Jump to content

mdsn

  • Posts

    21
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Country

    United States

Retained

  • Member Title
    Newbie
  1. Thanks for the replies. I think I'm going to get this AC power only tray loading LG. Looks solid and at a low price-$50. No reason to mess around with questionable bus power, I suppose. Especially considering cost is the same either way. axiom05-Definitely tray loading was a requirement. Slot loaders can scratch CD's and overall performance not quite as good tray. LG External DVD Rewriter GE24NU40 | LG Electronics US
  2. George has made it very clear on numerous occasions that referring to someone as ignorant is not name calling at all and should not be taken as insulting. He's frequently referred to others as ignorant and offered his defense for using the term. Look at some of his old posts. Or better yet, ask him. And pointing out flawed thinking is name calling to you? You might want get your thoughts in order before posting next time. By the way, are you George? My post was to George. What should mods do to sophomore members who tell new members to "go home littleone"?
  3. I was mainly referring to the little cheapie typical add on PS versus USB bus power just to ensure sufficient power delivery. But quality of the CD drive power supply? I'm familiar with the arguments here for and against this idea, but mainly initially curious about power sufficiency. Again, cheapie PS versus USB bus power. Although, if a quality low noise, low impedance external PSU for CD drive is not much more than the cheap $10 deals, and if consensus is that bus power will be insufficient, then I'll consider. Any quality external PS suggestions?
  4. Looking for a new external USB CD drive. Recommendations? Mac Mini/iTunes/AIFF ??? OWC 24X Mercury Pro 800/400+USB3 SuperMulti-Drive... in stock at OWC Sufficient? OWC 24X External DVD DL USB 2.0 Super-MultiDrive... in stock at OWC http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003BNY8O2?*Version*=1&*entries*=0 Any benefit to using separate power supply with CD drive for ripping or is bus power usually sufficient? USB bus is not shared with any other devices. Not a computer audio noob, just interested in various thoughts and opinions.
  5. George, You don't understand the concept of burden of proof and you don't understand the argument from ignorance fallacy. I've watched you repeatedly demonstrate your ignorance, but never bothered to engage due to your apparent combination of ignorance and arrogance, but today I'll give it a shot. If someone makes a claim without presenting sufficient evidence the best you can do is reject the claim and explain that they hold a belief that is not rationally justified. When you assert that a claim is impossible, which I've seen you do numerous times, you have now adopted your own burden of proof. How did you determine that a cable claim, or even deity claim, is impossible? If your answer is that it hasn't been proven true, therefore, it's false, or impossible, then that would be an argument from ignorance fallacy. X is true because it hasn't been proven false X is false because it hasn't been proven true Again, the best you can do is to say that you don't accept the claim and make the point that one is not objectively rationally justified in holding the belief at this point. So, how did you determine that any cable or deity claim is "impossible"? How did you determine that a deity is impossible without a clear definition of any deity? It is possible to prove that a positive claim is impossible if one has clear definitions. For example, one can prove that the Christian God is impossible based on the definitions and attributes given for that God. Same goes for all other gods proposed. It's just a matter of pointing out the logical contradictions. Though, typically this shifting of the burden of proof is not necessary and it's best to just leave it to the claim maker to hold to his burden of proof. Unnecessarily shifting the burden of proof and turning the claim from positive to negative usually leads to an argument from ignorance fallacy on the part of the original claim maker, ie., mistakenly thinking their claim is true and/or justified because it hasn't yet been proven false. And again, even if I cannot show that a claim is false or impossible, I can still show that one is not rationally justified in accepting the claim or belief due to insufficient reason or evidence. So, rather than asserting something impossible, it's best to adopt a position of unconvinced. When you assert that X is "impossible" you have to actually demonstrate that. Further, when you assert that something is impossible without demonstrating that, you impede progress. You're asserting that you have it all figured out, and that no one should ever investigate any aspect of some particular idea, at all. Ever! Do you have evidence that any of the various cable claims are impossible, or just an argument from ignorance fallacy that X is false because it hasn't been proven true? Is this the point at which you shift the focus to cable prices, as you typically do? That's correct. I get the sarcasm, but the statement is actually correct. Are you making the positive claim that Atlantis never existed on the floor of the Atlantic? Or, more appropriately, that you are not convinced, and that one is not currently rationally justified in believing that it did? There is a big difference. Understand burden of proof and the argument from ignorance fallacy. I can't say that Russel's Teapot is not orbiting Pluto at this very moment, but I can tentatively reject the claim due to insufficient evidence and will live my life as if it doesn't exist. That is a positive claim. What evidence, reason, or justification do you have for making such a claim? Until justified reason or evidence is presented, I will tentatively reject your claim and live my life as if the claim is false. I cannot say that Atlantis, as described, did not exist, or that it's impossible, unless I present evidence that it did not exist, or that it is somehow logically impossible for it to have existed. And my lack of evidence against it's existence in no way validates the claim that it did exist. However, if you point out the exact location and give specific details we may be able to reasonably conclude the Atlantis claim to be false. Definitions and details are extremely important before concluding something impossible. By the way, you also demonstrate your ignorance and flawed thinking when you make the analogy between supernatural religious belief and subjective cable difference belief. Gods and religions are by definition supernatural, whereas, cables difference claims represent possible unknown unknowns.
  6. Ben E. King Dies Age 76 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/02/arts/music/ben-e-king-soulful-singer-with-the-drifters-dies-at-76.html
  7. Maybe I should have said, the Strada don't seem to be in the same category. I haven't heard the Strada1 or 2, but I have heard the floor-standing Reference a few years ago, and they weren't bad, but nothing special. Based on what's known about the Strada, it just doesn't seem likely that they would outperform either the Pulsar or C1. Only way to find out is to listen, I guess. Although, I'd be willing to bet that they'll get dropped from consideration pretty quickly after comparing with the others. Although not a monitor, the Aerial 6T is another good option in that price range. I haven't heard it yet, but plan to. Lawrence Audio Mandolin might be something to look into, if you don't mind the looks.
  8. I've heard them both on a few occasions and the C1 is probably the better speaker overall. The Pulsar sound very good, but there's a bit too much "fake bass" for my taste, and smaller 5.5" drivers always seem to get a bit strained and limited early on compared to 6.5" drivers. I've heard the Pulsar with the rear ports within 1ft. of the wall and they were fine. The C1 might be trickier to set up properly. The Strada is not even in the same category. Curious if you've made a decision?
  9. Lynyrd Skynyrd Drummer Bob Burns Dead at 64 | Rolling Stone
  10. Yes, your answers matter. This topic interests me, and these are just things to think about. So, since these questions don't have answers, does that mean you're atheist at the moment? Sure there are right words. You're just not trying hard enough. How about: -it -this thing -this concept -this idea -this supposed/proposed entity -whatever it is If something exists I guarantee there is a word for it. There sure is something wrong. That's why I pointed out that you're begging the question. If you say "I don't know" in this context, then "it" or "concept" is the appropriate word.
  11. Hi Paul, Just a few questions: -By who's definition? -If it's beyond our comprehension what's the justification for calling it he/she? This is begging the question. You've just made this incomprehensible God comprehensible by labeling it as a personal he/she being. I suspect the next leap will be to a personal Abrahamic God? -If there is a God beyond our comprehension, then wouldn't that make it irrelevant? And how could anyone ever say anything about this incomprehensible being? And how is it distinguishable from no God at all? -And what does this say about a God that supposedly wants us to have a relationship with him, has the power to make himself comprehensible, yet chooses to remain incomprehensible? What happens to the generations passed who miss this message? This smells of Pascal's Wager. BTW, karma is just confirmation bias and wishful thinking run wild. I promise I'm not just trying to pick on you. Just offering things to think about. Also, if we are worshipping something beyond our comprehension, then aren't we just worshipping our own ignorance?
  12. Hi Roch, Thanks for proving my point. Doesn't this just prove my argument that believers believe for bad reasons? Belief is only out of fear, ignorance, and threats of punishment. If an atheist were to become a believer once the airplane starts falling, then he has become a believer for bad reasons.
  13. It's also "possible" that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is behind evolution, or any other invisible entity one cares to name. Is it not? It's also possible that Einstein's theory of relativity is false and that Intelligent Gravitation is true. The time to believe something is true, or even possible, is when it can be demonstrated. For something to be the cause of something else you would first have to demonstrate existence of the causal agent. And how exactly does one demonstrate supernatural causation? Intelligent Gravitation - Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
  14. Hi Peter, Sorry, I can't quite make out the question. I think I have an idea, but didn't want to respond with the wrong understanding.
  15. Hi Paul, I have a pretty thick skin, so no worries. I'm not trying to be personally insulting either, so apologies if I ever overstep. I am definitely not equating belief with stupidity. In fact, I even referenced Francis Collins and acknowledged that he is incredibly intelligent, yet believes. The question to ask is, why does he believe and are his reasons for believing rational and justified? I don't think anyone would ever think you are a stupid person. Clearly you are an intelligent person. As you mentioned, this is an error to equate religious belief with stupidity, and I agree. However, a belief in a God (depending on how one defines his God) can be for stupid reasons, and that is what I focus on. Also, some misunderstand the argument from ignorance fallacy. It doesn't mean one is calling the other stupid. It just means that one is asserting something to be true, because it has not been, or cannot be proven false (unfalsifiable). The God of the Gaps is the same thing. In Christianity it is. This is not religious faith. Religious faith is worse. Religious faith says you do know, and you accept it as true without reason or evidence, and then substitute faith in place of actual reason and evidence. This is pretending to know things one does not know. I've never met a Christian who said they do not know whether their God exists. Can one be a Christian at that point? I'm surprised you said this after watching the video I sent. This is an equivocation fallacy. Can you name one thing I have faith in that is similar to faith in the way it is used in religion? If you think about, I'm sure you will find there is some evidence, reason, or justification for everything I believe. What is a soul? Here you describe human instinct and human emotion, then attach this word soul, which I assume is the theistic definition, without any justification. Human emotions and feelings are the product of a mind and end when the mind ceases to exist, as far as we know. This is pretending to know things one does not know. You simply assert this notion of a soul exists; you believe it's true for no reason or justification at all; and then justify it by appealing to faith; and even make the leap to making knowledge claims about how it came to be. This is begging the question. You haven't even demonstrated a soul yet and you're asking "who" created it. You're smuggling in a thinking creator. Yes, other species have instinct and emotions. There is no justification for believing any more of it than that. If I claim to have a cure for cancer, and offer faith as my proof, how do you think that would fly? Faith is not compatible with science. Religion leads to faith faith leads to false belief false belief leads to ignorance ignorance leads to fear fear leads to hate and hate leads to suffering. How this relates to audio: When I try silver cables, they sound bright and harsh to me, so I swapped them for copper and I'm happy. This did not impact my life at all. If someone tells me I have to revolve my entire life around a belief in an invisible supernatural being, I'm going to require a bit more than just blind faith. Sorry.
×
×
  • Create New...