I'm a sound man and guitar tech. I have built (and worked on) more than a couple. The GP is WRONG about a fundamental fact of acoustics where guitars are concerned.

Both electric (we're talking well built, not Musician's Friend Strat or Les Paul style budget models) and acoustics both "dissipate" sound at about the same rate. The path is just different. With an acoustic, the sound is radiated by vibration of the wood and is directed outward by the sound hole. In a solid body, the vibrations are constrained in the wood and transfered to the pickups though sympathetic vibration of the strings. Pluck a $2000 Strat unplugged and listen to the decay (put your ear on the headstock or body). Then pluck a $2000 Martin and notice, that while the note is louder, the decay is about the same. If it's not, then there is something wrong with your guitar. It's the tight coupling of parts, type of wood, and construction that affect sustain, whether you are talking about electric or acoustic.

The invention of the electric preceeded solid body by a few years when the need for amplification to be heard among the big band instruments was realized. These were really not much more than an acoustic design with either a mic or mag pickup strapped under the strings. According to Aspen Pittman's Tube Amp Book, feedback problems were indeed one of the main reasons for developing solid body electrics. The acoustic-electrics of the time were real problematic.

And why is everyone tweaking on these "this ain't a real guitar" comments. Of course it isn't! It's a fucking midi controller. That's like bitching that a Fender Rhodes isn't reallty a piano. Jebus!

God I wish I had some mod points. I'm a sound man and that is some funny shit. I used to have that Farside comic laminated to my console. Haven't seen it in years. Thanks for the memory. And IMHO, Auto-tune IS a suck button. Thanks Cher!

Yes, but due to the doppler effect, from your perspective it will be subsonic. Those ahead of your trajectory would most probably hear a "mouse fart".

Um, Ted Stevens?

Harcourt! Harcourt Fenton Mudd, have you been drinking again? Well let me tell you something. . .thing. . .thing. . .!

So if the blender weighs less than a chicken. . .

damn. wrong parent. this is the comment I was replying to.

Didst thou forget to lob thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch first? Consultest thou The Holy Book of Armaments 2:9-21 for instructions.

meh!

Oh, really? Well, maybe it's the first one with its own social network. Hmmm, I wonder where I can find an AA group with their own bar?

Or even, "In Communist China, iPhone bricks YOU!"

I, for one, welcome our "making the guy with a prosthesis next to you jack off" overlords.

Or perhaps this type of shit would qualify as an example of the violation of our freedom to take pictures of anything we want.

When the gov't wants to take pictures of you, the claim is always that there is no expecation of privacy in public. But if a private citizen wants to take a picture of something in public that the "powers that be" decide they shouldn't, some poor bastard gets arrested.

Military bases are one thing. When the military is working on a top secret project, they go to great lengths to prevent folks from taking pictures by secluding those projects, or picking remote areas for testing that are inaccesible by the public. This, I understand. You wouldn't want your defenses thwarted by potential enemies before you have a chance to use them. But this whole idea of "we can take pictures of anything we want, but you can't or face the consequences" boils down to a "do as I say and not as I do" mentality that undermines the very fabric of our society and sets up what amounts to nothing less than Orwellian politics.

Perhaps Corey Doctorow wasn't too far off the mark!

<oblig>I'm a lumberjack and I'm ok, I sleep all night and I work all day. . .</oblig>

Perhaps this [pdf] will shed light on why she will most likely be unable to wiggle out of the 1.92M.