Submit Hint Search The Forums LinksStatsPollsHeadlinesRSS
14,000 hints and counting!


Click here to return to the 'Be more careful with presentation' hint
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Be more careful with presentation
Authored by: Githon on Oct 23, '05 09:56:26AM

Because saying "This codec loses something, therefore is not lossless" is entirely inflammatory and unfair.

Just like saying "The phone company isn't giving you a free cell phone" when part of your bill says "Free phone fee: $270".



[ Reply to This | # ]
Be more careful with presentation
Authored by: n8gray on Oct 25, '05 12:08:51AM
Because saying "This codec loses something, therefore is not lossless" is entirely inflammatory and unfair.

No, because saying "FLAC is not a lossless codec" is different from saying "one particular implementation of FLAC has a bug that can cause loss." Claiming that the FLAC algorithm is not lossless is an accusation that its authors are intentionally misleading people by saying otherwise. I would say that without some serious evidence, yes, such a claim is inflammatory and unfair. It's FUD, plain and simple, because it leads people to the incorrect conclusion.

Just like saying "The phone company isn't giving you a free cell phone" when part of your bill says "Free phone fee: $270".

No, not really. It's more like claiming "The phone company is lying and isn't giving anybody a free cell phone" when they actually just accidentally billed you for it but were completely willing to correct their mistake. The difference is what you're saying about the intent of the other party.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Be more careful with presentation
Authored by: Githon on Oct 30, '05 11:54:34AM

And you're certainly not assigning malicious intent to his statements, no sir.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Be more careful with presentation
Authored by: n8gray on Nov 01, '05 04:42:07PM
And you're certainly not assigning malicious intent to his statements, no sir.

Actually, if you read my post you might notice I said nothing about his intent, only the nature of his statements. I can understand the mistake -- it's a subtle distinction.

[ Reply to This | # ]