Red Hat admits it would "destroy itself" if it included popular featuers 3603

Mark Kent

Must you antagonize on EVERY FSCKING POINT?

"you don't seem to know much about this" "You don't seem to have a clue". "did you skip your lectures?"

GOD DAMMIT MAN, can we have a discussion without the disrespect and personal attacks?? I'm not a troll, I'm a fscking engineer, and I clearly knows a lot about the issue at hand!

To ME, it looks like I'M talking about the EASE of using measurments to PROVE extremely low-levels of noise and distortion. Now, YOU talk of "quality" and the difficulty of corrolating subjective quality changes with measurement changes.

CAN YOU NOT SEE that we are talking about somewhat different things, and that neither of need be "wrong" or "clueless" on these points?

There isn't? Golly gee, I think there is. I think they are English words that quite clearly communicated my point.

In your (rather silly) opinion. "Major" indeed, when people can't even hear that high.

In fact, no there is not.

You seem to be arguing that completely inaudible levels of distortion, FAR better than what analog is capable of doing, is a good reason to attack digital audio. How strange.

Yes, it is.

Noise you can't hear, because it's 93dB below peak level. Noise far less audible than what is possible using analog recording methods.

Your point is that you rail against the far-superior technology because it is not "perfect". Your point is ridiculous.