Archive for February, 2013

Silly Names & Extravagant Titles for Simple Jobs

1 Comment »

poppycockI’m writing this blog post today, out of sheer amusement. I’ve recently been thinking about how much value people often put on names & titles, when they really don’t mean anything.
I don’t want to hear about your silly labels and extravagant job descriptions, well, except on this entry. Any other time, I would rather you simply tell me such things without all the hoopla and ballyhoo.

…The same thing applies for when you are debating about a subject, lets say under the science genre, and you are more concerned about PhDs, what university you went to, and what fantastical achievements and awards have been presented, etc., while barely even acknowledging the heart of the matter/debate or points being made.
It is like, well, no matter if I’m wrong, I went to Harvard and have a masters degree in “The Art of Poppycock,” so move aside you pathetic Pollock-fish-frying loser from Long John Silver’s! LOL!

At any rate, this little post is for entertainment purposes only. You are free to add as many additional silly names & extravagant titles for simple jobs, within the comment field. Just make up a scenario or a simple job prior to each humorous title.

I’ll post a few below, to get things started:

A janitor at a local Elementary School once called his job a “Certified Sanitation Technician.”

A garbage man hanging off the back of a big garbage truck once shouted out that he is a “Human Wasteland Warrior!” Uh, that’s nice… Just take my waste to your wasteland and shut-up!

The drive-through manager at a hectic McDonald’s swears up and down that her job title is “Culinary Merchant Guru.”
Speaking of McDonald’s, one of the burger flippers at that very same restaurant, says he is a “Bovine Fryin’ Fool.” Well, at least that job title was a little more honest, that is, if the patties are really made of beef; ha!

A sales clerk at a pet shop that cleans the aquariums, checks the water’s pH level, adds chemicals and acid/base solutions if needed, gives his self the silly name of “The Aquatic Chemist.” Wow! I thought there was more to chemistry than that!

A poor, confused lady that works at a less-than-steady gas station, calls her job “Petroleum Overseer of Distribution.”

A very attractive woman that worked at a retail clothing store once claimed to be the “enticement of all fabric.” Well, I don’t know if she meant that as her job description or not, but she sure enticed me…

The french fry guy at a big-city Burger King proudly stated that he, and only he, was “The Starch Manipulator.” Uh, uh, whatever dude… I don’t think anybody is going to fight you over such a silly title; LOL!

A couple young guys that mow yards and perform other yard-related jobs for money, call their outdoor career “Eco-non-friendly Landscaping Associates.” I hate to break it to ’em, but they really need to drop that first hyphenated compound word, as it can’t be good for business…

There was once a redneck farmer with 3 teeth and a dirty straw hat that would come to town on occasions, bragging about how he was an “Agricultural Scientist.” Uh, I know that such a title does exist, but something tells me that this guy was lying… Ha!

A local bum that should have been castrated, has 12 kids with 9 different women while never holding down a job and barely pays any child support, called his self “The Fornication Specialist of Animalistic Poverty.” Well, I think you could scramble some of those words around and it would still come out right…

See how easy and fun this is? I expect a lot more silly, creative job descriptions within the comment field in due time. I could add more, but I must stop here or else I’ll be typing all morning about this inane subject. Either way, we live in a world full of wanna-be gurus and misinformation (especially online), as all we can do, at times, is to just sit back and laugh… LOL!

The ‘Fruit versus Vegetable’ Debate – Does it really matter?

1 Comment »

veggies This is a tiresome debate, as I’m sure many of you have heard the ongoing babble about what defines a fruit from a freakin’ vegetable. Why? What’s the big deal? Well, the biggest debate I have ever stumbled upon, when concerning this particular subject, is the good ol’ “is a tomato a fruit or a vegetable?” By the way, some people consider the tomato to be an oversized berry from an herb (looks more like a weed to me), so go figure…

 Lets just say, this strange argument doesn’t stop there, as we have the dictionary from the field of botany on one side, the Webster’s dictionary on the other, and the common sense dictions standing on the fence, looking for a place to sit down and eat without all the noise.

Now, in a thumbnail, without being overly elaborate, the same people that say a tomato is a fruit must also say that such things like squash, snap peas, zucchini, pumpkins, jalapenos, bell peppers, etc., are also fruit. Hmm, I just don’t see this next dialogue exchange panning out: “Hey, John… You should really try this fruit juice I’m drinking.” John says, “What’s in it?” Jane says with a smile, “Oh, it is the latest fruit juice craze… It is Jalapeno & Squash juice with a hint of eggplant.” John looks at Jane in a confused manner and mumbles, “That is what you call fruit juice?”

Most people already get the point, I’m sure, but I’m not done yet. I really want to get to the bottom of this silly debate about fruit versus the vegetable crapola…

Okay, before I go any further, I think the proclaimed definitions are what screws up certain overly analytical people on this subject. For one, does it really matter? Secondly, lets change the definition of fruit or perhaps the vegetable or better yet, lets call it all vegetation and be done with it! These things sure as hell ain’t meat products, so we can at least agree on that much. Speaking of such, there are people out there that will argue with you up & down the street, that fish isn’t meat. Well, is sure doesn’t look like a plant, now does it? From here on out, common sense and a semi-functioning brain, needs to be applied, as silly subjects require silly verbiage…

Anyway, back to more pertinent matters:

The Merriam-Webster’s dictionary provides a simple, yet contradicting solution to this problem, with the following… Fruit: 1) a product of plant growth; esp : a usually edible and sweet reproductive body of a seed plant. Vegetable: 2) a usually herbaceous plant grown for an edible part that is usually eaten as part of a meal; also : such an edible part.

From the land of botany, the definitions change a bit… Fruit: 1) the developed ovary of a seed plant with its contents and accessory parts, as the pea pod, tomato, or pineapple. 2) the edible part of a plant developed from a flower, with any accessory tissues, as the peach, mulberry, or banana. Vegetable: A plant cultivated for an edible part, such as the root of the beet, the leaf of spinach, or the flower buds of broccoli or cauliflower.

Going by the dictionary and the botanists, I can totally see how things got confused. Hey, what about seeds, beans and legumes or potatoes and corn? I eat corn, which is a seed, but they call it grain, which is fine with me… I eat potatoes, which are obviously a vegetable by both versions of definitions (Merrian-Webster & the land of Botany), yet many folks want to call it a starch and act like it is some evil vegetative villain.

I suppose sunflower seeds and nuts also deserve a special category? What gives? Oh, if you say fish isn’t a meat, then I suppose you mean that all cold-blooded life is meatless? Tell that to your local snakes and alligators, as I’m sure they would love to know that they are not considered to have any meat; ha!

…All jokes temporarily set aside, when it comes to what is a fruit, vegetable, grain, etc., does it really matter? Does it not all boil down to silly semantics? It is either vegetation or a meat of some sort; case closed! Now, on another note: I haven’t seen cakes & pies grow from the ground yet nor have I seen Twinkies protrude from other animals, so perhaps there’s a better debate, as in how to properly categorize human junk food, instead of picking on the poor tomatoes… LOL!

Use an Isobaric Subwoofer Configuration to Save Space and Increase Quality of your Bass

No Comments »

isobaricAlthough this type of subject is not limited to car audio, it is generally the most common scenario that would involve the need to save on speaker-box space, etc.

Many folks that are wanting hard-hitting bass in their ride, generally think that big amps, big subwoofers, big box = big boom. Well, maybe so, but we don’t always have the trunk space of a large family car or the behind-the-seat air space of a van, either.

I used to be big into the car audio sound systems for a few years (right after High School), have built many speaker boxes (ported, sealed… even helped build bandpass boxes with Plexiglas windows, and so on), and I only had to resort to an Isobaric configuration one time, during all of that, but many folks may be interested in this extra option.

Okay, for one, I must say that the bigger the box does not by any means equal louder bass. Big, sealed boxes commonly hit at a lower frequency and have better quality overall, but as for finding your highest db (decibel) potential, is about finding the perfect-sized box for the frequency that you want to peak at. For example, some people may prefer a tighter, more punchy bass that hits harder at a higher frequency – if you mainly listen to hard rock, for example. On the other hand, a person who listens to rap may prefer a much lower frequency of bass, ya know, the kind that vibrates your seat even when you can’t even hear it. The human ear can only hear so low of a frequency (same applies to extremely high megahertz), so when you build a box that hits below the frequency of human hearing, it feels weird, to say the least (I’ve witnessed it before).

Anyway, they sell books for scientifically building the perfect box for your subwoofers, but that is not the primary subject of this post. Oh, if you are interested in such things, follow the link “Loudspeaker Design Cookbook,” and grab yourself a copy, today.

At any rate, I’m about to quickly go over the Isobaric configuration, its pros and cons, and why or when you should use it…

The main reason a normal person would want to use an Isobaric subwoofer configuration, also known as the “push-pull” subwoofer setup, is to cut your required box size literally in half, as you can divide the air space by 2, when using this method! Hey, that’s pretty dang good, if you require a 4.0 cubic foot box in a hatchback, and can get it cut down to a pleasant 2.0 cubic foot, eh?
The configuration is very simple, it’s just that you have to double your amount of subwoofers. In less words, we will turn two Subs into 1.
As you can tell by the image above, the push-pull effect can only be achieved if one of the subwoofers are wired in reverse. So, hook one sub up as normal, positive to positive, negative to negative, and the other Sub in reverse, such as positive wire to negative post of speaker and vice versa.

With two subwoofer cones acting as one, you have just created a “Super Subwoofer,” so to speak. By science, with the way this works, the required air space to basically operate at the same level as one, has been cut in half; presto! Since the opposing speaker that is facing inwards toward the other has been wired with a reversed polarity, you get the push-pull effect as when one pulls back, the other cone pushes forward; simple stuff here!

Now, lets get to the heart of the matter, as to the pros and cons and what type of situations would call for an Isobaric configuration.

Cons: Well, for one, you must have twice as many subwoofers to perform this and, depending on the brand name, this could cost a fair amount of extra money. Overall, per the amount of energy and/or power your amplifier puts out, Isobaric setups are not as efficient as single Sub units are.

Pros: I suppose one of my favorite aspects of an Isobaric setup is the lowered amount of distortion. Unless you have poor quality speakers and amps, this configuration sounds great and provides a tight, clean bass sound! The main Pro for this type of configuration is, of course, the box size is cut in half, which is great if you are short for room but still want some bump involved in your sound system.

In closing, here are the times when a person may need to resort to an Isobaric installation process:

When you have a very tight space in your vehicle, trunk, etc., and would like to have the sound of 2 subwoofers but only have room for one or have 4 Subs and only have room for 2, and so on.
If you have the extra money and have more Subwoofers than brains (just kidding) and would just like to enjoy the enhanced quality and less distortion that Isobaric sound systems have and/or have the time and funds to experiment with different options, etc.
If you have several low-quality subwoofers that you don’t want to throw away, but would like to find a way to make them sound semi-decent.
If you have a big amp with a lot of extra power to spare, and you are looking for a way to “amp it up” without excessive amounts of distortion.
If you are just seeking a tighter hitting thump and more accurate bass sounds for your sound system, and have the extra Subs and a powerful enough amplifier to work with.

So as you can see, many of y’all can do without this configuration, but there will be times that using this Isobaric Subwoofer Configuration to Save Space and Increase Quality of your Bass, will be the best option.


—————> ‘Click Here’ for a Fine Selection of Car Audio & Subwoofers <—————

—End of Post