Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About darkmass

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Jud, the link in your OP is a worthwhile one; however, in my view the contents only brush up against the region of Pure Mathematics. True, within the "ADVANCED MATHEMATICS" subheading it makes an approach (my coursework in Hilbert Spaces was among the Pure Mathematics courses in my educational background), but the links provided under Advanced Mathematics are to a significant degree either broken...or really much more applicable to Applied Mathematics. So, some links. (They may or may not be considered "helpful resources")... 1) https://mathwithbaddrawings.com/2015/02/24/why-do-we-pay-mathematicians/ 2) https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Subject:Pure_mathematics And, well, a little bit different twist on things--if not entirely related to Pure Mathematics. Example: "A mathematician, a physicist, an engineer went again to the races and laid their money down. Commiserating in the bar after the race, the engineer says, 'I don't understand why I lost all my money. I measured all the horses and calculated their strength and mechanical advantage and figured out how fast they could run...' The physicist interrupted him: '...but you didn't take individual variations into account. I did a statistical analysis of their previous performances and bet on the horses with the highest probability of winning...' '...so if you're so hot why are you broke?' asked the engineer. But before the argument can grow, the mathematician takes out his pipe and they get a glimpse of his well-fattened wallet. Obviously here was a man who knows something about horses. They both demanded to know his secret. 'Well,' he says, 'first I assumed all the horses were identical and spherical...'" Okay, 3) http://www.math.utah.edu/~cherk/mathjokes.html
  2. In the length of this thread I may have missed something, but did you ever choose a winner for the Arby's coupon? If so, it'd be nice to see the winning text.
  3. Chris, are you trying to drive out objectivists? "Style" is very subjective.
  4. Lordy. I do believe Rt66indierock has knocked the upper chutzpah meter peg free of its mooring, and the peg is now traveling at Einsteinian velocity.
  5. Aren't "objectivists" supposed to be able to apply logic? (and note to @diecaster, several albums are referenced in the thread, but the post I linked is only about the first Doors album) Give logic a shot. But to help you, Steve Hoffman is saying even though he remixed the first Doors album, "several times", Steve's work "bites" in comparison with the original. (I assume you are familiar with the term "bites".) And for @Ralf11, your thought experiment was a failure. Steve said he preferred a version not his own, but no censoring was evident...yet you said "any comment stating a preference for a different version is censored".
  6. Here's a paradox for you... (link is: here) Steve Hoffman's text: "Well, I did remix the first DOORS album. Several times. Yeah, I made it more dynamic, etc., etc. but when I play it, it still bites. The original mix is the original mix. It is what it is. The master tape never existed. The LEDO tape was used to cut every stereo LP including the DCC. Once again, I think it sounds fantastic. My remix sounds exactly like what it is: Rewriting history. A pointless exercise. Steve Hoffman, Sep 1, 2017 "
  7. I'd like to see a rigorous proof of the following... If a person states or implies that they are objective, then they are objective.
  8. Damn! Is their ad copy being written by Neil Young? Surely the forum usuals must have a perspective on this. What say you, Brinkman Ship? How did you let this pass?
  9. Yeah, though plissken's post was clearly meant to be whimsical. The PDP 11 was actually made be DEC (Digital Equipment Corporation), not HP.
  10. It seems to me that you have a decent setup, and are using it well. However, if you'd like to get bogged down in some technical analysis of facets of the RME ADI-2 Pro, this page will certainly burn significant amounts of your time.
  11. This contest would be a lot more fun if you made the prize a Mytek Manhattan II.
  12. Your approach is eminently sensible. On the smaller scale of my laptop, the OS and my applications go on the spinning drive, with the SLC cache (which is not part of the spinning drive itself) keeping that side of things reasonably fast. The large SSD is all fast working space with things ultimately getting archived on (a mirror pair of) external rotating drives, or thrown away. As a thought experiment, it seems to me that using SSDs for music server storage has its particular risks. The music would generally be "write-once", to get an item into place, then selections would potentially be read over and over from those fixed storage locations. The reading part of that seems to me to be just the thing to electrically wear an SSD. And SSD storage locations can only survive a finite amount of wear.
  13. First, let me state I have nothing against SSDs. In fact, I recently replaced the secondary drive in my laptop (with two internal hard drive bays)...the secondary drive was a perfectly functioning Samsung 512GB 850 Pro SSD, which I replaced with a new Samsung 1.92TB SM863a SSD (an "enterprise" part). Well, I was running out of working room. The main drive, however, is not SSD, the main drive is a 750GB 7200rpm drive with a 20GB Intel SLC cache. But what may bear some discussion in this thread could be the failure characteristics of spinning drives versus SSDs. Spinning drives are generally reputed to fail with some advance warnings, and even after failure the full data can often be recovered. On the other hand, SSDs seem to have the reputation of failing like someone flicked a light switch--instantly gone--and with no data recovery possible. As always, of course, backing up important data is necessary no matter what type of drive. But it strikes me that SSDs generally have a much more catastrophic way of failing.
  • Create New...