Maybe not with food. But kids definitely don't play outside as much. I have to beat my kids with a stick to get them away from a tv or computer and have them go play outside.
Indeed, the future is always brighter. (The question is if there is such a thing as a future. Modernism in itself implies that this is the end of time.) I have no interest in the past.
But I will miss taste.
"In absence of any aesthetic criteria, money is the only yardstick. All 'tastes,' like all 'needs,' are attended to by the market."-- Introducing Postmodernism.
And objectivity scares the s*** out of me. Nazi Germany showed us what the belief in an objective (i.e. higher) truth can do.
But I will miss taste.
"In absence of any aesthetic criteria, money is the only yardstick. All 'tastes,' like all 'needs,' are attended to by the market."-- Introducing Postmodernism.
And objectivity scares the s*** out of me. Nazi Germany showed us what the belief in an objective (i.e. higher) truth can do.
severely OT
phn: That's nonsense. See "The End of Faith" for a better explication than I can give.
As for food, the two people whose taste I have the least faith in is the Brits and the Germans. Eh, Thorsten? I wince when I watch Jamie Oliver cook. Gordon Ramsey is an exception, but the list of great British chefs pretty much begins and ends there. British home cooking is a different matter and can rise to impressive heights, what with the ever-increasing internationalization of that lovely island.
Really, there is more and better food around today than ever before. The rise of the artisinal farmer in the US, driven by visionaries like John Ash, Thomas Keller, Alice Waters, and the like has been transformative. As much as people complain about Mickey Dee's, we're inundated with choices. Could you find regional Indian cuisine in Munich or Prague 20 years ago? No. A walk through Vienna's Naschmarkt will convince anyone that even people who live in culinary wastelands and wish to explore outside the confines of rigid tradition can have a startlingly broad view of cuisine and ingredients and access thereto. These days, a young Wolfgang Puck would not have to leave his native land to develop his talent.
phn: That's nonsense. See "The End of Faith" for a better explication than I can give.
As for food, the two people whose taste I have the least faith in is the Brits and the Germans. Eh, Thorsten? I wince when I watch Jamie Oliver cook. Gordon Ramsey is an exception, but the list of great British chefs pretty much begins and ends there. British home cooking is a different matter and can rise to impressive heights, what with the ever-increasing internationalization of that lovely island.
Really, there is more and better food around today than ever before. The rise of the artisinal farmer in the US, driven by visionaries like John Ash, Thomas Keller, Alice Waters, and the like has been transformative. As much as people complain about Mickey Dee's, we're inundated with choices. Could you find regional Indian cuisine in Munich or Prague 20 years ago? No. A walk through Vienna's Naschmarkt will convince anyone that even people who live in culinary wastelands and wish to explore outside the confines of rigid tradition can have a startlingly broad view of cuisine and ingredients and access thereto. These days, a young Wolfgang Puck would not have to leave his native land to develop his talent.
SY, you are mistaken. I do not question reason. I question rationalism. As said earlier, I think of them not as synonyms, but as opposites.
Atheism isn't the opposite of faith, truth is. But faith and rationalism/science are the same in their belief in an objective truth. One of the dangers of science is that it relies on regularities. You cannot build a theory on irregularities. Subsequently, scientific methods are designed to weed out irregularities. The pseudo-science of eugenics was rooted in rationalism.
One man's happiness is another man's hell.
Atheism isn't the opposite of faith, truth is. But faith and rationalism/science are the same in their belief in an objective truth. One of the dangers of science is that it relies on regularities. You cannot build a theory on irregularities. Subsequently, scientific methods are designed to weed out irregularities. The pseudo-science of eugenics was rooted in rationalism.
One man's happiness is another man's hell.
Phn,
"The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments."
Friedrich Nietzsche
"The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments."
Friedrich Nietzsche
phn said:
Yes, in the sense that scientific methods try to accomodate irregularities by more and more refining theories and digging deeper and deeper into our understanding as to be able to explain the irregularities of yesterday as the regularities (explainable by theory) of today.
It is not to weed out irregularities as in glossing them over, neglecting them or sweeping them under the carpet. Eventually, theories get expanded and refined to accomodate yesterday's irregularities.
I think. 😕
Jan Didden
SY said:
Eeeh,
i can recommend Mr Stein's Fish Restaurant in Cornwall.(St Edmunds Lane,Padstow) But i believe he's in F&C too nowadays.
And there's always the one and really only Mr Keith Floyd !!!
Just recently i have tried smearing truffle oil all over audio gear. Someone gave me the idea just the other day that it is time to smell the music, can't remember who brought me to the idea for the life of me.
Mind you, white Italian truffle only !
Most white truffle oil is a chemical concoction, sadly.
Keith Floyd is a hoot, I love his shows, but he's a terrible cook. One hell of a good drunk, though. His show cooking piperade in an old lady's kitchen in France is still one of the funniest things I've ever seen on TV.
Keith Floyd is a hoot, I love his shows, but he's a terrible cook. One hell of a good drunk, though. His show cooking piperade in an old lady's kitchen in France is still one of the funniest things I've ever seen on TV.
Konnichiwa,
It's the Evil King Kuei Yang Wang (I changed the spelling a little), from the Anime Sazan Eyes. This is one bada$$ dude, my "evil" alter ego, if you so will....
Sayonara
ray_moth said:
It's the Evil King Kuei Yang Wang (I changed the spelling a little), from the Anime Sazan Eyes. This is one bada$$ dude, my "evil" alter ego, if you so will....
Sayonara
KYW
I have several paper cone drivers of different sizes (6.5 - 15").
I understand that it varies, but as a starting point for buying some for a trial, on average -
how many ml of C37 does it take for a good result on eg a 6.5” paper cone mid?”
Cheers & thanks
I have several paper cone drivers of different sizes (6.5 - 15").
I understand that it varies, but as a starting point for buying some for a trial, on average -
how many ml of C37 does it take for a good result on eg a 6.5” paper cone mid?”
Cheers & thanks
C'mon SY,
Jamie's got a few good tricks up his sleeve... just a few. Fully agree on joys of the local mom & pop ethnic eats. JP4, immigration, and TV has done much for our choices.
phn,
It is the irregularities that drive science... little else. You shouldn't think THAT much about anything... leads to depression... you find no answers... only more questions. Alcohol cures much of that... and insomnia.
Kwang,
You spoke in a civil tone... what's wrong?
😉
Jamie's got a few good tricks up his sleeve... just a few. Fully agree on joys of the local mom & pop ethnic eats. JP4, immigration, and TV has done much for our choices.
phn,
It is the irregularities that drive science... little else. You shouldn't think THAT much about anything... leads to depression... you find no answers... only more questions. Alcohol cures much of that... and insomnia.
Kwang,
You spoke in a civil tone... what's wrong?
😉
Konnichiwa,
The .25l Bottles I use cover around 10 8" drivers in my use. Not that this has any relevance to coating a 6.5" midrange, which probably needs less, but maybe more.
Sayonara
rick57 said:
The .25l Bottles I use cover around 10 8" drivers in my use. Not that this has any relevance to coating a 6.5" midrange, which probably needs less, but maybe more.
Sayonara
When I say I'm irrational I was lying, of course. We're all rational beings. We all have a pretty good idea about what is good for us and what's not and usually act accordingly. As previously said, rational means to take the optimal action based on what you know and want. No more, no less. There's very little you cannot rationalize.
poobah, I guess quantum physics has changed everything. But the positivists and the scientists up to Einstein believed in order. The Newtonian mechanism was still how scientists viewed the world.
Of course, it was science that proved previous scientific facts wrong. Science is, after all, conditional.
I'm as big a fan and believer of science as anyone else. Virtually everything I know comes from science, not philosophy. (The two used to be one and the same.) Philosophers to a large degree are only mediators or interpreters. My only concern is how science is applied. And when people use rationalism and objectivity to justify their actions, I get wary.
poobah, I guess quantum physics has changed everything. But the positivists and the scientists up to Einstein believed in order. The Newtonian mechanism was still how scientists viewed the world.
Of course, it was science that proved previous scientific facts wrong. Science is, after all, conditional.
I'm as big a fan and believer of science as anyone else. Virtually everything I know comes from science, not philosophy. (The two used to be one and the same.) Philosophers to a large degree are only mediators or interpreters. My only concern is how science is applied. And when people use rationalism and objectivity to justify their actions, I get wary.
The Thread that Would Not Die
Like the Eveready Bunny, it goes on and on and on.
All this fuss over yet another "magic bullet" for "fixing" poorly designed Big Box audio equipment is but the old Objectivists vs. Subjectivists wrangle by other means. On the one side, you have guys like Doug Self whose core belief is that if you can't measure it then it doesn't count. On the other, you have the Kuei Yang Wang types who apparantly are ready to believe anything.
If I had both in the same room, I'd give each one a sound thump up 'long the side of the head with the Clue Stick.
You have Doug Self who once raked a fellow named Olsen over the coals for saying that the BJT quasi-comp topology sounded better. He had all the numbers to prove it. Well, I've tried it both ways and guess what? Olsen is right: Q-comp does sound better. What kinds of systems is Self designing? Everyone who's tried his "Blameless" says it sounds completely dead. Of course, Self earns his living as a consultant to the Big Box manufacturers. See the connection there?
The hard-core Subjectivists aren't any better. They are the ones making these grandiose claims of physical impossibilities. If only you have the right "gadget": the "magic stones", the "miracle" varnish, the right $1000 power cord, etc and ad infinitum, ad nauseum. None of that stuff is going to do anything to compensate for a poor fundamental design.
I have no use for guys like Self or Kuei Yang Wang: both have declared that they are incapable of learning anything new. I intend to do what I do all along: design with the best knowledge that I have available, avoid all the fad-appeal BS (MOSFETS over BJTs, SETs without gNFB, and so forth) and hope that when it's time to put away the test equipment and connect the speeks that the result is something I like to listen to.
Like the Eveready Bunny, it goes on and on and on.
All this fuss over yet another "magic bullet" for "fixing" poorly designed Big Box audio equipment is but the old Objectivists vs. Subjectivists wrangle by other means. On the one side, you have guys like Doug Self whose core belief is that if you can't measure it then it doesn't count. On the other, you have the Kuei Yang Wang types who apparantly are ready to believe anything.
If I had both in the same room, I'd give each one a sound thump up 'long the side of the head with the Clue Stick.
You have Doug Self who once raked a fellow named Olsen over the coals for saying that the BJT quasi-comp topology sounded better. He had all the numbers to prove it. Well, I've tried it both ways and guess what? Olsen is right: Q-comp does sound better. What kinds of systems is Self designing? Everyone who's tried his "Blameless" says it sounds completely dead. Of course, Self earns his living as a consultant to the Big Box manufacturers. See the connection there?
The hard-core Subjectivists aren't any better. They are the ones making these grandiose claims of physical impossibilities. If only you have the right "gadget": the "magic stones", the "miracle" varnish, the right $1000 power cord, etc and ad infinitum, ad nauseum. None of that stuff is going to do anything to compensate for a poor fundamental design.
I have no use for guys like Self or Kuei Yang Wang: both have declared that they are incapable of learning anything new. I intend to do what I do all along: design with the best knowledge that I have available, avoid all the fad-appeal BS (MOSFETS over BJTs, SETs without gNFB, and so forth) and hope that when it's time to put away the test equipment and connect the speeks that the result is something I like to listen to.
Re: The Thread that Would Not Die
...and if it doesn't, you can always add a magic bullet. 😉
I'll get my coat.
Steve
Miles Prower said:
...and if it doesn't, you can always add a magic bullet. 😉
I'll get my coat.
Steve
I've seen Kuei Yang Wang stand his ground convincingly in technical discussions here, and when I've tried some of his recommendations (say, bias points for 6C45 under different operating conditions for example) measurements made the reasoning abundantly clear afterwards. Off the top of my head Peter Belt or Enid Lumely make far better examples of 'hard core Subjectivists'.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.