Narbisaur

Hey all, I worked for a speaker company for a while, I play music, and I am studying sound design and mix engineering. So, as you can imagine, I am quite into speakers. What are your guys' setups and what speaker shit are you into? I am just about to get these: http://www.crutchfield.com/p_107LSI705C/Polk-Audio-LSi-M-705-Mount-Vernon-Cherry.html?tp=185&awkw=28941106945&awat=pla&awnw=g&awcr=7847619385&awdv=c and this: http://hsuresearch.com/products/vtf-3mk4.html What's in your place? I'm also looking into near-field monitors but haven't found anything I really like. The NS-10's aren't around anymore, and I don't know what to get that repliactes them

Apparently ChowYoung's fire balls. xD

Hey guys, Sorry I was off-the-air for a little while (not that long). Here's what I was up to. It's really old-school music. Stuff I never thought I would be playin'. But I ended up lovin' the music and the guys I'm playin with, so here I am.... https://soundcloud.com/theworldfair/sentimental-gentleman-from-1 Feedback please! So that's what I been up to in my away-from-cod4 time. I been playin' on the server again recently. -Narb

<3

Hello, This is just a suggestion. From my moderator experience, it is very good to allow the "Press F to Spawn" time after a death. Why? This allows moderators (and players) to scroll through spectate mode without switching to spectate mode (which creates a very noticeable skull and crossbones in the killfeed, as well as a very noticeable addition to the spectator team). It is much quicker to spectate any player one wishes to this way without giving notice to cheaters that someone is doing so. The only hint is that your dogtags are next to your name. This also gives players the opportunity to wait til AFTER airstrikes pass, or to wait for a time they feel is more appropriate, to respawn. Thanks! Narbisaur

one of the best concept electronic albums of all time. One of the best electronic albums of all time. It's just so deep man.... new stuff emerges every time I hear it. Especially on a really good system (good high end, there isn't a lot of sub bass except on the percussion which is ucompressed in the low-end). Really well mixed. Doesn't sound bassy, but it's there. It's just not Massive drivel. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHcHh6bzIRU Listen. And Enjoy.

10, as well how to attach jpeg?

Well now, what do we have here, a bunch of posers posin' as soldiers when they softer than cashmere.

Drummer is so sick.

Well one of the main points I was trying to make is that these tests are not representative of whether someone has a drug problem or not. I mentioned that a raging alcoholic could take the test sober and that person's test results would be used as evidence by their employer that they have no drug problem, which is completely the opposite of the truth. On the other hand, someone who tests positive for weed may have, like you said, been around a group of people who were smoking weeks before, and the employer uses their positive result as "proof" that they have a drug problem and should not be hired. I wouldn't want to hire someone who smokes weed every day, multiple times a day. I also wouldn't want to hire someone who came to work intoxicated, ever. But these drug tests would be next to useless in terms of how they would help me determine who is and isn't a heavy/irresponsible user.

What I was talking about was the majority. I said that people drink to get drunk, and that Budweiser is manufactured and marketed as a great mechanism to do so. Yea, there are people who just drink it for the drinking experience. But the majority are definitely looking for the alcohol (their huge buzzword is "Drinkability," as in easy to drink lots of). And of course, I can only comment on the USA. because that is the only place I really have any experience with, concerning drug tests and laws.

I think I meant to say that a large portion of people who drink do so specifically for the alcohol, and not for the flavor or sensation of the beverage, first and foremost. Alcoholism is a different beast for every person. Who do you think breweries make their largest amount of money from? The people who drink one beer a day (maybe two)? Or the people who buy a six pack every other day and a case every weekend? Who do you think bars make the most of their money to? People who get one beer on a dinner date? Or the regulars, who drink 5 drinks every time? I'd think it would also matter what age group one was looking at when determining how much people drink and for what reasons.

Don't we already have this thread?

You can drink one beer and still function, and if you smoked a similar amount of weed to drinking one beer, you could function as well. Have you ever smoked weed? How many times? It would be very difficult to really take a stance on which inhibits you more unless you have tried both. And as with everything, it's a matter of degree. If the only time you've smoked weed, you took huge bong rips of some really strong shit, you're not getting a very clear picture. That would be like having only drank a fifth of vodka by yourself the first time you drink, and using that as your basis of comparison. And while I make that comparison, it really wouldn't be as bad as drinking a fifth of vodka to yourself. That would make you a blithering idiot. Smoking that much weed would just make you pretty loopy, but you wouldn't be falling all over yourself, vomiting, and possibly have to go to the hospital (depending on who you are and how big you are). Also, even with the strongest stuff out there, it is practically impossible to overdose on weed. However, it is QUITE easy to get blackout drunk and get alcohol poisoning. The driving limit where I live is about 2 beers in one hour for a 6' male @ 170 pounds. Take that into account on how much alcohol inhibits a person. I would also say that more people drive drunk than smoke weed, and there is no test for that on employment applications. You don't even have to say you got DUI's (which just means you got caught). I would be much more worried about someone who thought it was okay to drive over the limit (and possibly run some little girl over) than someone who smokes weed every once in a while. And you could easily tell if someone was drunk. Way more easily than if they were a little high. People who are high don't stumble around and lose balance. People who are high don't get idiotic and start fights with people and talk shit to people. I think you might not have so much experience with weed (i'm not trying to be rude, at all, please excuse me if I have come off that way). And I would say MOST people drink to feel the effects. Why do you think they go to bars? Why do people buy cheap liquor? Why are there fruity, easy to drink, high % alc/vol drinks like mikes harder lemonade, and the like? It's certainly not for the taste. And of course you smoke to get high. People take their ADD meds to get high, too. It's just a different kind of high. People drink coffee to feel the caffeine, too. And people drink to get drunk. Budweiser is NOT a great beer. It's cheap and if you drink 3 or 4 you can get a lil looser. It's made to get people drunk, and that's why they buy it. Wine on the other hand is usually a different story. But the majority of people out there are drinking beer, and lots of it.

Actually, the effects of a hangover (using alcohol to the extent of getting as impaired as smoking weed) are much more intense than the post-effects of weed. Someone who is a raging alcoholic could easily pass a drug test, whereas someone who smoked wee once 3 weeks prior to the drug test will get a positive result. This result for the alcoholic is used by employers as evidence that they do not have a drug problem. The positive result for marijuana says only that. It doesn't include any information about what levels of THC were in someone's body, how frequently they use, how long ago they used...etc. My point is that a drug screening is an entirely inaccurate way to tell if someone will be sober for work, and provides little to no information about how efficiently they work in comparison with other applicants. In fact, like I said, the most industrious people I know smoke quite frequently, and do not drink frequently, at all. Also, I don't know where you are getting your information, but the effects of THC in the body go away after about 2-3 hours. Usually less. While it may take a while for the body to filter out THC from fat cells where it gets stored, it's active time in the brain is much much less, and very similar to that of alcohol. Also, a drug screening prior to employment seems kind of useless. Random drug screenings during working hours would make much more sense, as people who are drunk or inebriated on some other drug would be weeded out much more practically.

I've never seen or heard of any legitimate case of someone having a psychotic breakdown due to marijuana, and the chemical function of THC and cannibinoids wouldn't suggest it's possible. However, people predisposed to psycho-insanity may have been pushed over the edge, THC being a catalyst. I just don't see it being likely in the least. On the other hand, it is super likely with drugs like Adderal and Ritalin, both CNS stimulants that function pretty much like cocaine. Those are legal and sold mass-market in the USA. And there is little to NO evidence to suggest that they function any differently in humans that aren't diagnosed with ADD. The idea that these drugs "calm down" people who have been diagnosed with adhd is nuts. No clinical evidence. In addition, the amount they are distributed legally has resulted in the exponential increase in their abuse by people without a prescription and people misusing (taking too much, or crushing and snorting it) among teens and preteens, which gets them straight into hard drugs as a gateway. Seems like a ridiculous double-standard to me. Btw, MASA, your country makes great beer.

My point is, when will rich, powerful, anglosaxen white potrestant mutherf***ers stop dictating arbitrary rules they can enforce based on their political connections? This is one of them. There is 0 scholarly evidence to prove that marijuana should be illegal. Especially if alcohol is illegal. So what the hell is going on? Why these arbitrary drug tests with limited, short-sighted results that limit the ability of over-qualified people like me to get a job while I'm going through college? I know more about headphones, speakers, and sound reporduction than the next stupid-ass straight-a student who never smked weed who is gonna get the job.. but I won't, and Office Depot will lose money because of it. Why is this law in effect? I'm serous.. Why do you guys think these laws are in effect? What is driving them?

Yea, it depends on the person and the circumstance, which is completely out of the test for drugs, as far as I see. There's nothing about the drug test that says whether a person is a good worker or not except if they test positive for some hard shit like cocaine or heroine that would already be gone in 5 days (if it's not gone, it means they have a problem, cuz they knew the test was coming and used anyway). So I just don't get it. All of my most hardworking friends use weed. Not all the time, but they do when it's chill-time. When it's not chill-time, they are busting their asses. For other people, when it's not chill-time, they watch reality TV while they study some stupid shit for a BULLSHIT mass comm degree, and when it IS chill time, they get wasted. Who is the harder worker?

Yea, when our parents smack us every time we make a mistake as a 5 year old. Of course.......

p.s. I hope you can hear counterpoint Best funk drummer I've heard. Pocket on anything. Keeps the stops funky. Holds it down. Dennis could take a lesson.

One of the most soulful songs I have ever heard. Period. End of story. All improvised except the base chord harmony. and this is literally from 50 years ago....

So why the hell can't someone get a job who smoked weed once 3 weeks ago and has 4 micrograms/million over the limit in his pis? There are people who drink every night til they pass out... they get a job. There are people who did cocaine in copious amounts 3 days before... they get the job. This filter seems ectremely unnecessary. Let me say that every hard-working, creative, intuitive, moral person I have ever met has smoked weed at least once. Usually more. The people I have met who haven't ever smoked weed and refuse to do so are usually stuck in their shell and egregiously immature. They follow directions and do exactly what they are told. In fact, the hardest working individuals I know smoke weed quite more often than once in their lifetime. And I know some seriously hard-working individuals. One is a guitar player who does absolutely nothing but music and guitar all day long. Wake to sleep. Nothing. John mayer gets grammies. He ain't shit compared to my friend, who can't pay the rent cuz he's not famous, doesn't have a pretty face, and can't dance.... Who would you want to work for you? Does it really matter that they smoked weed a couple of times? Do you really think that this kind of drug screening is an accurate representation of a drug problem? I think that a person's mentality and general character matter way more for a job that requires responsibility. And for those who are impoverished and live a shit-life, weed may be a part of their life. A real JOB might get them OUT of that life. I just don't get this stupidity. I want to meet the heads of these decisions and slap them. What are your thoughts? P.S. I also know people who work for intel who smoke 8 times a day and are worthless who SHOULD'NT have the job, and their ridiculous weed habit is a big red flag, in that case. However, drug tests would not show that detail.

The last one with the selfie is the best!

No way the GOP would let that happen. The only reason this is allowed to continue is because ridiculously out of touch people don't understand what the debt ceiling is and what is going on right now in washington. The debt ceiling doesn't help anyone save money. At all. It's quite an unnecessary thing, used solely as a political tool, mostly through mass media. A default, however, would cause people to get screwed in one of their favorite consumerism months, which they would notice first-hand at Walmart and such, which WOULD piss them off, and they WOULD be looking for blood. No way the GOP is dumb enough to let that happen.