Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:self-correcting (Score 1) 16

by PopeRatzo (#47432909) Attached to: These secular priests just keep slicing on the drive

Typo -- above should read: Martin Luther removed them from his Bible, and also wanted to remove a few other books as well --- James, for example.

So, you've proven my point. The Journal of Vibration and Control caught some improperly refereed articles and retracted them within four years. A system that works.

It took a millennium and a half for the reformation to try to straighten out Scripture. Except, with the Journal, it's an open process that is open for the involvement of the scientific community. With the Bible, it's a handful of people making changes because God told them to.

Science is a self-correcting system that has worked very well since before the first words of the Pentatuch were laid down by a handful of people pulling it out of their ass.

So which would you use to inform your life and society? If you said, "The Bible", then even God thinks you're a moron. Because, way before there was scripture, there was man's ability to reason.

Comment: Re:Good lord (Score 1) 301

by Opportunist (#47431227) Attached to: Wireless Contraception

I'm an old fashioned guy, coming from an age when we looked at the USSR and considered them the bad guys. So, my education equated "good" with "freedom".

I know, it's a very outdated notion today where "being good" usually means being obedient, conforming and doing what you're told. Oddly, that was what we were told the poor people in the USSR are forced to do if they don't want to end up in Gitm... I mean a Gulag.

Comment: Re:Making music (Score 1) 434

No, that's not what I'm saying. Not just recording. If you're trying to mix audio using the onboard audio chip on a PC, you're not going to get good results. It would mean you're plugging a set of headphones into a mini-stereo plug. If you're trying to mix even eight tracks from a DAW, unless you're just just remixing audio samples of already created music (which is fine by the way) you still have to have some way to input the music.

The problem is not the computer's ability to handle the audio data. The problem is the monitoring and if you're inputting control data via MIDI controllers. The audio hardware on a PC is just not able to handle it without horrible lag. You'll end up listening to what your fingers just played a second ago. Try and see what you're Macbook pro's audio subsystem is going to do with 40+ tracks of Kontakt samples in real time.

Why is this hard to understand? You can get pro-quality USB outboard audio for less than $100. You're already going to need some outboard gear (speakers, headphones, midi controllers and control surfaces), why are you freaking over a little 24-bit/96kHz audio interface that can be had for less than the price of your headphones?

Next you're going to tell me that you can create professional music on an iPad without external hardware.

Comment: self-correcting (Score 1) 16

by PopeRatzo (#47430611) Attached to: These secular priests just keep slicing on the drive

Publisher SAGE announced it was retracting 60 papers from 2010–2014 in the Journal of Vibration and Control, which covers acoustics, all connected to Peter Chen of National Pingtung University of Education, Taiwan.

You will note from the article, that the papers with questionable provenance were retracted in a public way.

What was the last time there was a retraction of inaccurate or harmful material from the Bible?

Comment: Re:Making music (Score 1) 434

I know more than one producer who uses plain old audio. Most music software has a "Render to audio file" feature that bypasses the audio subsystem completely.

And how would someone producing music that "bypasses the audio subsystem completely" know what music he's making if he cannot hear it? If someone told you that they produce professional-quality music using only the onboard audio hardware on their Mac or PC, they must think you are very gullible.

I believe you're mistaken. If you can point me to one professional music producer who uses only the onboard audio on his PC or Mac, I will refrain from calling you stupid.

Comment: See also Dr. David Goodstein's 1990s predictions (Score 1) 145

by Paul Fernhout (#47430183) Attached to: Peer Review Ring Broken - 60 Articles Retracted

You make good points. See also:
"The public and the scientific community have both been shocked in recent years by an increasing number of cases of fraud committed by scientists. There is little doubt that the perpetrators in these cases felt themselves under intense pressure to compete for scarce resources, even by cheating if necessary. As the pressure increases, this kind of dishonesty is almost sure to become more common.
    Other kinds of dishonesty will also become more common. For example, peer review, one of the crucial pillars of the whole edifice, is in critical danger. Peer review is used by scientific journals to decide what papers to publish, and by granting agencies such as the National Science Foundation to decide what research to support. Journals in most cases, and agencies in some cases operate by sending manuscripts or research proposals to referees who are recognized experts on the scientific issues in question, and whose identity will not be revealed to the authors of the papers or proposals. Obviously, good decisions on what research should be supported and what results should be published are crucial to the proper functioning of science.
    Peer review is usually quite a good way to identify valid science. Of course, a referee will occasionally fail to appreciate a truly visionary or revolutionary idea, but by and large, peer review works pretty well so long as scientific validity is the only issue at stake. However, it is not at all suited to arbitrate an intense competition for research funds or for editorial space in prestigious journals. There are many reasons for this, not the least being the fact that the referees have an obvious conflict of interest, since they are themselves competitors for the same resources. This point seems to be another one of those relativistic anomalies, obvious to any outside observer, but invisible to those of us who are falling into the black hole. It would take impossibly high ethical standards for referees to avoid taking advantage of their privileged anonymity to advance their own interests, but as time goes on, more and more referees have their ethical standards eroded as a consequence of having themselves been victimized by unfair reviews when they were authors. Peer review is thus one among many examples of practices that were well suited to the time of exponential expansion, but will become increasingly dysfunctional in the difficult future we face.
    We must find a radically different social structure to organize research and education in science after The Big Crunch. That is not meant to be an exhortation. It is meant simply to be a statement of a fact known to be true with mathematical certainty, if science is to survive at all. The new structure will come about by evolution rather than design, because, for one thing, neither I nor anyone else has the faintest idea of what it will turn out to be, and for another, even if we did know where we are going to end up, we scientists have never been very good at guiding our own destiny. Only this much is sure: the era of exponential expansion will be replaced by an era of constraint. Because it will be unplanned, the transition is likely to be messy and painful for the participants. In fact, as we have seen, it already is. Ignoring the pain for the moment, however, I would like to look ahead and speculate on some conditions that must be met if science is to have a future as well as a past."

I think a "basic income" for all could be part of the solution, because a BI would make it possible for anyone to live like a graduate student and do independent research if they wanted.

Comment: Re:Yet another proof creation doesn't work! (Score 1) 121

by marcello_dl (#47429827) Attached to: Hints of Life's Start Found In a Giant Virus

> It's just evidence that creation isn't needed to work.

Guys, we are discussing an hypothetical guy residing outside of, and creator of, TIME itself.
You, and all the others, make NO SENSE because you imagine creation IN TIME vs. evolution IN TIME, instead of creation OF Time, the universe, with all its peculiarities like emergent life vs. a patch to introduce life (which seems bad programming style itself, and probably not what the genesis and similar books meant, at all).

If you make a tiny effort and watch things from the POV of a hypothetical god who stands beyond the concept of time, there is no problem in creating a universe with free will agents and knowing how it's going to end up, or in creating an evolving universe that ends up exactly the way you do, or in creating a universe whose time extends indefinitely in both directions and so on.

Face it, creation and evolution are orthogonal issues, just as who and why are orthogonal questions. Those who prefer to pit science against religion, just founded the religion of science and I applaud them on their proliferation effort.

There is nothing so easy but that it becomes difficult when you do it reluctantly. -- Publius Terentius Afer (Terence)