Yes, B&K is really nice stuff.....(its what i have in my theater), but you are nowhere NEAR the realm of a true reference system yet.
I've been through the specs countless times... and while I KNOW FOR A FACT that amps can sound better than my B&K, in terms of price it's already a Mercedes of the audio world. Not many people even bother with dedicated amps anymore, and even less so with monoblocs..., so if you assume that the average audio buyer spends even $50/channel in amplification, my amps are 10X that...
Yes, you "mention" them... but knowing full well that selling cables at an audio shop is the equivalent of selling drinks in the restaurant... in terms of markup.
I doubt that the professionals you work with, would recommend the most expensive cables to their own family (unless they got them at a huge discount, of course).
Cable quality is important to be sure... but the law of diminishing returns kicks in real fast. So if I spend $20 on a cable, I am likely getting 95% of the performance I could get with a $200 cable... and that's assuming that the quality scales both directly and linearly with price.
People who's job it is to know good sound (mastering engineers) are the people out there proclaiming that these 80k cables, and whatnot are worth it
Are you kidding me?
Sound engineers stay FAR FAR away from audiophile magazines.
Shit, I once took an article from 'Stereophile' to a physics professors at NYU so that he could explain to me what the terminology in a cable review/ad article meant. He told me that 90% of the terms they used, have no meaning whatsoever, in science.
Who do you think I should trust? My ears and a physics PhD... or misc people who get thousands $$$ from 10000% markup on cables?
They dedicate an ENORMOUS amount of page space to cables... when they are by far the LEAST important part of the setup.
www.partsexpress.com has excellent Dayton-brand cables for a fraction of the price of Monster-cable. (And by the way, MENTIONING moster-cable among audio pros is a faux-pas in and of itself). Expensive digital cables are a HUGE ripoff, because jitter is largely a consequence of the source, rather than the transmission... and a well-made (yes, just look at it) $10 digital cable is going to sound no different from the $1000 MIT insanity.
Analog cables need to be well-made, but again... no need to spend more than $10-15 per channel. As long as they are well-insulated and shielded, they'll work just fine.
Trust me - on my multi-thousand $ system (Aragon, B&K, MSB, etc...) I could detect no audible difference between the most expensive cables I could borrow ($1000 MIT), and the $15 set that I soldered myself.
My first reaction to this story was to add the "futile" tag.
I think we all have to get used to the thought that if there is any information out there, that is publicly accessible in plaintext, it will be cataloged, author identified, and data-mined ad infinitum. Given the technological capability to collect, organize, and process data... as well as the prolific availability of said data, we cannot reasonably expect any privacy laws to deter usage of this data, whether it be by private companies for profit, or government entities for censorship and oppression.
The way I see it, the only way to ensure any real privacy, is to personally ensure anonymity at any point where it seems necessary. With this, there will come more and more tradeoffs in terms of conveniences, and ultimately perhaps even one's place in society... but this is a choice we're all making right now, and will certainly have to make in the future.
But it takes more than "predictive" capabilities to be scientific. It needs predictive replication.
You're confused.
Experiments can be repeatable, theories are not repeatable, because the criteria are not parallel. Predictive value of a theory relies on the testability of the hypothesis and the repeatability of the outcome... but once you assign a certain predictive value, it implies that the experiments leading to this conclusion can be repeated.
This is exactly the reason why I'm not an evolutionist, but believe that theory is the best scientific one we have... for the moment. There is a difference. One is dogmatic, the other is not.
You contradicted yourself in just one sentence. The clear implication of your language is that you do not believe in what you yourself claim to be the best current explanation, and furthermore await its demise at any moment. Maybe you should re-evaluate your capacity to reason before posting again.
If it was wrong, then withdraw the paper because it is wrong. Why mention creationism at all. Oh wait, he didn't realize it was wrong until it was quoted by creationists, and we know THEY can't be right, so it was withdrawn BECAUSE of them, not because it was wrong.
Are you talking about the scientist himself, or the article?
Also, if your ideas that are incorrect were coopted by a bunch of insane pricks, wouldn't you want to set the record straight?
The public has never been happy with uncertainty. They can't handle it, mentally.
So it's OK that they "believe" scientists, because the unfortunate alternative is this: when they "discover" that scientists can't be 100% sure, they recoil in terror and anger, declare that this means that any idea is equal, and run back into the comfort of any belief that will quell their doubts.
As in, the more scientific investigation one performs around a certain phenomenon, the closer we get to understanding it completely... but it's asymptotic (at least in my view).
That's ok though, a p-value of 0.001 is perfectly sufficient for me.
The point I'm making isn't pro-creationist/anti science or pro-science/anti creationist but rather trying to make the case that conclusions of science can be wrong, and yet still be accepted by scientists, who are blinded by current dogma.
I can't make up my mind as to whether you misunderstand what this withdrawal means and why it was made... or whether you choose to pretend to misunderstand deliberately.
There is no "current dogma"... there are "current theories", which happen to be the best explanations to the facts collected... their quality being judged by their PREDICTIVE CAPACITY.
As soon as you come up with a belief-based system that has predictive ability that's better than the scientific method I'll accept it. In the meantime, please don't waste my time with these clearly facetious posts.
This is an insightful statement, and I agree with it. I do not believe many of your peers on the evolutionary side of the argument would, however.
Thanks for the generalization... and for putting words inside the mouths of countless people. They appreciate you forming and expressing your opinion for them.
It's clear that you don't actually know any scientists, since what I put forth is literally the most basic premise of the scientific method.
Or we'll just say that nothing is written in stone, and the papers you publish today may be retracted tomorrow when you change your minds.
Papers are retracted when there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary of their conclusions... most of the time that happens when new facts emerge as the science progresses. <blockquote>This is more a blow (in the long term) to the idea that science yields objective truth, IMO.</blockquote> I think the bigger concern is that you look for "objective truth"(tm)... There is no such thing - there is only "best approximation" based on the evidence thus far obtained. Science and the scientific method just happen to provide the best framework for making reasonable judgments about the real world, based on theories, the only measure of the success of which, is their PREDICTIVE CAPACITY.
If you come up with a better system, let me know. Until then, I'll be happy with an idea, rather than a belief-based "objective truth", thank you.
The creationist zealots will likely take this bit of news, and embrace it as evidence that the scientific community is trying to be deceitful by withdrawing a "clearly correct" paper, for political reasons.
The amount of confirmation bias that people can exhibit when their passions are challenged is incredible.
I think in the next update, the search index will become remotely searchable... and in the update after that, the access priviledges will be extended to the Microsoft IP range.
America ain't communist, and communism seems to be on the decline. So it is kind of hard to disprove that the red-scare tactics didn't work.
Really? You think the red scare is what mediated this effect? Same really with the no-fly lists. Before the no-fly lists four aircraft where hijacked, and afterwards?</blockquote> I thought this was Slashdot, not the convention for the retarded. You got an "Insightful" rating for this garbage?
COINCIDENCE != CAUSALITY
Given the data you presented, there is no way to logically come to your conclusion! Furthermore, even if I assume just as a matter of a thought experiment, that you're correct, and the no-fly lists did prevent at least one terrorist attack, it still doesn't make them any better at all, because while the relative risk reduction may have been 100%, the absolute risk reduction would be like 0.0001%... and I am simply not willing to sacrifice much of my freedom, and a colossal amount of my money, for a tiny benefit like that.
Simply put, the cost-to-benefit ratio of these measures is totally unacceptable.
Really? You mean Dell isn't selling Ubuntu-preloaded computers at www.dell.com/open, and the website they put up there that I've already purchased from is just a ruse? So the computer I got with Ubuntu 7.04 preloaded was just a figment of my imagination.
Please moderators, mod parent troll for the BS it is.
I think the better analogy would've been if the FBI came into your store and you gave them all receipts and all customer information from the last couple of years... regardless of whether it had anything to do with fertilizer or not. Also, your promised the FBI that you'd ensure that every camera you sold in your store, had a direct uplink to the FBI, so they could observe any and all pictures and video taken by your customers.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, you "mention" them... but knowing full well that selling cables at an audio shop is the equivalent of selling drinks in the restaurant... in terms of markup.
I doubt that the professionals you work with, would recommend the most expensive cables to their own family (unless they got them at a huge discount, of course).
Cable quality is important to be sure... but the law of diminishing returns kicks in real fast. So if I spend $20 on a cable, I am likely getting 95% of the performance I could get with a $200 cable... and that's assuming that the quality scales both directly and linearly with price.
Are you kidding me?
Sound engineers stay FAR FAR away from audiophile magazines.
Shit, I once took an article from 'Stereophile' to a physics professors at NYU so that he could explain to me what the terminology in a cable review/ad article meant. He told me that 90% of the terms they used, have no meaning whatsoever, in science.
Who do you think I should trust? My ears and a physics PhD... or misc people who get thousands $$$ from 10000% markup on cables?
They dedicate an ENORMOUS amount of page space to cables... when they are by far the LEAST important part of the setup.
www.partsexpress.com has excellent Dayton-brand cables for a fraction of the price of Monster-cable. (And by the way, MENTIONING moster-cable among audio pros is a faux-pas in and of itself). Expensive digital cables are a HUGE ripoff, because jitter is largely a consequence of the source, rather than the transmission... and a well-made (yes, just look at it) $10 digital cable is going to sound no different from the $1000 MIT insanity.
Analog cables need to be well-made, but again... no need to spend more than $10-15 per channel. As long as they are well-insulated and shielded, they'll work just fine.
Trust me - on my multi-thousand $ system (Aragon, B&K, MSB, etc...) I could detect no audible difference between the most expensive cables I could borrow ($1000 MIT), and the $15 set that I soldered myself.
Jan Vilcek -> Remicaid.
Exactly.
My first reaction to this story was to add the "futile" tag.
I think we all have to get used to the thought that if there is any information out there, that is publicly accessible in plaintext, it will be cataloged, author identified, and data-mined ad infinitum. Given the technological capability to collect, organize, and process data... as well as the prolific availability of said data, we cannot reasonably expect any privacy laws to deter usage of this data, whether it be by private companies for profit, or government entities for censorship and oppression.
The way I see it, the only way to ensure any real privacy, is to personally ensure anonymity at any point where it seems necessary. With this, there will come more and more tradeoffs in terms of conveniences, and ultimately perhaps even one's place in society... but this is a choice we're all making right now, and will certainly have to make in the future.
They are not serving Slashdot on that machine. They were complaining that the interface is slow... which should never even happen on a desktop.
Experiments can be repeatable, theories are not repeatable, because the criteria are not parallel. Predictive value of a theory relies on the testability of the hypothesis and the repeatability of the outcome... but once you assign a certain predictive value, it implies that the experiments leading to this conclusion can be repeated.
You contradicted yourself in just one sentence. The clear implication of your language is that you do not believe in what you yourself claim to be the best current explanation, and furthermore await its demise at any moment. Maybe you should re-evaluate your capacity to reason before posting again.
Also, if your ideas that are incorrect were coopted by a bunch of insane pricks, wouldn't you want to set the record straight?
The public has never been happy with uncertainty. They can't handle it, mentally.
So it's OK that they "believe" scientists, because the unfortunate alternative is this: when they "discover" that scientists can't be 100% sure, they recoil in terror and anger, declare that this means that any idea is equal, and run back into the comfort of any belief that will quell their doubts.
It's a limit.
As in, the more scientific investigation one performs around a certain phenomenon, the closer we get to understanding it completely... but it's asymptotic (at least in my view).
That's ok though, a p-value of 0.001 is perfectly sufficient for me.
I can't make up my mind as to whether you misunderstand what this withdrawal means and why it was made... or whether you choose to pretend to misunderstand deliberately.
There is no "current dogma"... there are "current theories", which happen to be the best explanations to the facts collected... their quality being judged by their PREDICTIVE CAPACITY.
As soon as you come up with a belief-based system that has predictive ability that's better than the scientific method I'll accept it. In the meantime, please don't waste my time with these clearly facetious posts.
Thanks for the generalization... and for putting words inside the mouths of countless people. They appreciate you forming and expressing your opinion for them.
It's clear that you don't actually know any scientists, since what I put forth is literally the most basic premise of the scientific method.
Papers are retracted when there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary of their conclusions... most of the time that happens when new facts emerge as the science progresses.
<blockquote>This is more a blow (in the long term) to the idea that science yields objective truth, IMO.</blockquote>
I think the bigger concern is that you look for "objective truth"(tm)... There is no such thing - there is only "best approximation" based on the evidence thus far obtained. Science and the scientific method just happen to provide the best framework for making reasonable judgments about the real world, based on theories, the only measure of the success of which, is their PREDICTIVE CAPACITY.
If you come up with a better system, let me know. Until then, I'll be happy with an idea, rather than a belief-based "objective truth", thank you.
The creationist zealots will likely take this bit of news, and embrace it as evidence that the scientific community is trying to be deceitful by withdrawing a "clearly correct" paper, for political reasons.
The amount of confirmation bias that people can exhibit when their passions are challenged is incredible.
Which is why the only thing my Windows computer is used for, is playing games, and watching TV.
I think in the next update, the search index will become remotely searchable... and in the update after that, the access priviledges will be extended to the Microsoft IP range.
Really? You think the red scare is what mediated this effect?
Same really with the no-fly lists. Before the no-fly lists four aircraft where hijacked, and afterwards?</blockquote>
I thought this was Slashdot, not the convention for the retarded. You got an "Insightful" rating for this garbage?
COINCIDENCE != CAUSALITY
Given the data you presented, there is no way to logically come to your conclusion! Furthermore, even if I assume just as a matter of a thought experiment, that you're correct, and the no-fly lists did prevent at least one terrorist attack, it still doesn't make them any better at all, because while the relative risk reduction may have been 100%, the absolute risk reduction would be like 0.0001%... and I am simply not willing to sacrifice much of my freedom, and a colossal amount of my money, for a tiny benefit like that.
Simply put, the cost-to-benefit ratio of these measures is totally unacceptable.
Really? You mean Dell isn't selling Ubuntu-preloaded computers at www.dell.com/open, and the website they put up there that I've already purchased from is just a ruse? So the computer I got with Ubuntu 7.04 preloaded was just a figment of my imagination.
Please moderators, mod parent troll for the BS it is.
Please, mod parent up.
I think the better analogy would've been if the FBI came into your store and you gave them all receipts and all customer information from the last couple of years... regardless of whether it had anything to do with fertilizer or not. Also, your promised the FBI that you'd ensure that every camera you sold in your store, had a direct uplink to the FBI, so they could observe any and all pictures and video taken by your customers.
Don't even start.
None of the adult stem cell research advances would be possible without the knowledge gained from embryonic stem cell research.
Please don't bring ignorance and religious bias into this discussion.
It's ok, I am used to being modded "Troll" for saying the truth...
Translation:
Cisco officials were pwned by Brazilian authorities for not bribing enough of the right people with the right amount of money.
Why ban it permanently, when they can ensure that they'll be "lobbied" again 4 years from now.