Mapman wrote,
"All the good engineers i know think out of the box all the time.
All the the tech talk nobody can understand has no meaning obviously. The product will live or die on its value proposition and sonic merits like all do.
I agree with atmosphere that talking about things nobody understands does not do any justice. Just my two cents."
Pardon me for saying so but that seems to be an argument for limiting discussions to topics or subjects that are either common knowledge or understood by everyone, including the man under the bridge. If we limit what people can say to what someone believes should be easily understood by everyone then who will be the judge and who will be the jury? If there is going to be a break out from the dull repetitive rehashing of the same old thing we must not constrain discussion to fit anyone’s preconceived notion of what’s allowable, what is and what isn’t scientifically possible or correct. What’s there to be afraid of? Stop trying to put everything in a box.
No goats no glory
"All the good engineers i know think out of the box all the time.
All the the tech talk nobody can understand has no meaning obviously. The product will live or die on its value proposition and sonic merits like all do.
I agree with atmosphere that talking about things nobody understands does not do any justice. Just my two cents."
Pardon me for saying so but that seems to be an argument for limiting discussions to topics or subjects that are either common knowledge or understood by everyone, including the man under the bridge. If we limit what people can say to what someone believes should be easily understood by everyone then who will be the judge and who will be the jury? If there is going to be a break out from the dull repetitive rehashing of the same old thing we must not constrain discussion to fit anyone’s preconceived notion of what’s allowable, what is and what isn’t scientifically possible or correct. What’s there to be afraid of? Stop trying to put everything in a box.
No goats no glory