That is one very particular condition (irregular heartbeat), which may be slightly exacerbated by alcohol consumption. The people suffering from this condition should obviously confer with their doctors, to mitigate any risk factors.
But as the authors directly state: "more than 100 previous studies have shown that a light to moderate intake of alcohol – up to seven standard drinks per week for women and 14 standard drinks per week for men – can actually be good for some people, and reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease, more specifically coronary artery disease."
Sometimes you just need to slow down the constant stream of thoughts, let the world be and unwind. A beer or two helps slow the stream just enough to make it more like background noise, so you can get in a more relaxed state of mind.
Your belief is completely wrong. Pure ethanol has no taste at all. Sure, it burns, but it doesn't taste like anything. What you're tasting (in cheap-ass vodka and the like) are unpleasant impurities. Lots and lots of flavor compounds are alcohol-soluble, which is why whisky can have such and enormous range of flavors (ranging from vanilla over plums over leather over hay over blackcurrant preserve over toasted chestnuts and so on) from nothing more than malted barley and oak casks.
Yes, there are definite "acquired tastes", but it's not due to the alcohol itself (which is tasteless, remember), but rather from the wide array of tastes that are not immediately identified by out brains as "tasty" and "good nutrition" (sweet, salty, fatty and so on), but rather more complex, such as bitterness.
I know I'm certainly not fooling myself when I drink beer (and especially whisky and other "brown spirits) for taste, not for the buzz.
A lot of very interesting flavors are alcohol-soluble. Try tasting normal wine. Now taste alcohol-free wine? It's bland and boring, right? Now try adding vodka (or a similar neutral spirit) to the alcohol-free wine until it's at normal wine level (12-16% ABV) and taste it again. The taste markedly improves.
Intentionally taking a drug to remove inhibitions and slow motor control just because you think you like it seems pretty stupid. I could understand if it was being done for some therapeutic reason.
No, because I know I like it. A moderate buzz is not very impairing at all. I very rarely drink enough to even be over the legal limit for driving, not that I would drink and drive anyway, I'm just using it as a reference.
It is done for a therapeutic reason, it's called mental well-being and happiness. Tonight I'm participating in a music quiz with some friends, and yes we'll have a couple of beers too. Why? Because it's fun:-)
The study cites 14-21 units/week of alcohol as "moderate consumption". That is not moderate, it's definitely into the "high" range. Thus, the conclusion is flawed when the paper talks about moderate consumption, because it isn't.
It you would read the paper, it supports the current UK recommended limits (14 units per week maximum) and posits that the current US limits are too high.
That is perfectly in line with what I've stated in this thread and in other comments on this article.
According to the latest guidelines, it is above moderate consumption.
A pint of beer every day is definitely high consumption.
I'm not trying to act holy, I'm going to a music festival in a couple of weeks, where they daily intake will probably be around 10-15 pints for most people. But it's certainly not healthy, at least not if it's something you do on a regular basis.
By comparison, there is no amount of alcohol that has been proven to be of benefit, even with moderation. It is quite clearly, a poison.
Stop lying. You're basing your statements on one flawed study. Notice the amounts consumed by the participants. They're way over what any reasonable person would call "moderate".
The only reason it is legal today is because addiction demands it should be.
No, it's legal because we're not at the mercy of neo-puritans like you.
Beer tastes good (well, good beer does), wine tastes good, whisky tastes good and so on. I know that's why I enjoy drinking it, in moderation. Is alcohol dangerous in high doses* dangerous? Yes. So is water or sugar or fat or anything else we consume.
* Notice the weekly consumption level mentioned in TFA.
Alcohol is a poison to the human body regardless of amount consumed, and there is no longer a point in debating it. Stupidity attempts to dismiss this fact in favor of a number of ignorant excuses to consume it.
So because one study shows that it may be dangerous to drink to the maximum recommended limit, all alcohol consumption is inherently dangerous, and there is absolutely no need to debate it?
I'm perfectly OK with your apparent aversion to alcoholic drinks. Maybe you're a former alcoholic, maybe someone in your family drank too much, I don't care. But please do not project this behavior onto people who happen to enjoy an alcoholic beverage on occasion, in safe moderation.
I'm not making excuses. I enjoy alcoholic drinks because they taste good. And you're sure as hell not getting plastered to hell and back from a single dram of high-quality whisky or two over the course of an evening.
Could it be that a lot of people enjoy alcohol because it tastes good, and that we happen to enjoy a light buzz, without feeling the urge to get totally plastered?
back in 2003 most MP3 encoders used a low-pass filter as part of the encoding process. you didn't need "golden ears" to tell the difference, you just needed to not be deaf.
Almost every single MP3 encoders use a low-pass filter, unless you specifically disable it or use LAME -V0 specifically.
I'm keeping an old high-end 4:3-format 28" SD CRT around for retro gaming. It is a bit silly, since it's like 90 lbs and takes up an unreasonable amount of space, but it makes old-school games look So. Fucking. Good.
It's a B&O BeoVision MX 8000, with one of the best CRT's Philips ever made (none of that flat-front nonsense), two full-RGB SCART inputs and all the picture adjustments directly available from a menu, instead of having to take off the back and fiddly around with a screwdriver. And of course the motorized stand, which is silly, but neat.
I'm not convinced that any amount of cabinet design can give decent base response even at close distances with a 4.5" cone, though, unless they've drastically increased the cone excursion limits; ported speakers only get you so far.
My main speakers are Adam A5X's, they have a 5" (they say 5.5", but it's more like 5" actual cone diameter) woofer and are flat to 55Hz, -3dB at 50Hz. And this is at full output, which is over 110dB @ 1m for a pair. That's certainly loud and deep enough for most music.
Another good example is the JBL LSR305. That also has a 5" woofer, and they measure flat to 50Hz.
Modern active monitor speakers really are little technological wonders.
Driver size doesn't meaningfully limit bass response. An 8 inch driver all else equal if going to go 2hz lower than a 6 inch driver. At 10 inches you are adding less than 1hz. With piano and a very trained ear you'll notice the missing 3hz. With modern bass heavy music you wont even realize its missing. The larger size lets you go 3db louder though. That's a lot.
So it does actually meaningfully improve bass response and performance. 25Hz is worthless if you can only output it at 75dB with 20% distortion.
A 10 inch drive necessitates a room of at least 400sq feet too. Small rooms cant accommodate 10 inch drivers. It's just going to be far too loud.
That's funny, because I use a pair of 12" subs in a ~180 sqft living room, and the room accommodates them very well indeed. How loud they play is simply a function of the gain setting on the subs and your own control of the volume knob. Of course, like all speaker systems, they need room correction (EQ or something more fancy) to perform at their best.
Slashdot Mirror
Even one drink a day can harm you.
That is one very particular condition (irregular heartbeat), which may be slightly exacerbated by alcohol consumption. The people suffering from this condition should obviously confer with their doctors, to mitigate any risk factors.
But as the authors directly state: "more than 100 previous studies have shown that a light to moderate intake of alcohol – up to seven standard drinks per week for women and 14 standard drinks per week for men – can actually be good for some people, and reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease, more specifically coronary artery disease."
Then I guess we should ban all sports, too. And driving.
After all, our taxes pay for healthcare for people engaging in these dangerous activities, too.
Or maybe you should just unclench your asshole and let people have fun, lest they go crazy.
Thank you for summing it up so concisely!
Sometimes you just need to slow down the constant stream of thoughts, let the world be and unwind. A beer or two helps slow the stream just enough to make it more like background noise, so you can get in a more relaxed state of mind.
Heavy drinking, yes.
One or two beers is right around the sweet spot.
Which is why you should know your limits, and maintain and pleasant lightheadedness, instead of falling down the rabbit hole.
Your belief is completely wrong. Pure ethanol has no taste at all. Sure, it burns, but it doesn't taste like anything. What you're tasting (in cheap-ass vodka and the like) are unpleasant impurities. Lots and lots of flavor compounds are alcohol-soluble, which is why whisky can have such and enormous range of flavors (ranging from vanilla over plums over leather over hay over blackcurrant preserve over toasted chestnuts and so on) from nothing more than malted barley and oak casks.
Yes, there are definite "acquired tastes", but it's not due to the alcohol itself (which is tasteless, remember), but rather from the wide array of tastes that are not immediately identified by out brains as "tasty" and "good nutrition" (sweet, salty, fatty and so on), but rather more complex, such as bitterness.
I know I'm certainly not fooling myself when I drink beer (and especially whisky and other "brown spirits) for taste, not for the buzz.
A lot of very interesting flavors are alcohol-soluble. Try tasting normal wine. Now taste alcohol-free wine? It's bland and boring, right? Now try adding vodka (or a similar neutral spirit) to the alcohol-free wine until it's at normal wine level (12-16% ABV) and taste it again. The taste markedly improves.
So consumption of alcohol is simply stupid?
Intentionally taking a drug to remove inhibitions and slow motor control just because you think you like it seems pretty stupid. I could understand if it was being done for some therapeutic reason.
No, because I know I like it. A moderate buzz is not very impairing at all. I very rarely drink enough to even be over the legal limit for driving, not that I would drink and drive anyway, I'm just using it as a reference.
It is done for a therapeutic reason, it's called mental well-being and happiness. Tonight I'm participating in a music quiz with some friends, and yes we'll have a couple of beers too. Why? Because it's fun :-)
You know? Fun? You should try it sometime.
So I guess you also avoid sugar, fat and anything else that is pleasurable in life?
You could try being intelligent and find your pleasures elsewhere.
Who's to say I don't? I just also happen to enjoy alcohol, in moderation.
Points 3, 4 and 5.
The study cites 14-21 units/week of alcohol as "moderate consumption". That is not moderate, it's definitely into the "high" range. Thus, the conclusion is flawed when the paper talks about moderate consumption, because it isn't.
It you would read the paper, it supports the current UK recommended limits (14 units per week maximum) and posits that the current US limits are too high.
That is perfectly in line with what I've stated in this thread and in other comments on this article.
A pint a day certainly isn't "moderate consumption", it's a drinking problem.
According to the latest guidelines, it is above moderate consumption.
A pint of beer every day is definitely high consumption.
I'm not trying to act holy, I'm going to a music festival in a couple of weeks, where they daily intake will probably be around 10-15 pints for most people. But it's certainly not healthy, at least not if it's something you do on a regular basis.
By comparison, there is no amount of alcohol that has been proven to be of benefit, even with moderation. It is quite clearly, a poison.
Stop lying. You're basing your statements on one flawed study. Notice the amounts consumed by the participants. They're way over what any reasonable person would call "moderate".
Also, this:
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/n...
The only reason it is legal today is because addiction demands it should be.
No, it's legal because we're not at the mercy of neo-puritans like you.
Beer tastes good (well, good beer does), wine tastes good, whisky tastes good and so on. I know that's why I enjoy drinking it, in moderation. Is alcohol dangerous in high doses* dangerous? Yes. So is water or sugar or fat or anything else we consume.
* Notice the weekly consumption level mentioned in TFA.
Alcohol is a poison to the human body regardless of amount consumed, and there is no longer a point in debating it. Stupidity attempts to dismiss this fact in favor of a number of ignorant excuses to consume it.
So because one study shows that it may be dangerous to drink to the maximum recommended limit, all alcohol consumption is inherently dangerous, and there is absolutely no need to debate it?
I'm perfectly OK with your apparent aversion to alcoholic drinks. Maybe you're a former alcoholic, maybe someone in your family drank too much, I don't care. But please do not project this behavior onto people who happen to enjoy an alcoholic beverage on occasion, in safe moderation.
I'm not making excuses. I enjoy alcoholic drinks because they taste good. And you're sure as hell not getting plastered to hell and back from a single dram of high-quality whisky or two over the course of an evening.
The only difference between medicine and poison, is the dosage.
So I guess you also avoid sugar, fat and anything else that is pleasurable in life?
So it's stupid to enjoy something that tastes good and makes you pleasantly light-headed?
Neo-puritans be crazy.
So these people did not have a "moderate" alcohol intake, they had a high alcohol intake.
So consumption of alcohol is simply stupid?
Could it be that a lot of people enjoy alcohol because it tastes good, and that we happen to enjoy a light buzz, without feeling the urge to get totally plastered?
*Pops open another cold one, leans back, doesn't give a shit*
back in 2003 most MP3 encoders used a low-pass filter as part of the encoding process. you didn't need "golden ears" to tell the difference, you just needed to not be deaf.
Almost every single MP3 encoders use a low-pass filter, unless you specifically disable it or use LAME -V0 specifically.
http://wiki.hydrogenaud.io/ind...
I'm 31 and I can't hear anything at all above 17 kHz. Not a damn thing, not even test tones. I don't give a shit about a lowpass filter at 17 kHz.
And how often is that octave used?
Bonus question: Out of all the times it is used, how often is it used with no harmonics at all?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I'm keeping an old high-end 4:3-format 28" SD CRT around for retro gaming. It is a bit silly, since it's like 90 lbs and takes up an unreasonable amount of space, but it makes old-school games look So. Fucking. Good.
It's a B&O BeoVision MX 8000, with one of the best CRT's Philips ever made (none of that flat-front nonsense), two full-RGB SCART inputs and all the picture adjustments directly available from a menu, instead of having to take off the back and fiddly around with a screwdriver. And of course the motorized stand, which is silly, but neat.
I'm not convinced that any amount of cabinet design can give decent base response even at close distances with a 4.5" cone, though, unless they've drastically increased the cone excursion limits; ported speakers only get you so far.
My main speakers are Adam A5X's, they have a 5" (they say 5.5", but it's more like 5" actual cone diameter) woofer and are flat to 55Hz, -3dB at 50Hz. And this is at full output, which is over 110dB @ 1m for a pair. That's certainly loud and deep enough for most music.
Another good example is the JBL LSR305. That also has a 5" woofer, and they measure flat to 50Hz.
Modern active monitor speakers really are little technological wonders.
Driver size doesn't meaningfully limit bass response. An 8 inch driver all else equal if going to go 2hz lower than a 6 inch driver. At 10 inches you are adding less than 1hz. With piano and a very trained ear you'll notice the missing 3hz. With modern bass heavy music you wont even realize its missing. The larger size lets you go 3db louder though. That's a lot.
So it does actually meaningfully improve bass response and performance. 25Hz is worthless if you can only output it at 75dB with 20% distortion.
A 10 inch drive necessitates a room of at least 400sq feet too. Small rooms cant accommodate 10 inch drivers. It's just going to be far too loud.
That's funny, because I use a pair of 12" subs in a ~180 sqft living room, and the room accommodates them very well indeed. How loud they play is simply a function of the gain setting on the subs and your own control of the volume knob. Of course, like all speaker systems, they need room correction (EQ or something more fancy) to perform at their best.