Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  The Question Thread
Pages: 1 ... 32 33 [34] 35 36 ... 101   Go Down

Author Topic: The Question Thread  (Read 432670 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

freeAgent

  • pwn*
  • FTL AMPlifier
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3660
    • View Profile
Re: The Question Thread
« Reply #495 on: October 30, 2009, 12:45:04 AM »

Dude.  Those are monitors.  You'd need to jack them into a receiver-amp, and run a patch cord from the lappy audio-out and treat it like a stereo component. 

She just wants to hear the computer play some tunes and vids on a 17 inch screen.  Not that big a deal.  You need to be sitting five feet from the screen, or less.  Microspeakers and a bass cube works fine for that. 

If it was a home stereo set-up with big screen, 5.1 surround, I'd agree with you.  Those would probably make decent rears.  But that is not a practical application for a laptop. 
...the sound and quality is worth it, IMO.

It's still 2.1

A modest improvement on something that is sufficient and adequate. 

I'm sure you've seen the wicked shit, lets not confuse the two.  If you want premium sound, you need to do it a little differently. 



I wouldn't trash 2.1.  That's what they use in recording studios and unless you're watching movies and have really thought and effort into your speaker placement, room size, and seating position you get no real benefit from 5/6/7.1.  My M-Audio monitors and subwoofer are the low-end of professional-grade equipment, but the sound quality is noticeably better than my old Logitech 5.1 setup.  The Logitechs were the top of the line computer speakers (5.1, 500-watt, THX, all that jazz) but they are on a different plane from my M-Audio monitors which, even though they're "low-end", cost twice as much as the Logitechs.  The the monitors are made out of better material and produce a much more balanced sound.  Even though I lost 120 watts, each of the 3 speakers I do have is more powerful than its corresponding speaker on the 5.1 system...and they're physically larger and just better at reproducing sound.

I'd say that if you're not going to put a lot of time and energy into designing a home theater setup, 5.1 is probably a waste of space and you'd be better off getting a better quality 2.1 system.
Logged

Bill Brasky

  • Guest
Re: The Question Thread
« Reply #496 on: October 30, 2009, 02:03:29 AM »


I'd say that if you're not going to put a lot of time and energy into designing a home theater setup, 5.1 is probably a waste of space and you'd be better off getting a better quality 2.1 system.

Snort.  
Logged

Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)

  • A Cut Above The Rest
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8299
  • If government is the answer, the question is stupi
    • View Profile
Re: The Question Thread
« Reply #497 on: October 30, 2009, 08:14:07 AM »

I've been running 5.1 since I bought my first computer speaker system, and I still use the same system.  Cheap Altec setup but I wired in my own 4 speakers.  The sub is the center and the sub.  It works great.  I can crank it to oblivion and it still sounds great.  If these things break I can't see myself going back to 2.1, no matter how good they are.
Logged
"Do not throw rocks at people with guns." —Hastings' Third Law
"Income tax returns are the most imaginative fiction being written today." —Herman Wouk 

"If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom." - Dwight D. Eisenhower

Rillion

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6804
    • View Profile
Re: The Question Thread
« Reply #498 on: November 03, 2009, 02:26:21 PM »

Bow hunting: is there a point, when you could be using a gun? 

[youtube=425,350]wt9pUraM4u4[/youtube].
Logged

BonerJoe

  • Guest
Re: The Question Thread
« Reply #499 on: November 03, 2009, 02:45:41 PM »

Yes, because states won't allow you to hunt with a gun during certain times of the year.
Logged

anarchir

  • Extraordinaire
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5103
  • No victim, no crime.
    • View Profile
    • Prepared Security
Re: The Question Thread
« Reply #500 on: November 03, 2009, 02:46:36 PM »

I think those arrows are cool because it enables a hunter to see where his shots go and thus improve his aim, determine where his arrow went, judge whether the shot was enough to kill the animal...

Yeah, hunting with a gun is more humane, but do people not argue that hunting with a bow is more of a sport?

Keep in mind that if you shoot with a bow or gun either way you can kill the animal or merely injure it.  I saw a lot of great shots in that video, as well as a few they shouldnt have attempted from what I could see. It was amazing the number of arrows that actually went straight through the animal.
Logged
Good people disobey bad laws.
PreparedSecurity.com - Modern security and preparedness for the 21st century.
 [img width= height= alt=Prepared Security]http://www.prepareddesign.com/uploads/4/4/3/6/4436847/1636340_orig.png[/img]

Rillion

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6804
    • View Profile
Re: The Question Thread
« Reply #501 on: November 03, 2009, 02:56:37 PM »

I have very little knowledge of hunting in general.  But:

Yes, because states won't allow you to hunt with a gun during certain times of the year.

That's a good reason, in my view.

Yeah, hunting with a gun is more humane, but do people not argue that hunting with a bow is more of a sport?

That's a bad reason, in my view.

Quote
Keep in mind that if you shoot with a bow or gun either way you can kill the animal or merely injure it.

Yes, but if you're a lousy shot then you probably shouldn't be hunting in the first place.  They make targets for that sort of thing. 
Logged

davann

  • Guest
Re: The Question Thread
« Reply #502 on: November 03, 2009, 02:58:18 PM »

Bow hunting: is there a point, when you could be using a gun? 

[youtube=425,350]wt9pUraM4u4[/youtube].

Yes. Bow hunting in general takes much more base level hunting skills. Depending on the quarry hours can be spent tracking, approaching, waiting and learning it's habits. A gun is crude. A bow is art.

While that video might appear shocking, even a hit from a rifle can send many animals running. It is the shock of getting shot. They usually will drop dead within a few feet if it was good clean well placed shot.

It is the worst feeling to have to track an injured animal over long distances. For me it is actually emotionally draining. That is why is it vital to be the best one can be by practicing with what ever you'll be hunting with prior to the actual hunt.
Logged

Rillion

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6804
    • View Profile
Re: The Question Thread
« Reply #503 on: November 03, 2009, 03:06:26 PM »

It is the worst feeling to have to track an injured animal over long distances. For me it is actually emotionally draining. That is why is it vital to be the best one can be by practicing with what ever you'll be hunting with prior to the actual hunt.

Never tracked an animal, but I can thoroughly agree with that.  I just think that, on the whole, "sport" or "art" are not good justifications for torturing an animal that you're hunting.  If you have a more effective way of hunting them that is also more humane, it seems like a no-brainer to use it.  
Logged

davann

  • Guest
Re: The Question Thread
« Reply #504 on: November 03, 2009, 04:14:03 PM »

It is the worst feeling to have to track an injured animal over long distances. For me it is actually emotionally draining. That is why is it vital to be the best one can be by practicing with what ever you'll be hunting with prior to the actual hunt.

Never tracked an animal, but I can thoroughly agree with that.  I just think that, on the whole, "sport" or "art" are not good justifications for torturing an animal that you're hunting.  If you have a more effective way of hunting them that is also more humane, it seems like a no-brainer to use it.  

I hear what you are saying in regards to humane but on the flip side the animal has a far better chance of never getting killed when a hunter uses a bow. In my mind, a bow shows the animal more respect. I don't know it is hard to explain.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2009, 06:07:36 PM by davann »
Logged

Rillion

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6804
    • View Profile
Re: The Question Thread
« Reply #505 on: November 03, 2009, 04:49:04 PM »

I hear what you are saying in regards to humane but on the flip side the animal has a far better chance of never getting killed when a hunter uses a bow. In mind, a bow shows the animal more respect. I don't know it is hard to explain.

If you want to honorably engage in combat with an animal, then I think you should fight a bear while armed with a dagger.  Animals for the most part do not possess projectile weapons, which means that shooting an animal is never the equivalent of besting them in combat, regardless of how inefficiently you do so.  The concern is not about animals dying; it's about their suffering-- you don't respect an animal more by making it suffer. 
Logged

blackie

  • Guest
Re: The Question Thread
« Reply #506 on: November 03, 2009, 05:01:54 PM »

If you want to talk about what is humane, factory farming is far worse than bow hunting.
Logged

Changed My Mind

  • Guest
Re: The Question Thread
« Reply #507 on: November 03, 2009, 05:04:06 PM »

it would be dishonorable to fight an animal without using every single bit of ingenuity that your species has created.   Deer are more advanced than other animals at certain athletic abilities.  Some species of animals are much smarter and have created tools to help them to survive.  A human denying the ability to use a gun is akin to a deer deciding not to use its antlers. 

If the deer could shoot a gun, it would. . . someday if it evolves enough, it will.
Logged

Bill Brasky

  • Guest
Re: The Question Thread
« Reply #508 on: November 03, 2009, 05:09:02 PM »

Most of the people I know who are really "good" hunters - meaning they have an appreciation and respect for it - use a bow.  They may also use a rifle, but thats just so they can get an extra deer and more time in the woods.  Ask them all, most will answer they prefer the bow season.  Around here in Appalachia, the main quarry is deer.  Turkey comes a close second.  Boar is not really indigenous, you have to go into hunting preserves for that, where they are released for the hunt.  

The bow is practiced quite a bit before its taken out into the woods, unless the hunter is a fuckhead.  

When you sight in a bow, you use these little elevation pins on it, and put your target out about 20 to 40 yards.  40 is pushin' it, most hunters will sight for the 20ish yard range.  To put it into perspective, the trailer part of a tractor trailer is normally about 55 ft, about 20 yards.  You have to be pretty stealthy to be within that range from a deer.  A good shot with a bow could hit you in the face at that distance.  Thats a pretty good shot, staying well-inside a dinner plate.  The hunter will sit still, slowly draw, and fire.  They don't sneak up on it.  (boar are different, you have to chase them - theres no way you could ever chase down a healthy deer)

Anyway, it takes a bit of practice to do that.  They spend quite a few hours in their back yard.  A buddy 'o mine can hit targets consistently at 60 yards - albeit slightly larger, pizza box size.  His yard is an acre square, 200x200 - he can go out near the road and hit targets near his back fence.  In the woods, he still uses ~20+ yards.  Any further than that is not cool, in his opinion.

I don't hunt.  

Logged

Rillion

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6804
    • View Profile
Re: The Question Thread
« Reply #509 on: November 03, 2009, 05:18:58 PM »

If you want to talk about what is humane, factory farming is far worse than bow hunting.

Oh, I agree.  However, I'm thinking about the most humane way to get meat, and don't really understand why somebody wouldn't hunt in the most humane way possible. 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 32 33 [34] 35 36 ... 101   Go Up
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  The Question Thread

// ]]>

Page created in 0.02 seconds with 32 queries.