Posts by PrimateDave

21

Will Vinyl Make A Comeback?

by brinjen in

was just flicking through the june issue of 'silicon chip' magazine (yes i'm a geek .

as there is no needle or anything making contact with the record, there is no wear or scratches happening during play.

it replays the sound in analog form, not digital.. http://www.elpj.com/.

Hi Hillary Step,

Have I heard what that device sounds like? No, unfortunately not. I've had my eye on upgrading my sound system, though. I've been using an Onkyo integrated amp with matching CD player and surround processor (from 1994), Paradigm speakers, and Sony MDR7506 headphones. It's a decent setup. I actually use my headphones almost exclusively, so I have been looking at headphone amps. I also considered getting an SACD player, but I only have one hybrid SACD, so it might not be worth the trouble. I've been curious about the tube sound as well.

Dave

21

Will Vinyl Make A Comeback?

by brinjen in

was just flicking through the june issue of 'silicon chip' magazine (yes i'm a geek .

as there is no needle or anything making contact with the record, there is no wear or scratches happening during play.

it replays the sound in analog form, not digital.. http://www.elpj.com/.

PrimateDave

My first "real job" was in a record factory in Carrollton, Georgia, back in the 1980s. When I went to work there it was called CBS Records, and by the time I left it was called Sony Music. Of course, by that time records were really on the way out. I started off in the record pressing department repairing the presses but eventually wound up in the cassette tape duplicating department.

Vinyl records have their advantages, to be sure, and I used to have a collection of them. And then I gave them away. Oh, well.

Anyway, for those who prefer the analog sound of vinyl and would like to get that sound out of your CD collection, here is a little device that may help. The accompanying article also has a good explanation for the technically minded as to just why CD's can sound harsh compared to analog recordings.

Does any audiophile here use tube amps?

Dave

20

My Anti-Kult Toastmasters Speech . .

by Locutus of Borg in

i am an active member of toastmasters international.

i find that it has helped me to be polished and professional when dealing with my employers clients, many of whom are mid to high ranking us air force officers and upper level ny/ nj state government people.. i occasionally use the toastmasters forum to educate people about cults.

toastmaster clubs are typically made up of local industry, technology, business and local government leaders and professionals.

PrimateDave

Hi,

That was a good speech. Nice use of metaphors, too.

Dave

19

What's your opinion on genetic engineering?

by LtCmd.Lore in

are you opposed to it?

where do you see it heading?.

would you allow your future child to be genetically altered if you knew it would drastically improve them?

PrimateDave

In my previous post I said that "Gaia is a tough bitch." Well, these are not my words but are the words of evolutionary biologist Lynn Margulis found on this web page. Here is a quote:

My primary work has always been in cell evolution, yet for a long time I've been associated with James Lovelock and his Gaia hypothesis. In the early seventies, I was trying to align bacteria by their metabolic pathways. I noticed that all kinds of bacteria produced gases. Oxygen, hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, ammonia — more than thirty different gases are given off by the bacteria whose evolutionary history I was keen to reconstruct. Why did every scientist I asked believe that atmospheric oxygen was a biological product but the other atmospheric gases — nitrogen, methane, sulfur, and so on — were not? "Go talk to Lovelock," at least four different scientists suggested. Lovelock believed that the gases in the atmosphere were biological. He had, by this time, a very good idea of which live organisms were probably "breathing out" the gases in question. These gases were far too abundant in the atmosphere to be formed by chemical and physical processes alone. He argued that the atmosphere was a physiological and not just a chemical system.
The Gaia hypothesis states that the temperature of the planet, the oxidation state and other chemistry of all of the gases of the lower atmosphere (except helium, argon, and other nonreactive ones) are produced and maintained by the sum of life. We explored how this could be. How could the temperature of the planet be regulated by living beings? How could the atmospheric gas composition — the 20-percent oxygen and the one to two parts per million methane, for example — be actively maintained by living matter?
It took me days of conversation even to begin to understand Lovelock's thinking. My first response, just like that of the neo-Darwinists, was "business as usual." I would say, "Oh, you mean that organisms adapt to their environment." He would respond, very sweetly, "No, I don't mean that." Lovelock kept telling me what he really meant, and it was hard for me to listen. Since his was a new idea, he hadn't yet developed an appropriate vocabulary. Perhaps I helped him work out his explanations, but I did very little else.
The Gaia hypothesis is a biological idea, but it's not human-centered. Those who want Gaia to be an Earth goddess for a cuddly, furry human environment find no solace in it. They tend to be critical or to misunderstand. They can buy into the theory only by misinterpreting it. Some critics are worried that the Gaia hypothesis says the environment will respond to any insults done to it and the natural systems will take care of the problems. This, they maintain, gives industries a license to pollute. Yes, Gaia will take care of itself; yes, environmental excesses will be ameliorated, but it's likely that such restoration of the environment will occur in a world devoid of people.
Lovelock would say that Earth is an organism. I disagree with this phraseology. No organism eats its own waste. I prefer to say that Earth is an ecosystem, one continuous enormous ecosystem composed of many component ecosystems. Lovelock's position is to let the people believe that Earth is an organism, because if they think it is just a pile of rocks they kick it, ignore it, and mistreat it. If they think Earth is an organism, they'll tend to treat it with respect. To me, this is a helpful cop-out, not science. Yet I do agree with Lovelock when he claims that most of the things scientists do are not science either. And I realize that by taking the stance he does he is more effective than I am in communicating Gaian ideas.
If science doesn't fit in with the cultural milieu, people dismiss science, they never reject their cultural milieu! If we are involved in science of which some aspects are not commensurate with the cultural milieu, then we are told that our science is flawed. I suspect that all people have cultural concepts into which science must fit. Although I try to recognize these biases in myself, I'm sure I cannot entirely avoid them. I try to focus on the direct observational aspects of science.
Gaia is a tough bitch — a system that has worked for over three billion years without people. This planet's surface and its atmosphere and environment will continue to evolve long after people and prejudice are gone.

I think it is highly arrogant and undeniably anthropocentric to assume that Homo sapiens (sic) can tamper with the planetary systems that it has evolved within and not expect adverse consequences. We are still a part of and very much dependent on the Earth as it has evolved. As a species we are only just beginning to understand the interconnectedness of life on this world. That said, any kind of genetic engineering should be very closely controlled. At this stage of development I don't think that there are any effective controls on corporate power in the world today.

Dave

14

Doctrine of Suppression - I sincerely want to know this...

by Gretchen956 in

watching the video of the street preacher at the district convention got me thinking (always a dangerous proposition).

there seems to be this history revolving around christianity.

starting with the romans, the idea began to be, convert through suppression, oppression, war and acts of violence.

PrimateDave

Here is something else that might shed some light on the proliferation of Christianity among conquered peoples. This quote is taken from Chapter 7 of Forgery in Christianity by Joseph Wheless.

UNBORN BABES TO BURN FOREVER

The damnable doctrine of Infant Damnation was one of the most
terrifying and effective impostures of the Church to drive helpless
victims into the fold of Christ. Infamous enough was the earlier
doctrine of exclusive salvation, that the unbaptized adult, the
individual outside Church was the heir to eternal damnation. But
soon the terror was extended to the just-born infant, to even the
fetus in its womb.

St. Augustine affirmed this atrocity with all
his vehemence; all the Fathers without exception dinned it
eternally, -- as yet today. A treatise of the greatest authority,
De Fide, long attributed to Augustine, but now known to be the work
of Bishop St. Fulgentius (CE. vi, 317) thus states the horrid
doctrine: "Be assured, and doubt not, that not only men who have
attained the use of their reason, but also little children who have
begun to live in their mothers' womb and have there died, or who,
having been just born, have passed away from the world without the
sacrament of holy baptism, administered in the name of the Father,
Son and Holy Ghost, must be punished by the eternal torture of
undying fire; for although they have committed no sin by their own
will, they have nevertheless drawn with them the condemnation of
original sin, by their carnal conception and nativity." (sec. 70.)

Lecky, who quotes the passage, thus comment the effects as
witnessed in practice throughout the Middle Ages: "Nothing indeed
can be more curious, nothing more deeply pathetic, than the record
of the many ways by which the terror-stricken mothers attempted to
evade the awful sentence of their Church. Sometimes the baptismal
water was sprinkled upon the womb; sometimes the still-born child
was baptized, in hopes that the Almighty would antedate the
ceremony; sometimes the mother invoked the Holy Spirit to purify by
His immediate power the infant that was to be born; sometimes she
received the Host or obtained absolution, and applied them to the
benefit of her child. For the doctrine of the Church had wrung the
mother's heart with an agony that was too poignant for even that
submissive age to bear." (Rationalism in Europe, i, 362-364.) And
all this on account of an apple eaten four thousand years before
they were born; willed by the Deity who had foreordained their
birth and premature death, before His Holy Church could come at the
Baptismal fees!

Dave

16

The WTS sounds more and more like strickly a business to me.....

by R.F. in

there was yet another disfellowshipping going in my congo announce the other night.

that makes 6 i believe now, 5 i'm sure of that have been dfed in the past year or so in my congo alone, and they don't seem to be making any effort towards reinstatement.

i know the reasons behind all those, that's why i know they were dfed and not daed.

PrimateDave

It is a business wrapped up in the skin of a religion for tax evasion purposes. They started out as a publishing company and have become a real estate developer with a printing side business. Getting the rank and file to preach in "imitation of Jesus" is just a public relations tactic to present a religious face to the world at large. The religion does exist, at least in the hearts and minds of the lay membership, but what would it be without its corporate sponsor?

Dave

14

Doctrine of Suppression - I sincerely want to know this...

by Gretchen956 in

watching the video of the street preacher at the district convention got me thinking (always a dangerous proposition).

there seems to be this history revolving around christianity.

starting with the romans, the idea began to be, convert through suppression, oppression, war and acts of violence.

PrimateDave

Sherry,

I don't know if this is what you are looking for, but check out this link here.

Dave

3

Jehovah's Witness Dilafruz Arziyeva imprisoned

by kwr in

three weeks after jehovah's witness irfon hamidov was imprisoned for two years by samarkand city criminal court for "illegal" religious teaching, the same court has sentenced fellow jehovah's witness dilafruz arziyeva on the same charges.

she has received a two year correctional labour sentence, where 20 per cent of her wages will be docked, jehovah's witnesses have told forum 18 news service.

authorities in samarkand have long refused to give the jehovah's witnesses legal status.

PrimateDave

Quote:

A local official rejected an application in 2002, arguing that enough other religious communities were registered locally for people "to realise their freedom of conscience and to practise their beliefs".

Whatever one may think of the WTS or any other religion, this kind of attitude is dangerous. Why should a government official have the power to decide that there are "enough" religions?

Dave

19

What's your opinion on genetic engineering?

by LtCmd.Lore in

are you opposed to it?

where do you see it heading?.

would you allow your future child to be genetically altered if you knew it would drastically improve them?

PrimateDave

This is too complicated a subject to be simply "for" or "against" it. Like any technology, it is a tool that can bring about desirable and undesirable outcomes. Humans have historically had access to technology before having the ability and foresight to prevent the deleterious effects from its misuse. As for its use in agriculture, let's just say that I'm for Permaculture, which is the antithesis of Industrial Agriculture. If genetic engineering can provide cures for cancer in humans, then I'm for that. As for modifying nature in any way with G.E., well, Gaia is a tough bitch, and when she bites back we'll wish we had treated her better!

Dave

24

Naturalism-The Next Step For Secular Humanists?

by nvrgnbk in

jw
friends

i've noticed a healthy number of secular humanists on jwd.. i thought i'd share this info.

http://www.naturalism.org/.

before the likes of people like poppers, james thomas, and tetra(people i have tremendous respect and admiration for that have taught me alot about existence) jump me for getting into "labels", i just want to mention that i'm not espousing this as "it".

PrimateDave

OOOOOoooohh, I get it now. Naturalism. Hehe. I thought you was promoting a site with nekkid people. lol.

Dave