute.



johnsonium, for some reason you stack of posts right at the end initialy annoyed me. I dont know why. I am pretty tired though and its been a long day....

But I mustered the strength to read and I salute you for correcting the... well... just plain wrong ramblings of so many.

And I do mean wrong. Really wrong. I mean.... I feel bad for these people. Really I do. I'll probably have nightmares about the direction america is heading tonight now.