Cosmetics are strictly small potatoes compared to skin care.
Can still remember buying a lipstick for $1.50, selling for $15.00 and
it was not worth wasting time selling them. That was almost 20 years
I'm with you, soap and water is the best cosmetic going.
As far as Scotch is concerned, if it's 86 proof, I'm good to go.
Vodka needs to be 100 proof or else it makes lousy martinis.
I'm not much for either whiskey or bourbon, but when it comes to
sippin liquor, Wild Turkey and Rebel Yell are tough to beat.
Won't touch gin.
Ahh - those repeatable, scientific tests that inconveniently intrude on
cherished beliefs. The fear that one might have wasted many thousands of
dollars might also be a factor. The really difficult task is to actually
change minds, instead of having the "Golden Ears" (or whomever) walk
away muttering about unfair test conditions, bias, or trickery. The Bob
Carver vs. Stereophile challenge/tests ended up in nasty litigation.
You mentioned scotch - the wine industry also has its share of "Golden
Calves". There's still a lot of money made peddling snake oil.
I do not imagine you being either reticent or unprepared.
remove no.spam. to email
Last time I heard anything from Anthony Cordesman was when he was
waxing eloquently about the 'upside' of using depleted uranium in
Who can forget Bob Carver? Or Harry Pearson? "Life is a minestrone,
I am oh-so glad that all this is oh-so yesterday.
"The bass was a bit plummy, but not in chocolate-y way. The mids were
decidedly gravelly" cooed Pearson whilst tugging on his flight
In blind listening tests, year after year, Bose speakers have never
Their little radio is kinda cool insofar that it sounds bigger than it
is, but the price is totally ridiculous.
That thing could sell for a quarter of the price and they'd still make
out like bandits.
The noise canceling headphones also have some merit, but again, stupid
But, if it is all legal if you can get away with it.
At least Bose offers a great money back guarantee.
I had a set of the QC2's that I returned, based on a value to
performance. They were very underwhelming, but I didn't get any push
back when I brought them back for a full refund.
However, you'd have to shoot me to take my Bose Aviation headset away.
Stupid money, but I still think they were worth it over every other set
I've flown with.
I recently had a problem with 901s from the 70's. I called Bose to find a
repair center. They asked me to describe the problem and they immediately
knew that it was caused by an adhesive breaking down. They sent me a new
pair, along with prepaid returning shipping.
How is that for stupid money?
18 x $ 2.00 = $ 36.00... I suppose that's not too bad for PR,
considering the money they made on that profit in the last 30 years is
Sorry, I don't have a kind word for them.
I am confused. What does "18 x $ 2.00 = $ 36.00" mean?
Honestly, I think that you'll do better with leaving the 3 minute
option off the table. I've learned that if you give people to many
options, often they'll get into some kind of decision gridlock and
can't make up their mind. You're trying to sell them a product, and
they're not going to sit around making a decision every 3 minutes
while your computer churns away at fancy ass digital effects.
Keep it simple, keep it quick, and when everything's ready to go, you
can fancy it up if you want. In this particular case, you're
considering more than tripling your presentation length for an
extremely marginal improvement in something that is, at best, a
tangent to your overall presentation.
Just use the quick and dirty option and don't use the other one unless
you're preparing for the meeting, and want your bid to stand out a
little bit. The extra time may pay off, and it doesn't waste the
customer's time, only yours.
The one on the right has too low gamma and/or contrast and saturation.
When tweaked to more closely resemble the one on the left the painted
wall has considerably more detail than the left.
As is, I'd use the one on the left. I still would even if the one on
the right is fixed.
The one on the right looks better to me ... and I couldn't figure out why
until I looked closely at the sink base on both. The one on the right has
the correct shadowing, the one on the left looks overexposed. While the
color on the left is more saturated, you seem to be losing contrast, which
is part of what a rendering needs to give you.
Hope this helps,
Went back and took another look in an attempt to quantify the "why" of my
Providing I assume correctly that the subject/focal point is supposed to be
the pedestal sink, and not the checkerboard wall, the increased contrast of
the checkerboard wall in the background on the left frame definitely pulls
my eye away from the pedestal ... this despite the fact that the pedestal in
the left frame has a sharper focus on this monitor.
Muddled or not, that's my story and I'm sticking to it ...
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.