Actually, it was the opposite I was concerned about. If I had a Lossless file that match could not find because it was tagged wrong which then caused me to have to upload the lossless file. If match finds the songs, then no bandwidth or time is used, but if not, then I end up uploading a lossless file to the cloud then then have to download it to my device. And I don't really want lossless on my iPhone or iPod.
I've observed iTunes Match uploading music from an all lossless library. Given the short period of time involved and a load average for the process near 100%, my guess is that iTunes converts lossless files on the fly to 256K for storage in the cloud (retaining the lossless file, of course).
Quote:
I like the general idea of match, because on my main machine I have most of my music in lossless. but on my MBP, iPhone, and iPod it is all 256k AAC.
My master library is entirely lossless except for a few iTunes purchases. I use the available iTunes option to down convert music to 128K for syncing to iDevices. I can store double the tunes that way and the conversion from lossless to 128K should yield a more accurate result than converting from 256K to 128K.
The heck?! I'm no fanboy. I'm not even an evangelist anymore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN
The "Ignore List" in the "User Control Panel" does wonders for me.
Yep, let's just ignore that $14 trillion deficit. That'll make everything better. Pretending a problem doesn't exist certainly does wonders for the quality of everything around said problem.
Actually, that's pretty dang hilarious… and ironic. He'll never know why he's completely and utterly wrong about using the Ignore List because I'm on his.
You take yourself much too seriously. The only reason things were civil around here the last month was because 3 out of every 4 threads dealt with Steve Jobs' death and I held back from my usual whorish trolling out of a pretense of respect. Move on.
Much as I love taking advice from the likes of you, I had to fix up your post a little. Hoping you will be moved on soon.
Edit: the recent deterioration I was talking about started when you and the other miscreant joined in September under your new identities.
Either spelling is correct, actually . . . just saying . . .
Actually, chomping is wrong. People have misused it to the point where they believe it is right... but, it's wrong. Champing is right... just saying...
"Champing at the bit (or mistakenly as chomping at the bit or chafing at the bit) refers to a tendency of some horses, when impatient or nervous, and especially if being held back by their riders, to chew on the bit, often salivating excessively."
"Champing" is the original form -- it is still currently endorsed as the only correct form by the Associated Press and others; "chomping" may be considered "correct" now because of its over-misuse. Just like "ain't" is now in the dictionary -- just because it's been adopted on account of frequent use/misuse -- doesn't necessarily vouch for its correctness. If you say "chomping" to more learned communities or members of the media, be prepared for some criticism. While you're are it, better throw in "between you and I" just to seal the deal. (Please note: that's called "sarcasm"; the correct form is "between you and me.")"
Your response has taken the wrong tact and has disorientated me. Irregardless, your point is mute and you're going to have a long road to toe before you convince me!. Your misuse of the language is a tapestry of justice!
Seriously though, your saying chomping is wrong and champing is right does not make it so (nor even the prestigious WikiAnswers or the AP.) The later word (which has been in use for at least 200 years) hasn't emerged via ignorance or error, but through evolution and choice. They are two variations on the same etymological root like color and colour or favor and favour. Not anything like the error of subject object disagreement you cite (nor the common, ignorant misuses I opened with.) Simply put, insisting that one is right and the other wrong is slavishly simpleminded, or possibly tragically psychologically inflexible. Why not insist that the k in knight should be pronounced, as it was in Chaucer's time?
[But nonetheless, I appreciate and salute your care in using language, as only one brother grammar Nazi can (chomping actually bothers me too, since it's not traditional with that phrase.)]
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit
Actually, chomping is wrong. People have misused it to the point where they believe it is right... but, it's wrong. Champing is right... just saying...
"Champing at the bit (or mistakenly as chomping at the bit or chafing at the bit) refers to a tendency of some horses, when impatient or nervous, and especially if being held back by their riders, to chew on the bit, often salivating excessively."
"Champing" is the original form -- it is still currently endorsed as the only correct form by the Associated Press and others; "chomping" may be considered "correct" now because of its over-misuse. Just like "ain't" is now in the dictionary -- just because it's been adopted on account of frequent use/misuse -- doesn't necessarily vouch for its correctness. If you say "chomping" to more learned communities or members of the media, be prepared for some criticism. While you're are it, better throw in "between you and I" just to seal the deal. (Please note: that's called "sarcasm"; the correct form is "between you and me.")"
Much as I love taking advice from the likes of you, I had to fix up your post a little. Hoping you will be moved on soon.
Edit: the recent deterioration I was talking about started when you and the other miscreant joined in September under your new identities.
I just love the way you've been pleading with everyone on here to put me on your ignore list yet you continue to try to taunt me because you know I speak the truth and it hurts you so.
Poor thing.
And no- contrary to your paranoia I'm not a changeling. Or a troll. Or whatever other idiotic name you can concoct.
This delay doesn't matter to me and IMO many others like me.
Why? Because I will not upgrade to iCloud from MobileMe until Apple allows MobileMe customers (many older ones from .Mac) a way to merge the AppleIDs that were created by Apple during the .Mac to MobileMe transition.
I just lately found out I have a third AppleID ([email protected]). I now have 3 AppleIDs that need to be merged before I can fully use any of Apple's cloud services.
This third AppleID is really puzzling because it only has just appeared with iCal calendar syncing this week. It seems that the Push services are getting confused with .Mac and .Me as aliases when that never was a problem before Apple started with everything being in the cloud for iOS 5. It also appears that now all my software purchases at the Mac App Store are under the AppleId [email protected]. I don't know why because they were alway under [email protected] before and I never consciously used that [email protected] as an AppleID at the Mac App Store, or anywhere else. It didn't exist before this iCloud push.
I'm not going to register for iTunes Match or iCloud until they allow me to merge these IDs that all have the same member name and is tied to my email address at MobileMe. I won't upgrade to Lion for the same reason and until they work out the bugs in Lion.
OK. I did a little searching and found some things about ITM that are a little disappointing.
1. ALL music in your library is automatically included in the match. If iTunes identifies it correctly it associates it with a 256k version already stored on Apple's servers. If not, it copies the file as it is to the cloud (I imagine that would be true even of lossless). It appears that for many developers it is only matching a small percentage of their libraries. but again, if it is in your library it gets added, one way or the other.
2. There is no way to delete from the cloud. Example: I have the spooky halloween sounds tracks in my library so that I can burn a CD. I forgot to delete it before scanning. Now it is in my cloud library forever. (this might change, but that's how it is now)
3. Combining 1 and 2 gives you some crappy experiences. Example: I have an album that is on the iTunes store, but I have it tagged wrong so it doesn't get matched. That means my version gets copied. I fix the tags and rescan. Now it matches, but doesn't delete my old one, so now I have the album listed twice. And I can't tell which is which until I download it.
Looking around the Internet I see that there are still LOTS of issues where things either aren't working right, or the design at present is frustrating users. So, I'm guessing that Apple got lots of feedback from developers who don't like some things about the service in addition to bugs. I may actually hold off now seeing how it is implemented.
Thanks for this post, this has me re-thinking whether to use iTunes Match or not. I was hoping you could keep your master library on your computer and when you do a rescan, it would update any changes since the last scan. So if you remove an album, it would remove it from the match. I wouldn't necessarily need to have matched albums removed but in your example, if the match wasn't done initially but is done later because of a tag/rip error, i would want the non-matched copy removed.
Ideally, I would like to see which albums are matched after the initial scan and then be given a choice whether to upload the non-matched ones or not. If we had this option, we could then examine the albums that didn't get matched, try to correct them, and then right click the fixed album(s) and click Match to try again. Looking at the videos of how iTunes match works, it doesn't appear possible. The only way to know if they were matched or not to my knowledge is to re-download them and check the bitrate. I love the simplicity of Apple but in this case, I think we need more options.
Though I was looking forward to ITM and bummed that it hasn't been released on schedule, I'm glad that Apple didn't release it if it's not ready for prime time yet. This is a major project so that's certainly understandable. It would be nice to hear from Apple though as to why the delay happened, i.e. bugs, new features, etc.
That doesn't quite answer it though. What's to prevent you from saving the 30'' preview from Amazon or iTunes, looping it so that the song duration matches (+/- 1 sec), re-sampling to 44.1 KHz, compressing at 128kbps, and updating the album info in the MP3 tags from an internet database (all of this via a script, of course).
Oh, I know: because it would be easier (and just as illegal) to torrent the mp3s.
nothing in the beta prevented this.
that is why i think the delay occured. i put about 40 GB of music into the Music Match cloud and none of it was from iTunes..... about 30 GB of it was matched. 10 GB was not and was just uploaded.
OK. I did a little searching and found some things about ITM that are a little disappointing.
1. ALL music in your library is automatically included in the match. If iTunes identifies it correctly it associates it with a 256k version already stored on Apple's servers. If not, it copies the file as it is to the cloud (I imagine that would be true even of lossless).
ISTM that downgrading files to 256k is a bad idea.
These days, the minimum I even consider is 320k .mp3s, unless I am dealing with some kind of obscure, hard to find material.
I'm kind of surprised that such a low bitrate was chosen by Apple. But then again, 256k is likely "good enough" for Apple's intended customer base, who are content to listen through mediocre DACs using the poor quality headphones supplied by Apple.
Among the Apple crowd, my guess is that the puck is still headed upwards, towards 256k, but customers of other corporations have gone well beyond that. Good quality audio, however, is not something that most Grandmothers find important, and so, I doubt that Apple will go beyond mediocre WRT audio.
OK. I did a little searching and found some things about ITM that are a little disappointing.
1. ALL music in your library is automatically included in the match. If iTunes identifies it correctly it associates it with a 256k version already stored on Apple's servers. If not, it copies the file as it is to the cloud (I imagine that would be true even of lossless). It appears that for many developers it is only matching a small percentage of their libraries. but again, if it is in your library it gets added, one way or the other.
2. There is no way to delete from the cloud. Example: I have the spooky halloween sounds tracks in my library so that I can burn a CD. I forgot to delete it before scanning. Now it is in my cloud library forever. (this might change, but that's how it is now)
3. Combining 1 and 2 gives you some crappy experiences. Example: I have an album that is on the iTunes store, but I have it tagged wrong so it doesn't get matched. That means my version gets copied. I fix the tags and rescan. Now it matches, but doesn't delete my old one, so now I have the album listed twice. And I can't tell which is which until I download it.
These are a big deal for me. Also, while ratings and metadata are supported, lyrics are not. And when Match is enabled for mobile devices, they can no longer sync music. Instead of copying your files from your local hard drive, they have to download from apple's servers over and over every time they are copied to the device. Potentially much slower and a big waste of bandwidth, and it gives no option to have higher bitrate files copied to the device if that's what you want.
Overall I'm really excited about the service but it sounds like there are still some significant bugs and some bad design decisions. Hopefully those will be fixed before release, if they're working on those I'm fine with a delay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe
ISTM that downgrading files to 256k is a bad idea.
Match doesn't downgrade the files on your machine, it just supplies 256k files when you sync from the cloud (as opposed to uploading every other bitrate that users have).
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe
These days, the minimum I even consider is 320k .mp3s
Bad choice of format. If you really care about quality, AAC is better at the same bitrate. Honestly, I doubt you'd be able to pick out the difference between AAC 256 and mp3 320 in a blind listening test. Most people wouldn't consider 256 AAC to be "low", and who out there is selling at bitrates higher than that?
Bad choice of format. If you really care about quality, AAC is better at the same bitrate. Honestly, I doubt you'd be able to pick out the difference between AAC 256 and mp3 320 in a blind listening test. Most people wouldn't consider 256 AAC to be "low", and who out there is selling at bitrates higher than that?
LAME encoded MP3s are fantastic, but so are AAC files. And that's not relevant, anyway. AAC 256 files are fantastic and people who get overly hung up on differences between 320 and 256 in this context could probably stand to step back and relax just a bit. And even if they can tell a difference (I certainly haven't been able to pick out differences which really matter to me and I both love music and have great audio equipment) they can handle that small 'sacrifice' to enjoy their music from the cloud. Although I suppose it's all relative. Somewhere, someone is upset that they can't access their FLAC-encoded music through iTunes Match.
The heck?! I'm no fanboy. I'm not even an evangelist anymore.
Yep, let's just ignore that $14 trillion deficit. That'll make everything better. Pretending a problem doesn't exist certainly does wonders for the quality of everything around said problem.
Actually, that's pretty dang hilarious? and ironic. He'll never know why he's completely and utterly wrong about using the Ignore List because I'm on his.
Comments
Actually, it was the opposite I was concerned about. If I had a Lossless file that match could not find because it was tagged wrong which then caused me to have to upload the lossless file. If match finds the songs, then no bandwidth or time is used, but if not, then I end up uploading a lossless file to the cloud then then have to download it to my device. And I don't really want lossless on my iPhone or iPod.
I've observed iTunes Match uploading music from an all lossless library. Given the short period of time involved and a load average for the process near 100%, my guess is that iTunes converts lossless files on the fly to 256K for storage in the cloud (retaining the lossless file, of course).
I like the general idea of match, because on my main machine I have most of my music in lossless. but on my MBP, iPhone, and iPod it is all 256k AAC.
My master library is entirely lossless except for a few iTunes purchases. I use the available iTunes option to down convert music to 128K for syncing to iDevices. I can store double the tunes that way and the conversion from lossless to 128K should yield a more accurate result than converting from 256K to 128K.
For every iKol there's a Tallest Skil....
The heck?! I'm no fanboy. I'm not even an evangelist anymore.
The "Ignore List" in the "User Control Panel" does wonders for me.
Yep, let's just ignore that $14 trillion deficit. That'll make everything better. Pretending a problem doesn't exist certainly does wonders for the quality of everything around said problem.
Actually, that's pretty dang hilarious… and ironic. He'll never know why he's completely and utterly wrong about using the Ignore List because I'm on his.
You take yourself much too seriously. The only reason things were civil around here the last month was because 3 out of every 4 threads dealt with Steve Jobs' death and I held back from my usual whorish trolling out of a pretense of respect. Move on.
Much as I love taking advice from the likes of you, I had to fix up your post a little. Hoping you will be moved on soon.
Edit: the recent deterioration I was talking about started when you and the other miscreant joined in September under your new identities.
Either spelling is correct, actually . . . just saying . . .
Actually, chomping is wrong. People have misused it to the point where they believe it is right... but, it's wrong. Champing is right... just saying...
"Champing at the bit (or mistakenly as chomping at the bit or chafing at the bit) refers to a tendency of some horses, when impatient or nervous, and especially if being held back by their riders, to chew on the bit, often salivating excessively."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit_%28horse%29
"Champing" is the original form -- it is still currently endorsed as the only correct form by the Associated Press and others; "chomping" may be considered "correct" now because of its over-misuse. Just like "ain't" is now in the dictionary -- just because it's been adopted on account of frequent use/misuse -- doesn't necessarily vouch for its correctness. If you say "chomping" to more learned communities or members of the media, be prepared for some criticism. While you're are it, better throw in "between you and I" just to seal the deal. (Please note: that's called "sarcasm"; the correct form is "between you and me.")"
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/I_hear_peo...e_both_correct
[But nonetheless, I appreciate and salute your care in using language, as only one brother grammar Nazi can (chomping actually bothers me too, since it's not traditional with that phrase.)]
Actually, chomping is wrong. People have misused it to the point where they believe it is right... but, it's wrong. Champing is right... just saying...
"Champing at the bit (or mistakenly as chomping at the bit or chafing at the bit) refers to a tendency of some horses, when impatient or nervous, and especially if being held back by their riders, to chew on the bit, often salivating excessively."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit_%28horse%29
"Champing" is the original form -- it is still currently endorsed as the only correct form by the Associated Press and others; "chomping" may be considered "correct" now because of its over-misuse. Just like "ain't" is now in the dictionary -- just because it's been adopted on account of frequent use/misuse -- doesn't necessarily vouch for its correctness. If you say "chomping" to more learned communities or members of the media, be prepared for some criticism. While you're are it, better throw in "between you and I" just to seal the deal. (Please note: that's called "sarcasm"; the correct form is "between you and me.")"
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/I_hear_peo...e_both_correct
Much as I love taking advice from the likes of you, I had to fix up your post a little. Hoping you will be moved on soon.
Edit: the recent deterioration I was talking about started when you and the other miscreant joined in September under your new identities.
I just love the way you've been pleading with everyone on here to put me on your ignore list yet you continue to try to taunt me because you know I speak the truth and it hurts you so.
Poor thing.
And no- contrary to your paranoia I'm not a changeling. Or a troll. Or whatever other idiotic name you can concoct.
Do you really think that after the delay, they will do it perfectly? Doubtful.
Maybe not prefect (fooling to expect that), but most importantly, not awful.
Also, so freaking what? Just about every other product has been delayed before, big deal.
Has no reflection of Cook what so ever
Why? Because I will not upgrade to iCloud from MobileMe until Apple allows MobileMe customers (many older ones from .Mac) a way to merge the AppleIDs that were created by Apple during the .Mac to MobileMe transition.
I just lately found out I have a third AppleID ([email protected]). I now have 3 AppleIDs that need to be merged before I can fully use any of Apple's cloud services.
1. At iTunes it's xxx
2. At MobileMe it's [email protected]
3. At (who knows where) it's [email protected]
This third AppleID is really puzzling because it only has just appeared with iCal calendar syncing this week. It seems that the Push services are getting confused with .Mac and .Me as aliases when that never was a problem before Apple started with everything being in the cloud for iOS 5. It also appears that now all my software purchases at the Mac App Store are under the AppleId [email protected]. I don't know why because they were alway under [email protected] before and I never consciously used that [email protected] as an AppleID at the Mac App Store, or anywhere else. It didn't exist before this iCloud push.
I'm not going to register for iTunes Match or iCloud until they allow me to merge these IDs that all have the same member name and is tied to my email address at MobileMe. I won't upgrade to Lion for the same reason and until they work out the bugs in Lion.
OK. I did a little searching and found some things about ITM that are a little disappointing.
1. ALL music in your library is automatically included in the match. If iTunes identifies it correctly it associates it with a 256k version already stored on Apple's servers. If not, it copies the file as it is to the cloud (I imagine that would be true even of lossless). It appears that for many developers it is only matching a small percentage of their libraries. but again, if it is in your library it gets added, one way or the other.
2. There is no way to delete from the cloud. Example: I have the spooky halloween sounds tracks in my library so that I can burn a CD. I forgot to delete it before scanning. Now it is in my cloud library forever. (this might change, but that's how it is now)
3. Combining 1 and 2 gives you some crappy experiences. Example: I have an album that is on the iTunes store, but I have it tagged wrong so it doesn't get matched. That means my version gets copied. I fix the tags and rescan. Now it matches, but doesn't delete my old one, so now I have the album listed twice. And I can't tell which is which until I download it.
Looking around the Internet I see that there are still LOTS of issues where things either aren't working right, or the design at present is frustrating users. So, I'm guessing that Apple got lots of feedback from developers who don't like some things about the service in addition to bugs. I may actually hold off now seeing how it is implemented.
Thanks for this post, this has me re-thinking whether to use iTunes Match or not. I was hoping you could keep your master library on your computer and when you do a rescan, it would update any changes since the last scan. So if you remove an album, it would remove it from the match. I wouldn't necessarily need to have matched albums removed but in your example, if the match wasn't done initially but is done later because of a tag/rip error, i would want the non-matched copy removed.
Ideally, I would like to see which albums are matched after the initial scan and then be given a choice whether to upload the non-matched ones or not. If we had this option, we could then examine the albums that didn't get matched, try to correct them, and then right click the fixed album(s) and click Match to try again. Looking at the videos of how iTunes match works, it doesn't appear possible. The only way to know if they were matched or not to my knowledge is to re-download them and check the bitrate. I love the simplicity of Apple but in this case, I think we need more options.
Though I was looking forward to ITM and bummed that it hasn't been released on schedule, I'm glad that Apple didn't release it if it's not ready for prime time yet. This is a major project so that's certainly understandable. It would be nice to hear from Apple though as to why the delay happened, i.e. bugs, new features, etc.
That doesn't quite answer it though. What's to prevent you from saving the 30'' preview from Amazon or iTunes, looping it so that the song duration matches (+/- 1 sec), re-sampling to 44.1 KHz, compressing at 128kbps, and updating the album info in the MP3 tags from an internet database (all of this via a script, of course).
Oh, I know: because it would be easier (and just as illegal) to torrent the mp3s.
nothing in the beta prevented this.
that is why i think the delay occured. i put about 40 GB of music into the Music Match cloud and none of it was from iTunes..... about 30 GB of it was matched. 10 GB was not and was just uploaded.
OK. I did a little searching and found some things about ITM that are a little disappointing.
1. ALL music in your library is automatically included in the match. If iTunes identifies it correctly it associates it with a 256k version already stored on Apple's servers. If not, it copies the file as it is to the cloud (I imagine that would be true even of lossless).
ISTM that downgrading files to 256k is a bad idea.
These days, the minimum I even consider is 320k .mp3s, unless I am dealing with some kind of obscure, hard to find material.
I'm kind of surprised that such a low bitrate was chosen by Apple. But then again, 256k is likely "good enough" for Apple's intended customer base, who are content to listen through mediocre DACs using the poor quality headphones supplied by Apple.
Among the Apple crowd, my guess is that the puck is still headed upwards, towards 256k, but customers of other corporations have gone well beyond that. Good quality audio, however, is not something that most Grandmothers find important, and so, I doubt that Apple will go beyond mediocre WRT audio.
OK. I did a little searching and found some things about ITM that are a little disappointing.
1. ALL music in your library is automatically included in the match. If iTunes identifies it correctly it associates it with a 256k version already stored on Apple's servers. If not, it copies the file as it is to the cloud (I imagine that would be true even of lossless). It appears that for many developers it is only matching a small percentage of their libraries. but again, if it is in your library it gets added, one way or the other.
2. There is no way to delete from the cloud. Example: I have the spooky halloween sounds tracks in my library so that I can burn a CD. I forgot to delete it before scanning. Now it is in my cloud library forever. (this might change, but that's how it is now)
3. Combining 1 and 2 gives you some crappy experiences. Example: I have an album that is on the iTunes store, but I have it tagged wrong so it doesn't get matched. That means my version gets copied. I fix the tags and rescan. Now it matches, but doesn't delete my old one, so now I have the album listed twice. And I can't tell which is which until I download it.
These are a big deal for me. Also, while ratings and metadata are supported, lyrics are not. And when Match is enabled for mobile devices, they can no longer sync music. Instead of copying your files from your local hard drive, they have to download from apple's servers over and over every time they are copied to the device. Potentially much slower and a big waste of bandwidth, and it gives no option to have higher bitrate files copied to the device if that's what you want.
Overall I'm really excited about the service but it sounds like there are still some significant bugs and some bad design decisions. Hopefully those will be fixed before release, if they're working on those I'm fine with a delay.
ISTM that downgrading files to 256k is a bad idea.
Match doesn't downgrade the files on your machine, it just supplies 256k files when you sync from the cloud (as opposed to uploading every other bitrate that users have).
These days, the minimum I even consider is 320k .mp3s
Bad choice of format. If you really care about quality, AAC is better at the same bitrate. Honestly, I doubt you'd be able to pick out the difference between AAC 256 and mp3 320 in a blind listening test. Most people wouldn't consider 256 AAC to be "low", and who out there is selling at bitrates higher than that?
Bad choice of format. If you really care about quality, AAC is better at the same bitrate. Honestly, I doubt you'd be able to pick out the difference between AAC 256 and mp3 320 in a blind listening test. Most people wouldn't consider 256 AAC to be "low", and who out there is selling at bitrates higher than that?
LAME encoded MP3s are fantastic, but so are AAC files. And that's not relevant, anyway. AAC 256 files are fantastic and people who get overly hung up on differences between 320 and 256 in this context could probably stand to step back and relax just a bit. And even if they can tell a difference (I certainly haven't been able to pick out differences which really matter to me and I both love music and have great audio equipment) they can handle that small 'sacrifice' to enjoy their music from the cloud. Although I suppose it's all relative. Somewhere, someone is upset that they can't access their FLAC-encoded music through iTunes Match.
The heck?! I'm no fanboy. I'm not even an evangelist anymore.
Yep, let's just ignore that $14 trillion deficit. That'll make everything better. Pretending a problem doesn't exist certainly does wonders for the quality of everything around said problem.
Actually, that's pretty dang hilarious? and ironic. He'll never know why he's completely and utterly wrong about using the Ignore List because I'm on his.
Huh?????????
Huh?????????
If the only thing you can say in your posts is 'huh', perhaps read up more on these topics before commenting on them…
Yes, I saw the parallel in our names, and yes, I'm wary of it.
If the only thing you can say in your posts is 'huh', perhaps read up more on these topics before commenting on them?
Yes, I saw the parallel in our names, and yes, I'm wary of it.
Luddite
Luddite
Idea: Reply to someone that isn't me or at least make posts of more than one word.