I agree with you (hence my comment at the end about needing a nice deck despite having a nice sound interface). The point I was trying to make was that buying a $100 USB record player was unlikely to yield good results.
I'd love to hear your recording of Presence - I bought the Led Zep remasters back in 1994 and think they sound pretty good (I don't think they're as heavily compressed as later "digitally remastered" recordings), but I'd be interested to hear the original mix!
1. (as another poster said) - you're attenuating and then amplifying a signal: noise 2. LPs are recorded with the high frequencies boosted, and this is then attenuated in a dedicated circuit within the receiver. By skipping this, you're going to end up with tinny recordings (did I mention noise?).
Seriously, unless you've got a nice sound interface, don't bother recording LPs, cassettes, etc - the results won't be worth it. Cetainly that USB thing from thinkgeek (linked earlier) won't produce good recordings. Unless it's a bootleg or something... I've got a nice multitrack firewire interface, and even then I'd only think about recording LPs, cassettes, etc if I had a really nice deck..
In general, worthwhile work is difficult and rewards don't come easily. Part of what is called "experience" is having the concentration span and application to have a long term goal and follow through with it. Do we really want to encourage our youth away from this? It seems to me it will deprive them of an important part of their education.
I'm not American, and I'm atheistic, but there's still a lot of truth in what the GP says. Nothing happens in a vacuum: America was founded on religious freedom, and these freedoms eventually propagated into most spheres of life, and affected other countries' in turn. I really doubt we'd be living in free societies today were it not for the discovery of and subsequent colonisation of the New World (this was a huge destabiliser of the old order in Europe), and in particular the mass migration of persecuted religious minorities from England to North America. Read about (for example) the connections between the French revolution of 1788 and the inspiration they took from the U.S. declaration of independence in 1776 (which had, in turn, probably been hugely influenced by the English revolution {aka the Glorious Revolution} of 1688).
Having said all that, I'm not defending American religion particularly, and think the U.S. would be a better country if it were more secular (that's just my opinion though).
First, I think you'll find that Google is an advocate of internet freedom not just in China, but in other countries also. Second, in totalitarian regimes a country doesn't belong to its citizens, it belongs to the ruling class. Third, believing in freedom is compatible with believing in the criticism of tyranny -- that is not imposing anything on anyone, and is ok even if you don't live in a perfect country yourself (otherwise even the worst dictator could use this defence!) Finally, many people who criticize Chinese censorship are also critical of their own government's. While there is a bit of xenophobia and jingoism when it comes to China, that isn't the case for all criticism of the Chinese government, and doesn't represent an attack on the Chinese people.
In Australia, the Labor Party is there to (supposedly) advocate for the labour workforce. ie. In Aust, the political party is "Labor" even though the word is spelt "labour." At the time of the founding of the party, they viewed this spelling as progressive and throwing off old conventions.
That was before people started talking of US imperialism (the Brits were the imperialists then;-)
Interesting link. So, if 1/7 scientists "cheat" in their results, then 6/7 presumably don't?
Also, a quote from your article: "And around 46 per cent say that they have observed fellow scientists engage in "questionable practices", such as presenting data selectively or changing the conclusions of a study in response to pressure from a funding source."
I have read that it is quite common for pharmaceutical companies to fund research and only allow the scientists to publish if the results suit them. I'm sure these are the sort of funding sources that pressure scientists to alter results - and I suspect that Big Oil engages in similar practices also. Compare this to most of the pro_GW scientists who are in general government-funded.
My suspicion (for which I lack evidence), is that it is the 1/7 corrupt scientists who are the GW-denialists, and are funded by energy companies!
ps. I thought about removing #2, because I didn't think it added much to my argument.
Are you implying that the geocentric theory of the universe was a scientific theory? It was Galileo who was one of the early proponents of the heliocentric theory. Heliocentrism was first proposed by Copernicus. Both these men are today regarded as early scientists.
So, despite your apparent attempt at sarcasm, yes: there are a lot of parallels between GW and geocentric theories. In both cases there was/is an entrenched and powerful body defending a claim that was/is not supported by science (in the 16th century the church was defending geocentrism. Today energy companies are telling us that GW is bogus) and scientists are being vilified for disagreeing (in the 16th C, Galileo was threatened with execution and placed under house arrest. Today we have propaganda, discreditation and misinformation campaigns, etc).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're implying that:
1. people who accept poor salaries and working conditions to dedicate their lives to the pursuit of truth and knowledge are as likely to "ignore scientific evidence for financial gain" as those who pursue power and wealth in big business. 2. every person on Earth is biased and corruptible to exactly the same extent.
"Science also didn't care if preservatives in vaccines led to autism. The media cared a lot. Articles in peer reviewed journals thought it did "
There was _one_ paper, in _one_ journal that suggested a link between vaccines and autism. The study was widely criticised by many scientists and was subsequently retracted. Hardly the protracted controversy that you imply it was.
I see someone else has already discredited your claim about stomach ulcers also.
Look, no one is saying science is perfect, but in general: when there is a scientific consensus it implies there is a modicum of truth.
There was a show on the BBC recently that was a biography of John Mortimer, who died last year at 85. He was interviewed a lot in the show and one of the methods that he advocates to stay young is to keep changing and doing new things - career changes, move city, just keep doing something new. He said that think if people can do that, they can cram more new experiences into their later years, and get more out of life.
Seems kind of obvious, in a way, but it's amazing how many people become trapped in their own routine. Routine is what makes time pass quickly.
"A friendly anonymous sponsor has provided a pile of new servers, and git and svn are now up in their new locations"
I read this to mean that tor are hosting git and svn on the new, anonymously-donated servers. I expect that if they were hardware-compromised, that could be used, in turn, to compromise the source-repositories. Please correct me if I'm wrong tho...
Having said all that - I'd also expect a project like tor to be pretty careful with security! Also, it's quite possible that although the servers were anonymously-donated, they may still have been sourced by the tor project - it's hard to imagine a guy in a trench-coat and dark glasses knocking on their door, handing them a server before fading into the shadows, and them welcoming it with open arms!
Err... no. an increase of risk of 100% means you're doubling your chances of premature death, not that you have a 100% chance of dying instantly.
Basic stats, people!
(Having said that, the claim as stated sounds dubious. Perhaps it's been misreported, and the actual claim is "every hour of _daily_ TV watching increases the risk by 18%" -- which is believable)
While what you say contains some historical truth, to try and imply that things are different today _because_ of IP laws is pretty dubious. I think that more likely causes (for the times to which you appear to be alluding) are: - books were very expensive to produce (the printing press hadn't been developed) - education was not widespread (most people were peasants or serfs) - there wasn't even a _market_ for books
In the times you're talking about, _everything_ was prohibitively expensive, unless you were of the upper classes.
ps "nobody was literate because of this" - that's complete crap. People were illiterate because they had to work their asses off just to get food and shelter (and often failed to do that).
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with you (hence my comment at the end about needing a nice deck despite having a nice sound interface). The point I was trying to make was that buying a $100 USB record player was unlikely to yield good results.
I'd love to hear your recording of Presence - I bought the Led Zep remasters back in 1994 and think they sound pretty good (I don't think they're as heavily compressed as later "digitally remastered" recordings), but I'd be interested to hear the original mix!
There is an example video on Ars Technica. You will perceive this 3D, even with only one eye, because it is perspective-based not stereo-image-based.
Personally, I think this would be handy on a desktop and would like to see compiz do it - get going folks!
for two reasons
1. (as another poster said) - you're attenuating and then amplifying a signal: noise
2. LPs are recorded with the high frequencies boosted, and this is then attenuated in a dedicated circuit within the receiver. By skipping this, you're going to end up with tinny recordings (did I mention noise?).
Seriously, unless you've got a nice sound interface, don't bother recording LPs, cassettes, etc - the results won't be worth it. Cetainly that USB thing from thinkgeek (linked earlier) won't produce good recordings. Unless it's a bootleg or something... I've got a nice multitrack firewire interface, and even then I'd only think about recording LPs, cassettes, etc if I had a really nice deck..
...because, of course, there were never installation delays with a proprietary system...
In general, worthwhile work is difficult and rewards don't come easily. Part of what is called "experience" is having the concentration span and application to have a long term goal and follow through with it. Do we really want to encourage our youth away from this? It seems to me it will deprive them of an important part of their education.
Ahh - but a good film with a good plot and good actors can be immersing even when watched on a 7" Eee PC. I know, because I've done it.
I'm not American, and I'm atheistic, but there's still a lot of truth in what the GP says. Nothing happens in a vacuum: America was founded on religious freedom, and these freedoms eventually propagated into most spheres of life, and affected other countries' in turn. I really doubt we'd be living in free societies today were it not for the discovery of and subsequent colonisation of the New World (this was a huge destabiliser of the old order in Europe), and in particular the mass migration of persecuted religious minorities from England to North America. Read about (for example) the connections between the French revolution of 1788 and the inspiration they took from the U.S. declaration of independence in 1776 (which had, in turn, probably been hugely influenced by the English revolution {aka the Glorious Revolution} of 1688).
Having said all that, I'm not defending American religion particularly, and think the U.S. would be a better country if it were more secular (that's just my opinion though).
If I only ever saw XKCD via /. I'd swear there were only about 10 cartoons!
First, I think you'll find that Google is an advocate of internet freedom not just in China, but in other countries also.
Second, in totalitarian regimes a country doesn't belong to its citizens, it belongs to the ruling class.
Third, believing in freedom is compatible with believing in the criticism of tyranny -- that is not imposing anything on anyone, and is ok even if you don't live in a perfect country yourself (otherwise even the worst dictator could use this defence!)
Finally, many people who criticize Chinese censorship are also critical of their own government's. While there is a bit of xenophobia and jingoism when it comes to China, that isn't the case for all criticism of the Chinese government, and doesn't represent an attack on the Chinese people.
Not true :-)
In Australia, the Labor Party is there to (supposedly) advocate for the labour workforce. ie. In Aust, the political party is "Labor" even though the word is spelt "labour." At the time of the founding of the party, they viewed this spelling as progressive and throwing off old conventions.
That was before people started talking of US imperialism (the Brits were the imperialists then ;-)
Moderators: troll and overrated != I disagree with post and want to censor
Interesting link. So, if 1/7 scientists "cheat" in their results, then 6/7 presumably don't?
Also, a quote from your article:
"And around 46 per cent say that they have observed fellow scientists engage in "questionable practices", such as presenting data selectively or changing the conclusions of a study in response to pressure from a funding source."
I have read that it is quite common for pharmaceutical companies to fund research and only allow the scientists to publish if the results suit them. I'm sure these are the sort of funding sources that pressure scientists to alter results - and I suspect that Big Oil engages in similar practices also. Compare this to most of the pro_GW scientists who are in general government-funded.
My suspicion (for which I lack evidence), is that it is the 1/7 corrupt scientists who are the GW-denialists, and are funded by energy companies!
ps. I thought about removing #2, because I didn't think it added much to my argument.
"Just like the sun around the earth, right?"
Are you implying that the geocentric theory of the universe was a scientific theory? It was Galileo who was one of the early proponents of the heliocentric theory. Heliocentrism was first proposed by Copernicus. Both these men are today regarded as early scientists.
So, despite your apparent attempt at sarcasm, yes: there are a lot of parallels between GW and geocentric theories. In both cases there was/is an entrenched and powerful body defending a claim that was/is not supported by science (in the 16th century the church was defending geocentrism. Today energy companies are telling us that GW is bogus) and scientists are being vilified for disagreeing (in the 16th C, Galileo was threatened with execution and placed under house arrest. Today we have propaganda, discreditation and misinformation campaigns, etc).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're implying that:
1. people who accept poor salaries and working conditions to dedicate their lives to the pursuit of truth and knowledge are as likely to "ignore scientific evidence for financial gain" as those who pursue power and wealth in big business.
2. every person on Earth is biased and corruptible to exactly the same extent.
I would dispute both those claims.
"Science also didn't care if preservatives in vaccines led to autism. The media cared a lot. Articles in peer reviewed journals thought it did "
There was _one_ paper, in _one_ journal that suggested a link between vaccines and autism. The study was widely criticised by many scientists and was subsequently retracted. Hardly the protracted controversy that you imply it was.
I see someone else has already discredited your claim about stomach ulcers also.
Look, no one is saying science is perfect, but in general: when there is a scientific consensus it implies there is a modicum of truth.
Sure they do. And I know how to fly - I just choose not to...
...and that's just the thing about paying with the coin of privacy - there are no refunds
There was a show on the BBC recently that was a biography of John Mortimer, who died last year at 85. He was interviewed a lot in the show and one of the methods that he advocates to stay young is to keep changing and doing new things - career changes, move city, just keep doing something new. He said that think if people can do that, they can cram more new experiences into their later years, and get more out of life.
Seems kind of obvious, in a way, but it's amazing how many people become trapped in their own routine. Routine is what makes time pass quickly.
...just like muggers and other thugs who help to weed out the weak and elderly?
"It is more like a Nexus One that won't fit in your pocket!" ...except that Apple decides what apps and hardware you can or can't use with it.
While switching to Linux is a punishment for MS - pirating their software is not - it merely entrenches their position.
"A friendly anonymous sponsor has provided a pile of new servers, and git and svn are now up
in their new locations"
I read this to mean that tor are hosting git and svn on the new, anonymously-donated servers. I expect that if they were hardware-compromised, that could be used, in turn, to compromise the source-repositories. Please correct me if I'm wrong tho...
Having said all that - I'd also expect a project like tor to be pretty careful with security! Also, it's quite possible that although the servers were anonymously-donated, they may still have been sourced by the tor project - it's hard to imagine a guy in a trench-coat and dark glasses knocking on their door, handing them a server before fading into the shadows, and them welcoming it with open arms!
Err... no. an increase of risk of 100% means you're doubling your chances of premature death, not that you have a 100% chance of dying instantly.
Basic stats, people!
(Having said that, the claim as stated sounds dubious. Perhaps it's been misreported, and the actual claim is "every hour of _daily_ TV watching increases the risk by 18%" -- which is believable)
While what you say contains some historical truth, to try and imply that things are different today _because_ of IP laws is pretty dubious. I think that more likely causes (for the times to which you appear to be alluding) are:
- books were very expensive to produce (the printing press hadn't been developed)
- education was not widespread (most people were peasants or serfs)
- there wasn't even a _market_ for books
In the times you're talking about, _everything_ was prohibitively expensive, unless you were of the upper classes.
ps "nobody was literate because of this" - that's complete crap. People were illiterate because they had to work their asses off just to get food and shelter (and often failed to do that).
C'mon, go easy - I wouldn't call failing to capitalize IT a grammatical error!