On that guy's website, he has a large mass of "products"....
Like a "Trutone duplex outlet cover" for $30.
It's supposed to make your system sound wonderful. - buy several and the whole room comes alive, or so he says....
And he's got more garbage snake oil on there to amuse oneself with.
Nothing to do with being close-minded, but anyone who deals in that crap is not my type of person.
You get a "real job" and maybe I'll have some respect....otherwise..nah.
This is an analysis, I like of "open mind".
Indeed, a total opening is no good, the mind is swamped with facts and fakes.
The scientific approach is an organized mind that rejects crap, at the risk of being too selective.
Then, the mind, not cluttered with non sense can be used efficiently for worthwhile stuff.
Being too selective is not really an issue, because a scientific mind can understand when proven wrong.
It is beautiful, conductivity is not too bad (better than tin), have no skin effect and the tensile strength is totally undefeatable.
I remeber the era when people were using CAT5 cables with all conductors wired together as loudspeakers cable, the skin effect of this "discovering" is also undefeatable, it is difficult to obtain more copper surface in contact with the plastic in a standardized cable.
Back in the days of 3 1/2" disks, I was tapping one in my hand because I was bored, and another student in the class says to me "Don't do that! The information will fall off". He went on to explain his logic. "What happens if you pick up nails with a magnet and then hit it? The nails will fall off!"
If someone is of that type of flawed logic, you can convince them a phone call will upgrade their hardware apparently.
Like really, how hard would you have to hit a diskette to knock it's magnetic moments out of line?
It's actually a really interesting question. The little magnetized domain wants to stay oriented the way it is, but if "hit" hard enough, it will indeed get realigned, and that bit of information will be lost. Old-school steel permanent magnets can actually be demagnetized by whacking them repeatedly with a small hammer or other sharp repetitive impact.
I don't know how important this issue was when it came to floppy discs, which have relatively large magnetic domains - the tracks were comparatively wide, the number of bits relatively small, so there were a lot of magnetic particles you had to re-orient to erase a single bit of digital data.
But recent-generation mechanical hard drives had a problem. Engineers kept cramming more and more data onto same-size platters, so the size of one magnetic domain kept shrinking as disc capacity increased. This meant there were fewer and fewer magnetic molecules in one domain, and so it took less and less stray energy to de-magnetize one bit of data (one magnetic domain.)
At some point, the ordinary thermal energy of the magnetic molecules at operating temperature of the disc (i.e. basically room temperature) became big enough to start erasing bits now and then. (Quantum mechanics says that even if kT is less than the energy needed to flip a bit, that bit can still flip now and then, just less often.)
The researchers who developed hard drives responded by adding more and more clever tricks - error correction methods - to the electronics built into the drive. Those tiny bits were going wonky all the time, but the clever mathematics corrected them on the fly, so that the discs still remained reliable enough for us to keep using them in our computers.
Now that most of us have moved to SSDs, the parameters have changed. SSDs store data in tiny quantum-mechanics based electron traps, using something called "floating gate transistors". How much energy does it take to kick enough electrons out of one those little quantum cages to flip a bit?
I have no idea! But don't leave a USB stick full of precious data sitting around for years and expect to be able to recover the data - chances are it will have erased itself over time. I have had a number of old USB sticks go dead while sitting quietly in storage.
I suspect SSDs will do the same thing too, if you unplug a computer for a few years and then try to access your data.
-Gnobuddy
Last edited:
Interesting about the SSDs. I've never had a USB key go "bad" but I don't use them often.
I always though of SSDs being basically modern faster NVRAM. Seeing as my computer is only off during a power failure, I'm not worried.
One of the ways they are getting around randomly erasing bits in dense modern HDDs was to use MAMR and HAMR (microwave / heat assisted magnetic recording).
We've come a LONG way from MFM and oxide media, haven't we?
Heat-assisted magnetic recording - Wikipedia
I always though of SSDs being basically modern faster NVRAM. Seeing as my computer is only off during a power failure, I'm not worried.
One of the ways they are getting around randomly erasing bits in dense modern HDDs was to use MAMR and HAMR (microwave / heat assisted magnetic recording).
We've come a LONG way from MFM and oxide media, haven't we?
Heat-assisted magnetic recording - Wikipedia
To me the last few posts are dealing with interesting stuff.
Open mindedness surely is vital, but by that I do not mean gullible acceptance of things without analysis; it is unscientific to reject out of hand a proposition or theory.
We can be dogmatic about what appears to be crap, and be surprised and wrong. The test is in analysis and the work done in science to verify or refute, and many in the public are too lazy to take that on, and IMO this is a major cause of widely held misconceptions which become currency.
Studies have been done by mathematicians on astrology, and Richard Dorkins is extremely dogmatic in his discrediting of religion, to much so for me.
Arrogance can lead to a conviction based entirely on prejudice rather than facts and reasoning.
Personally I think that in all religions, those who study deeply have probably understood a'spirituality', (for want of a better description), which has a validity to the psychology of the human mind, but an anthropomorphic deity, and I mean no offence to anyone of a religious conviction here, is taking it too far, and reflects the egotism of man.
I remember in the 70s seeing on a train above a seat; "Is God caterpillar?"
My reaction to the phone call 'improvement', is to laugh, but we need to evaluate the situation with tests, and it is probably a placebo effect.
The Pope of the 80s said in a book that emotions are pre-programmed subconscious automatic reactions, and this makes sense to me.
We learn the concept of honesty, and then, more recently the study of body language, and we have reactions on encounters with people which are an automatic reaction based on this learning - emotions.
But we, and many can wrongly programme ourselves, and have whole matrices of thoughts based on untruth.
Maybe someone can confirm or refute this with tea-leaf reading or Tarot cards.
Open mindedness surely is vital, but by that I do not mean gullible acceptance of things without analysis; it is unscientific to reject out of hand a proposition or theory.
We can be dogmatic about what appears to be crap, and be surprised and wrong. The test is in analysis and the work done in science to verify or refute, and many in the public are too lazy to take that on, and IMO this is a major cause of widely held misconceptions which become currency.
Studies have been done by mathematicians on astrology, and Richard Dorkins is extremely dogmatic in his discrediting of religion, to much so for me.
Arrogance can lead to a conviction based entirely on prejudice rather than facts and reasoning.
Personally I think that in all religions, those who study deeply have probably understood a'spirituality', (for want of a better description), which has a validity to the psychology of the human mind, but an anthropomorphic deity, and I mean no offence to anyone of a religious conviction here, is taking it too far, and reflects the egotism of man.
I remember in the 70s seeing on a train above a seat; "Is God caterpillar?"
My reaction to the phone call 'improvement', is to laugh, but we need to evaluate the situation with tests, and it is probably a placebo effect.
The Pope of the 80s said in a book that emotions are pre-programmed subconscious automatic reactions, and this makes sense to me.
We learn the concept of honesty, and then, more recently the study of body language, and we have reactions on encounters with people which are an automatic reaction based on this learning - emotions.
But we, and many can wrongly programme ourselves, and have whole matrices of thoughts based on untruth.
Maybe someone can confirm or refute this with tea-leaf reading or Tarot cards.
The problem with studying spirituality is that using the intellect to "understand" it is inherently flawed. No less than the creation of an anthropomorphic God. The idea that the ineffable can be dissected and understood by our limited monkey brains is self delusion of the highest order. IMO, of course. 😉
He may not be a scammer: phone call and improvement over the listener scream at me Neuro Linguistic Programation and suggesting/ hypnosis.
We are not all equal facing this things, better stay away from this kind of person.
Believing invisibly small organisms caused illness and instantaneous communication across the globe would become trivial were both utter nonsense for millennia. Science dislikes cognitive shortcuts.
Reminds me of the "loony" who claimed Richard III's body was buried in a Leicester car park. The "scientific" archeologist reluctantly agreed to excavate, but insisted she did the digging. Put her spade through his skull! And her main regret was that this opened the door to other "loonies"! 🙄
True...for the most part.
We tend to find the errors of System 1 processes the most salient, the sorts of errors Daniel Kahneman studied. However, Kahneman had a critic in Gary Klein. Klein also studied System 1 cognitive processes and found that they are responsible for many good and beneficial things.
Eventually, Kahneman and Klein agreed to work on a collaborative study to see who was right. The paper that resulted was entitled, "A Failure to Disagree."
Kahneman later summed it up more or less in this way: He said that he liked to focus on the errors of System 1 cognitive processes, as he found them amusing. Klein, on the other hand, focused on studying System 1 cognitive successes. Both found important things, it was a difference is personality and temperament that drove them to have an interest in studying different aspects of the same thing.
You would do well to look at some statistical mechanics, at ordinary temperatures the time scales on some of these probabilities rapidly surpass the age of the universe. The most likely failure of an SSD would be a cosmic ray event, well known to those putting computers into space.
Yes, our species was extremely ignorant for over two hundred thousand years. During that time, the rational thing to do would be to reject belief in invisible small things, as there was no proof for them.
The rational thing to do during that time would be to also reject the popular explanation - "Invisible evil spirits / the devil causes sickness", which was even more ridiculous than invisible tiny things making you sick.
The logical belief during that era would have been the correct one: "We don't know what causes disease."
Who argued otherwise?
-Gnobuddy
Without actual scientific and factual evidence, nothing's considered real.
Just like hear-say in a courtroom cannot justafiably lead to conviction, yet believers of such abound, and will continue to disrupt others, perpetuating the disruption of society.
I guess some just like to live within a world of drama and rumors because of that, perhaps, and most obviously, for some form of gain.
Just like hear-say in a courtroom cannot justafiably lead to conviction, yet believers of such abound, and will continue to disrupt others, perpetuating the disruption of society.
I guess some just like to live within a world of drama and rumors because of that, perhaps, and most obviously, for some form of gain.
Once you have reached the needed overall level of conscience and knowledge, you can feel it few seconds and at the time you start to realize it, it's gone 😀
This infers two falsehoods.....
1) “was extremely ignorant” indicates we are no longer ignorant.
2) that we no longer reject ‘invisible things’ without proof.
😛