Cell Phones: Good or Bad?

VLSmooth · Post by **VLSmooth** » Thu Oct 16, 2003 12:36 am

Or it could be *GASP*, that I don't go to all the links in the link threads, nor did I remember at that exact moment.

Wait, that's too plausible... there has to be another reason... food is always a good scapegoat...

quantus · Post by **quantus** » Thu Oct 16, 2003 1:23 am

Bad memories that otherwise could be good are known to be cause by bad sleep habits and bad diet.

VLSmooth · Post by **VLSmooth** » Thu Oct 16, 2003 2:59 am

Even if, A implies B, that does not mean A is the only thing that implies B.

where:
A = "bad sleep habits and bad diet"
B = "bad memories" <- I think you meant "having a bad memory"

Simple example:
Just because biking burns fat, that doesn't mean biking is the only thing that can burn fat.

quantus · Post by **quantus** » Tue Oct 21, 2003 4:08 am

VLSmooth wrote:Even if, A implies B, that does not mean A is the only thing that implies B.

where:
A = "bad sleep habits and bad diet"
B = "bad memories" <- I think you meant "having a bad memory"

Simple example:
Just because biking burns fat, that doesn't mean biking is the only thing that can burn fat.

Well, would you care to comment on what you think is causing you to be unobservent and have a bad memory? I was just stating the most obvious and also most probable reason. According to Occam's Razor, that then IS the reason.

And as far as your comment on "B" is concerned, yes, but still correct in the sense of the plurality found in the population implied by the studies which made such claims as "A" being the source of having a bad memory.

Post by **Jonathan** » Tue Oct 21, 2003 4:56 am

Occam.

quantus · Post by **quantus** » Tue Oct 21, 2003 5:26 am

Right, fixed. Thanks.

VLSmooth · Post by **VLSmooth** » Tue Oct 21, 2003 7:31 pm

Actually, by Occam's Razor, I'd say it was a result of carelessness combined with fast replying

quantus · Post by **quantus** » Tue Oct 21, 2003 8:18 pm

VLSmooth wrote:Actually, by Occam's Razor, I'd say it was a result of carelessness combined with fast replying

The source of the carelessness is a result of a bad memory really since you're making decisions based on faulty remembered information. Now that we're back to bad memory being the source, we're back to me being right. Thank you.

VLSmooth · Post by **VLSmooth** » Tue Oct 21, 2003 8:42 pm

Frankly, fixing your problems aren't worth my time and effort. Enjoy your delusions, for what they're worth

Alan · Post by **Alan** » Tue Oct 21, 2003 9:19 pm

Memory doesn't exist.

quantus · Post by **quantus** » Tue Oct 21, 2003 10:20 pm

Alan wrote:Memory doesn't exist.

I don't remember what you just said. Could you repeat it?

VLSmooth · Post by **VLSmooth** » Tue Oct 21, 2003 10:46 pm

Wha?

Post by **Jonathan** » Tue Oct 21, 2003 10:53 pm

VLSmooth wrote:Wha?

Godwin's Law!

Post by **Jonathan** » Tue Oct 21, 2003 10:56 pm

Dwindlehop wrote:
VLSmooth wrote:Wha?
Godwin's Law!

Actually, this is some variant of Godwin's Law... Any sufficiently long Mohtalim topic eventually degenerates into stupid. Or something.

quantus · Post by **quantus** » Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:49 pm

Dwindlehop wrote:
Dwindlehop wrote:
VLSmooth wrote:Wha?
Godwin's Law!
Actually, this is some variant of Godwin's Law... Any sufficiently long Mohtalim topic eventually degenerates into stupid. Or something.

Nazi!

VLSmooth · Post by **VLSmooth** » Wed Oct 22, 2003 12:53 am

cmu.misc.market wrote:Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 12:50:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: ariel salinas
Newsgroups: cmu.misc.market
Subject: Re: Girls at CMU

Quirk's exception:

Intentional triggering of Godwin's law to kill a thread will result in
failure.

Nice try, though.

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003, Carlos F Reverte wrote:
> shut up, nazi!

quantus · Post by **quantus** » Wed Oct 22, 2003 1:15 am

Yes, I knew that, thanks for not getting the sarcasm. Let the thread go on!

quantus · Post by **quantus** » Wed Oct 22, 2003 6:18 pm

GOD was here

quantus · Post by **quantus** » Wed Oct 22, 2003 6:32 pm

Oh yeah, this was a thread on cell phones, and I wanted to rant about my recent experience with the fact that even something simple like an earpiece is not standardized across all cell phones. Some models, even put out by the same company, just have different impedences. These product designers need to be shot, drawn and quartered.

VLSmooth · Post by **VLSmooth** » Wed Oct 22, 2003 6:44 pm

GOD was here

Second, I don't believe impedance has ever been standardized (even for headphones), although I'm curious what would have the authority to? The most plausible approach would be for all the big vendors to agree on a standard themselves.

Until then, be glad that most cell phones have volume controls

Cell Phones: Good or Bad?

pedant attack!