hodar

About

Username
hodar
Joined
Visits
89
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
1,719
Badges
2
Posts
348
  • AirPods to gain lossless streaming capabilities via software update, says leaker

    Most of the music recorded in the past decade or so, simply doesn't have the recording artistry build into it, that was common in the 1970's.  There is a reason why artists like Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon" was legendary, why people sought after SACD material from certain sources and not across the market.  Simply stated, while some bands worked for the "perfect sound" and recording engineers like Alan Parsons made great strides in this - there was a segment that said "who cares", groups like Hall and Oates for example believed that the regular person played their music on a cheap radio, or in a cheap car stereo - so they recorded their music to sound good for that segment.  It was fast, it was easier, it was cheaper; and it was the truth.  Not many people will spend thousands on their speakers, and thousands on an Amp/Pre-Amp, and then add in a DAC, power conditioner, and pay for Master Recordings.  And those recordings were both rare, and expensive.

    So, this becomes much ado about nothing.

    I would suggest that everyone at least visit a high end audio store, and listen to an expensive headset, or set of speakers, and audition a SACD or Master Recording of something in your taste, that has had the effort and love put into it that is unveiled with lossless audio.  There are many bands that made the effort, and once you experience what you have missed; you will never again be satisfied with what passed for "good" now.  For decades, the public has dealt with "good enough", but now the bandwidth and technology are allowing truly lossless music to again be available to the masses, at a cost that is comparable to what the regular recording costs.
    gregoriusmbikerdudeFileMakerFellerelijahg
  • Parallels Desktop 16.5 released with native Apple Silicon support

    So, basically Parallels remains a waste of money for anyone who bought an M1 Mac.

    Rehash MY user case; which is probably a significant number of user cases.  Why did I buy Parallels?  Why pay $$ for this program?

    So, I can have the CAPABILITY to boot, and run WindowsXP, Windows 7 and Windows10 disk images, and either run programs on my Mac that are not available outside of the Windows environment, so I can play old games I purchased before I switched to the Apple ecosystem, and so I can play more games (emulation mode, which is surprisingly good) on my Mac, and play online with my friends who use PC games.  Open Parallels, run any version of Windows I chose, launch Steam and play online games with my friends (games that are not available on the Mac.

    For work, Excel on Windows has the capability to allow me to write scripts in Visual Basic for Applications (VBA); for reasons I don not understand, these advanced libraries are simply not available for the Mac community.  So, while my Excel workbooks have ~60,000 lines of VBA to allow it to link into the corporate database and dateline quality assessment info, I cannot do the same thing with my MSFT Office license for Mac.  So, I have 2 different licenses.

    Now, I have no choice but have multiple computers at home.  Because programs that USED TO work flawlessly, no longer function at all.
    applguyJosephAUdysamoriaelijahgwatto_cobrabyronl
  • Supreme Court argument casts doubt on Facebook, Twitter free speech rights

    zimmie said:

    Make your own platform. That is the remedy available to you.

    Banning users is a form of speech. 
    You mean like Parlor?  If I recall correctly, Amazon, Apple and Google worked in concert to eliminate the competition, and to prevent them from finding another internet provider.  Some would call that predatory anti-competitive behavior.  It was alleged for not moderating their content, however you will find similar violations on other platforms that are overlooked.

    Others would ask a simple question.  When was the last time a group of people who censored, burned books, used violence to shut down other points of view, who decided that they were the sole arbiters of what the "truth" was, considered the "Good Guys"?  

    It's not a trick question, feel free to refer to history.  I will simply quote Thomas Jefferson, who said "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."  (But what would he know?)
    anantksundaramentropyssmartburro
  • Supreme Court argument casts doubt on Facebook, Twitter free speech rights

    dysamoria said:
    So long as there continues to be false equivalency presented between that which is harmful garbage opinions & myths/propaganda that contradicts demonstrable facts, and that which is merely an emotional response of “I don’t like what they’re saying”, this will never be a conversation with any rational discourse or reasonable solutions.

    A sane society *should* suppress socially-destructive garbage to some degree.

    There are cases of conflicting opinions, and there are cases of socially-destructive lying. They’re not the same, and they should never be handled the same way.
    Please remind me, when was the last time that the "Book burners", the "Censorship Police" and the thugs who attack and beat people with a different point of view (ie , Sturmabteilung) considered the "good guys"?   Silly me, I can't think of a single example.

    What's the point of freedom of speech, if any dissenting opinion is "shouted down" by a crowd?  As Thomas Jefferson said about the Freedom of Speech "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."  But, what would the know?
    jimh2entropysanantksundarambluefire1
  • Apple denied Parler re-entry to the App Store despite guideline revision

    In the history of mankind, when has censorship and banning free speech ever been done by the “Good Guys”

    Why are they so terrified by an alternative point of view, that they refuse to debate, but demand to silence?  It’s almost as if they know they cannot defend their viewpoint any other way, than violence and suppression 
    elijahgJanNL