Toshiba TV29C90 problem; Image fades to black...

[Leonard Caillouet]

"John Del" <ohger1s@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030712075614.04216.00000307@mb-m14.aol.com...

Subject: Re: Fried HDTV- repair or replace?
From: "Leonard G. Caillouet" lcaillo_ns_@devoynet.com



"David" <dkuhajda@locl.net.spam> wrote in message

Your set has a 1 in 5 chance over five years of normal use of having an
ordinary failure, that is simply ordinary statistical failure for
electronics at that complicated level. The expected picture tube life
if
you watch it like most people is 8 years, around 20,000 hours of use; a
bit
longer if you turned down the contrast and brightness to proper levels.


Where do you get your statistics? Sounds pessimistic to me. We sell and
service these Sony sets, as well as Mitsubishi and I'd be very surprised
to
have that high a failure rate or that short a life expectancy. I have
hundreds of sets out there that are over 10 years old and still looking
great.

While individual cases vary, those stats sound right to me.
Unfortunately,
most people run their TVs in the default picture modes, which means 100%
contrast\picture levels. This eats up not only the cathodes, but causes
premature screen burning as well. BTW, most weak CRTs I see on middle age
projos are Mitsubishi's.

John Del
Wolcott, CT

Perhaps my experience is different because we try to educate our customers
on the proper way to adjust their sets. What do you consider middle age?

Leonard Caillouet

 

[Misanthrope]

On 12 Jul 2003 10:06:37 -0700, hewpiedawg@hotmail.com (ShrikeBack)
wrote:

Misanthrope <amisanthrope@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<ccuugv0ebfa44cjj6dqagk55rtf592b59v@4ax.com>...
On 10 Jul 2003 21:22:01 -0700, hewpiedawg@hotmail.com (ShrikeBack)
wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message news:<3F0B9B35.7696@armory.com>...
Carlos Antunes wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:3F0B83C0.6033@armory.com...

If you'd actually read anything about Determinism, you'd discover
that QM/Uncertainty has absolutely nothing to do with it.


Bullshit! Determinism is simply an approximation to reality when macroscopic
systems are involved.
----------------------------
You're blowing it out your ass with your handwaving.

No matter what the scale, you cannot show that cause and effect is
not operant.

There is something that we can show, and that is that the assumption
that all events are ultimately predictable is false.

That is not what is required for determinism -- that one be able to
KNOW what the outcome is. Basically you are confusing the
epistemological question of whether or not we could *know* what will
happen with the metaphysical question of whether or not what will
happen is predestined to happen.

I am not confusing the epistemological with the ontological.
I merely made the point that we can indeed show that arbitrary
predictability is unobtainable. You did not deal with my
ontological argument concerning the First Cause.

Well, then all of this predictability stuff is completely irrelevant.
As for the first cause argument, it is not complete. The burden,
then, is on you to prove that finite time implies a first cause and
that the existence of one first cause implies that we are each first
causes which is where free will comes from. The fact is that a first
cause is only required if time is finite AND linear. The reason time
is even thought to be finite is for the same reason space is thought
to be finite, namely because it is not linear. And even if there is a
first cause, it seems entirely likely that we are not ourselves
uncaused causes, anyway. We seem to be the products of genetics and
upbringing which doesn't detract from our having a *will* (that is not
metaphysically "free"), but we are not the uncaused causes that you
are talking about.

---
Misanthrope

"All you have to do in life is die." And, most of us
don't deserve any more than death because the question
isn't "Do we really deserve to die?" The question is
"Do we really deserve to live?"

 

[John Del]

Perhaps my experience is different because we try to educate our customers
on the proper way to adjust their sets. What do you consider middle age?

I used to think 45 was middle age, but now that I'm 46, I'm thinking more like
50 to 55...

As far as TVs, middle age depends on the brand. Samsungs and Apexs middle age
is about a year and a half. Better brands last at least 10 years. I see tons
of Mitsus and Sonys with soft tubes in 5 years.

I *always* show customers the way to set pic\contrast to zero, set black level,
and advance the pic\con to normal levels. Unfortunately, by the time I see
them, it's often too late. I don't sell many TVs anymore, but when we do, we
always instruct in the proper operation.
John Del
Wolcott, CT

"Nothing is so opportune for tyrants as a people tired of its liberty."
Alan Keyes

(remove S for email reply)

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Kevin Aylward wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:


and sub-standard for any physics grad.
Reality has outcomes, and they are unary here and now, which is the
ONLY "place" than can be shown to EVER exist.

Indeed. No problem. I agree, there is only one final outcome.
---------------------------------
Hmmm, you didn't seem to before.

And where was this alleged assertion?



t any moment in one life at a time, which is the ONLY way reality
occurs, is what makes Determinism absolutely unquestionable.

This is refuted in every QM experiment to date.
--------------------------------
Nonsense.
What you have said here means that you never understood it at all.

Not at all. Its clear you is you are ignorant on the basics.
---------------------------
I have degrees and coursework that say that I am not.

Degrees don't means you understand what you pasted down from memory.



Every
single moment and event is the reuslt of cause and effect,

Not according to Qm.
---------------------------
Wrong.
The totality of the way an instant of your Life turns out, is unary,
it is one outcome,

Yes. As I noted in my last post.
------------------------------------
Hmm, now you seem to have changed your mind.


You are stupid, fail to comprehend simple English, or a liar. Which is
it?


it is NOT many outcomes at once for you in your
life.

Yes.
-------------------
Unspecific. Yes about WHAT?

Oh.. you seem to be stupid.

A Many World Interpretation is a heuristic explanation of the
Heisenberg Uncertainty,

Again, if your read my post you should have noticed that I don't hold
much for MWI.
----------------------------
MWI is important in that it OBVIATES rather than answers many
questions that QM asks. It just does so so WELL that it cannot BE
dismissed as a major contender, even if you hate it.


I disagree.


but you will never experience more than one
"Universe", so all it does is explain some theory that leads to
results that to us require statistical answers and always will
because of the nature of mathematics and reality. But only one
outcome does finally occur in this Life we experience, period!

So what. Never claimed otherwise. The point is that this final
outcome can not be predicted. That is, there is no direct cause and
effect.
-----------------
Prediction has nothing whatsoever to do with cause and effect.

In does. Probably too subtle for you.

Proof: If things operated on cause and effect before physics existed,
then prediction was obviously unimportant to cause and effect!!


Dah...Jesus wept dude. And you think that this is a proof? You confuse
the basics of what "prediction" means in this context. You are amazingly
dense. Prediction assumes that required knowledge is available, in
principle, not that some one has not been to school to lean it. The fact
that there were no schools teaching physics 10,000 years ago is
trivially irrelevant.

If *in principle* absolute prediction is not possible. This would mean
that an "effect" just happens, on its own, with no cause.

Present one example where a known specific effect, an cause cannot, in
principle, be predicted.


Its
that simple. You need to read up some more on the fundamental basis
of QM
----------------------------
You need to stop saying things other than this postural line of bull
where you claim "divine" knowledge of QM but decline to state any
specific thing about it, while urging us to "read up"..


I have stated many "things" about QM. Most of what I say is basic, not
disputed in any standard text on QM. i.e. nothing new. Its a simple
matter of a web search to see the correctness of what I state.


The unary outcome is composed of both constants and of eigen states
and of final states that were finally specific for the statistical
phenomenon. But QM has no need to predict an individual instance for
cause and effect to be operant.

If the standard interpretation of QM is correct, this is not correct.
Standard QM says QM all there is possible to know is contained in QM. If
something is *inherently* and in principle unpredictable, it can not
have a cause.

You assert that something can be caused even if it cant be predicted. If
so, present one real example.

Whatever happens has happened, and
by the pure semantics of linguistic tense, it was always going to
happen, it was was/will be always/will have been as it finally
occurred. This is strictly semantic!


Not if QM is correct. As I have stated before, QM states that if you
could actually rewind the universe to an exact prior position, the next
outcome could be different.

Sure, QM could be false, and I am not claiming the it is absolutely
correct. I am stating that, *according* to QM, things happen without a
cause.


It is a gedanken experiment that is primary, you are forced to admit
that there is only one real outcome to any situation.

Never claimed any different. You need to learn to read my son.
---------------------------------
Your son has things printed on him?
No, you seem to me to have changed your mind.

Nope.



Whether statistical methods are useful, in relating a number of
results in parallel BUT NOT IDENTICAL circumstances where we
expected to see them all do the same thing, is not important to
cause and effect producing only one outcome. In multiple
experiments they are different particles at different times. All we
are doing is refusing to acknowledge that when we do what we
imagine is the same thing to a bunch of particles, that we really
are not, because they are in different places at different times,
and that it somehow makes a difference, and our notion of a closed
system, is erroneous. This doesn't say that the conditions of any
one particle can either ever BE known OR be shown to cause the same
effect. What it shows is that even though it MAY WELL BE UNKNOWABLE
IN ITS VERY NATURE FOREVER, that STILL,

Ho hum.
----------------
Non-responsive.


Ok then.. Its drivel.

QM can deal with the assumption that there are hidden variables of
a type that, although unknown, in principle, would rule out
randomness.
------------------
Determinism doesn't care at all WHICH is true, whether there are
or are not hidden varaibles. It doesn't MATTER what the rules are,
as long as YOU NEVER have TWO DIFFERENT tuesday next's at your
office at 10:30AM!!!!! If you do not, then the outcome is unary,
and Deterministic, and inevitable, and has always been so.

Nonsense. I see you have invented a new definition of determinism
just to support your political views.
-----------------------------------
No, not that I know, I simply understood it better than most.

In your dreams.

I have
read a number of philosophers who make the aame points that I have.
They cite lots of mistaken impressions and beliefs about Determinism,
simply because the absence of Free Will is hard for Xtians in western
culture to accept. It doesn't bother Eastern religions at all.


Its irrelevant whether *true* free will exists or not. All that matters
is whether or not we have enough information to consciously make a
decision, baring in mind that consciousness is really an illusion
anyway.

From an engineering approximation point of view, I am effectively able
to make any reasonable decision that I like. This is the real world.
Idealist concepts of what in principle may be the exact case, cannot
alleviate the culpability for example, of me committing murder.


You confuse unique events with determinism. Determinism is simple the
ability to predict the outcome.
---------------------------------
Determinism has nothing whatsoever to do with physics or prediction.
It is a semantic truth about this place we live in.

Oh a god given truth ....get real.

We all know that
events are caused,

Nope.

we experience it, we see nothing but it.

We experiance events, there is no proof that these events are due to
causes. This is an assumption.

We all
know that whatever happens is irretrievable, namely, that it was
always going to be so.

Irretrievable does not imply "always going to be so" at all. Indeed, as
I have noted many times, according to QM, retrieving all the positions
and momentums back to exactly a prior state will result in a new
outcome.



Unique is, well, only one possible. I
agree that to be deterministic requires uniqueness, but being unique
does not imply determinism.
------------------------------
If something is not caused to be as it has become, then it might just
change from how it has become back into something else. If it cannot,
then it is caused not to do so.

Gibberish.


Obviously you don't. Its clare that you don't understand that basics
of QM. That is, despite a unique result, outcomes are not
deterministic.
-------------------------
You are then claming that while it happened, that you have reason to
believe that it might not have. I know of no possible proof for such
a thing in reality except the linguistic hypothetical that is always
meaningless and useless, the solely imaginary "what if" that is only
actually useful or instructive to us in other events in the future.

QM Statistics do not predict, as you said, other than in statistical
distributions. But in such a distribution we do NOT have one particle
assuming many final states, instead we have many particles assuming a
distribution of outcomes in different possible futures, or "many
worlds". But in this experiment no one member of the distribution ever
assumes more than one outcome state!! So where does your "might have
been - what if" come from? I see no basis for it, except MWI. And
that's because the only way to hypothesize these co-temporaneous
alternative realities is by MWI.


Not at all. The quantum ensemble addresses this with no problem, The
basic issue here is understanding what the equation really means. If I
write in software, x = x + 1, what dose it mean? Does it mean that 0 =
1. Of course not. You need to know how the syntax is really interpreted.
Unfortunately, this error seems to have been made by many with the
equivalent in QM.

Consider the classical dice analysed with the same mathematic method as
used in QM. i.e teat it as an ensemble of experiments. I agree that this
approach was introduced with QM, but there is no reason why that same
mathematics and notation can not be used for classical systems.

Its "wave" function is:

psi = (|1> + |2> + |3> + |4> + |5> + |6&gt/sqrt(6)

If I throw it, and before I look at it, the probability of it being in
one particular state can be calculated from psi just as in standard QM.
There is no suggestion that it is in a *real* *physical* mixed state.
There is no reason to suggest that it it needs a MWI to "explain" why
the other probabilities did not occur. Its just notation. Its simple a
method to calculate probabilities of ensembles of experiments, and one
that works.

The net
outcome of our live is inevitable.

Any, supposed, in principle "inevitable", would be a simple technicality
that has zero value in the real world.



I find it striking that you claim to have a degree in Physics, yet
do not understand the basics of, its fundamental theories.
---------------------------
You have assumed something in the course of your education, that
simply is not so, and this has occurred due to philosophical
prejudices of your own that led you to ignore the kinds of things

Not at all. It is you who can not rid your self of the classical idea
that events have direct causes. Those of us who have grown up a bit,
realise that the universe is much more complicated that can de
ascertained from piddling about in ones bedroom.
-------------------------------
And so you imagine what about my background? I have used many millions
of dollars worth of equipment on several campuses.

No doubt, to zero effect.

But anyone who
knows anything about physics should view your denegration of what can
be accomplished in "one's bedroom" as indicating that you're an
ignorant dilettante.


In principle, but in fact, never.


I'm
telling you and the fact that they are totally compatible with QM.

And you are wrong. Plain and simple. Elementary QM desputes
determinism.
-----------------------
No, only people with an elementary grasp of QM think so.
Go look at the discussions of Determinism by philosophers,

imo, serious scientists, e.g. Feynmann, give little weight to
philosophers who prattle on about things that have no background to
understand.

and look
at who reveals their approach to be the most in-depth by their
reputation at logical discernment. You'll find that these same
folks are most aware of QM's effect on Philosophy, and that they
have found Determinism not actually touched at all by it, which
is counter to the POP understanding of such things.


Look, imo, Philosophers are a bunch of Wankers. They are about as useful
as a Teletubby.


But this is entirely irrelevant as to individuals making their own
decisions, with a claim that they are pre-ordained. Individual
outcomes are not predictable under QM, therefore they cannot be pre
determined.
------------------------------------
Note: "pre-determism" is NOT the same as Determinism.

This is your new definition of determinism I see.
-------------------------------

It is simply a mis-statement of terminology from Philosophy,
as you would know if you'd bothered to know BOO about the subject
of accepted Determinism. So far, from the beginning to here in
this post, you have managed to actually address properly precisely
nothing, and to do no more than disparage without actually arguing
in any sense that is rational.

I actually have previously made the mistake of believing you
had a halfway decent intellect, but I now know that that impression
was actually hasty, and that I see you cut-n-paste a few notes you
must surely grab elsewhere and which youdon't actually understand.

Also, as said before: Determinism does NOT rely on prediction in any
way, shape, or form. It is a strictly semantic truth about reality.

Nope. Not if *in principle* it can't be determined.
---------------

"Determinism" has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with anything being
"determined" by humans. If you had read BOO on the subject you
would know that, but clearly you don't.

Again, give one
example of a determinate outcome with no in principle prediction
possible.
---------------------------------------

Example: You failed to understand Determinism.
-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

John Devereux wrote:

"Kevin Aylward" <kevin@anasoft.co.uk> writes:

R. Steve Walz wrote:
Nobody ever dies. If you died, you wouldn't know it, and if
you know it, you didn't die.

Your typical, if it cant be proved, then it can't be true sort of crap.
What part of Goedel did you have trouble with. That there are statements
that are true, but cannot be derived, i.e. proved from existing axioms.

I agree absolutely that it can not be *proved* that one dies, however,
the evidence for this is absolutely overwhelming. e.g people don't do a
lot after having their skulls crushed in, and I don't see too many
reports of ghosts in court telling the judge who killed them.

The idea that you actually believe that you wont die speaks volumes.

If you accept the MWI, then you will always find yourself in a
universe where you have, perhaps "miraculously", "survived".

--

John Devereux
-----------------

Or in some meta-possible afterlife.
But in either case, you WILL exist, and will not have died.
The thing about death, as we fear it, is that we won't perceive
ANYTHING. But if we don't, then we won't EVER KNOW that!

People forget that once upon a time we didn't exist,
and that we came to be from non-being in the same way
that everyone else does, and that somebody has to "be"
them, just in the same manner that WE are WE!

Our current existence sets the precedent, that the
Infinite Imagination can, as often as it Infinitely
just does so, that just like us here now, that we
can find ourselves as anyone, anyplace, with no warning,
control, or choice of specific identify, in the very same
way we found ourselves here as Us NOW!

This is so since identify develops as a part of the
life we find Ourself in, and not as a feature of our
"Us-ness" AT ALL! The "Ourself" has NO qualities of
its own whatsoever!

Your life itself proves that since it did it this time,
it can do this as often as it likes, to produce all
possible life experiences, and that the You who thinks
You are You now, will be there thinking it is You as
well, just as it does now!
-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Kevin Aylward wrote:

bigmike wrote:
"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:3F0F5D9F.67E2@armory.com...
Guillaume wrote:

Ahhhhhh. Politics and beliefs. The non-ending war.

That's true, but it's a pointless war.
Politics should not deal with beliefs, but should rather deal with
reality.
-----------------
Beliefs are the positions in the argument as to the nature of that
alleged "reality" of yours that you think is so obvious and isn't.


Every time a system of beliefs is put into any kind of
political system, it kind of inevitably becomes dysfunctional.
-------------------------
You mean like women's suffrage, banning child-labor, social security,
or national health care, or universal education, or what? You see,
you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.


It's kind of weird to believe that their are no choices
since it is your choice to believe that.

Exactly
Life itself is a choice. You can choose to live, or you can also
choose to kill yourself. The means of doing this is even totally
up to you. Of course, the means of living is also up to you.
---------------------------------
Nonsense. You cannot change the very tiniest belief, because your
beliefs ARE you, AND neither, similarly, can you lift yourself into
the air by your belt. Your mind may lie about having changed your
beliefs at your whim, but in fact, once you are caused to change
by experience, internal and external, and once you change you cannot
stop that either!!

If you COULD actually change what you think on a whim, that is, for
no actual "reason" which would have to persuade your mind into a new
inexorable belief that once again you could not change, why then you
could change your beliefs as to where and what you are, and you could
then immediately live in your fondest fantasy world and it would be
JUST AS ABSOLUTELY REAL as THIS one, you would be a GOD and this
would occur in mere seconds!! Meet the world of "Free Will".

We don't have "Free Whim", obviously, or we would be lost in a world
of our OWN making almost instantly, and then perhaps we would look
catatonic or totally chaotically delusional to the people left in
THIS world!!


Oh, by the way. Isn't this sci.electronics.repair?

Interestingly, it would be kind of obvious that if we indeed
had no choices as human beings, we wouldn't have been able to come
up with electronics or any other scientific stuff. Probably
no written language either.
----------------------------
Nonsense, our minds are given reasons to do such things, but nor are
the things we are "given" to do limited to virtues, either, there are
just as many sick beliefs that have been abused into children's minds
which they suffer from absorbing. Only an ignorant knob would fancy
that it requires "Free Whim" believe what we have been convinced to
believe by experience, which process is just another simple example
of Deterministic Cause and Effect!!


Abused into children's minds? That's about as far fetched as you can
get Steve.

Well, depends on what you mean by abuse.

We were all children at one time, and were brought up differently,
according to our families beliefs, views, and values. As we grow up,
we learn about other peoples beliefs, views, and values, and these
also become part of who we are as an adult. I wouldn't want it any
other way. That is far from abuse.

Not really. I personally consider it abuse to indoctrinate children with
religion. If "religion" was switched to "Teletubbies", the courts would
no doubt step in. Its well understood how effective it is to program
ideas into young children and to all intents, this programming can often
be insurmountable later in life.

Anybody that feels abused because
their parents beleived in religion or had other views that are were
not based on scientific facts, needs to get a life and quite
whinning.

I don't agree..

I was taught both views as I was growing up. Fair enough.


Individual cases, do not a case make. Sure, some may get a more balanced
view, others do not.
---------------------------

What's truly sad is when these wrapped-too-tight Xtian freaks don't
even KNOW they've been abused, THEY are in such deep Stockholm denial
that they think they were BENEFITTED by their abuse as a child!!

Steve, sorry buddy, but your idea that we do not have free will, is
just silly. You suggest that it does not support cause and effect,
but it absolutely does. Matter of fact, it proves it! When we change
our mind about something, there is a reason.

Not necessarily. Given that there is may be no logical rational to
select a particular action, the neurons may just fire randomly and chose
one without direct consciousness being involved, whatever direct
consciousness means
---------------------------------

Actually all the "imaginary neurons" in the core of Reality fire and
generate every conceivable experience of a Life, and then only those
which are coherent AND contiguous have temproraneous awarenesses that
exist because without coherence and continguity no such awareness can
exist. The Physical Laws emerge from theIinevitable Structure of
Accidental Awareness.

Even if it's for no
other reason, then we want to change our mind. That's the cause. We
are not pre-programmed, and the future is not predetermined.

It don't matter whether the future is predetermined or not. I generally
go by the overall "the future has already happened" approach, that is,
the future can not be changed in the same way as the past cant.
----------------------------

In fact" To change the past OR the future you have to go be somebody
else.

However,
practically, since we have no way of realistically predicting the
future, the engineering approximation is that we have free will, sort
off...noting that some things are more free willable than others.
---------------------------

You're still confusing the capacity of the human to change and react
with "free will". Our belief that "we" chose is bogus. The "thing"
that thinks it's "us" has NO control over the processes beneath it
from which it emerges and from which its own notions emerge! Choice
itself is a notional concept!!

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Kevin Aylward wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:
bigmike wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:3F0F5D9F.67E2@armory.com...
Guillaume wrote:

------------------------
Yes, but you do not get to pick and choose what you believe, it comes
with the inevitable outcomes of the physical world as your life
progresses. You cannot change your mind by an effort against your
previous belief. The whole idea of Free Will is nonsense. And whatever
finally happens was always what was GOING to happen!


We are not preprogrammed,
------------------
We are not preprogrammed, except by our life experiences.

Blatant contradiction of evolution. If I stick a needle in you arm, you
will move it away due to the pain, irrespective of your experiences,
well assuming your not Arnold who sows himself up after a battle.
-------------------------

True, but our body is a previously instituted experience as well.

We are
a combination of both genes and memes, that are selected by the
environment. In general, both must be considered. Neither rules.

Best Regards,

Kevin Aylward
----------------------

But this doesn't affect any of my arguments.
-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

ShrikeBack wrote:

I am aware, too, that my preceding argument only deals with the
epistemological problem of predictability. It is quite possible
that the universe is still utterly deterministic, according to
this argument, but it would be impossible, in spite of that, for
any means of total predictability to devised.
------------------------------

And we see that prediction, with any perfect result, is impossible,
merely and IF ONLY because we are finite and we die! The only way
that Reality occurs is in the form of an individual's own Life,
as they experience it.

I also have this vague impression that there is a category of things
that exist on the one hand and the category of all things (including
rules) that might exist on the other. I don't know that if we limit
our universe to just the former that Godel even applies.

Under determinism, all events could, in principle, be described
with algorithms, at least on the local level. This seems to me
to be true, though I have no rigorous proof. Thus the universe
itself could be considered isomorphic to some formal system.
If that is true, then a deterministic Universe is either
inconsistent or incomplete in the same sense as whatever formal
system maps to it must be, by a previously shown result.
------------------------------

No algorithm can ever be shown to be infinitely accurate as to
predicting outcomes. This is both obvious because of subjective
phenomenology and because of Goedel's Incompleteness, which I
see as the two faces of a coin!

I think the standard response is that the past is in some sense
infinite. Namely, that the rules themselves (such as logic, and those
governing quantum vacuum fluctuations) have always been here.

I have run across those who believe the past is infinte, though
not in the context of determinism. Moreover, usually, those people
are talking about physical existence. I tell those people that
if the past were infinite, there would have been an infinity
of passing time before the present. Saying something will not
occur until an eternity has passed is equivalent to saying that
it will never happen. Thus, the present would never have been
reached.
----------------------------

The "Past" is memory, and experiential memory cannot be infinite.

You, however, are not referring to physical time, but something
else, where the rules wait in an eternal timelessness for the
moment of creation, in a manner of speaking. I am not convinced
that time can exist without events, though, just as some have
claimed that space cannot exist without matter. If a rule
of logic exists in the void, but there is no one there to think
about it, does it really exist at all?
----------------------------------

Time is NOT a continuum! Time is strictly subjective, it exists
in no other form!!

Time exists in many different forms with different qualities. The
time since you last awoke, the time since you were born, the time
since humans did not exist, the time before any life, the time out
of mind. These are all so different that actually there should be
different WORDS for them!
-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[Shiva]

"Jon Elson" <jmelson@artsci.wustl.edu> wrote in message
news:3F0F25A6.4030403@artsci.wustl.edu...

George R. Gonzalez wrote:

Sometimes you wonder how some products ever made it out of the design
lab.

Sometimes there's so much wrong, you wonder if the item is a joke.

Someday I may relate the story of the no-name amplifier, but today's
story
is from a quite respected company, Bogen.

Respected? By who? They made a lot of public address gear, and a lot of
it
went up in smoke. I can't be sure, but I think I know someone who
wrestled
with this same amp, or maybe all their tube stuff was designed like this.
Very low-budget design, to produce a unit that barely met very low specs,
but absolutely couldn't be made cheaper, and to hell with the user.

After looking inside some of their stuff, **I** certainly never respected
the brand.

Well shheeet, John, if **you** don't respect it, it must indeed be trash!
And, John? there could be two reasons why you "[know] someone who [has]
wrestled with an amp like this": 1. the design sux. 2. the guy's an
idiot. Something makes me wann'a bet on the latter, 'coz I'm not the
brightest bulb in the tree, and I've had no problems doin' Bogens.
Budget-built? Sure. Unreliable? Hey, i'd love to see how modern toob amps
will fare in 40 yrs...

Jon

 

[R. Steve Walz]

John Fields wrote:

On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 03:50:34 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

To obviate determinism you'd need alternate realities you could jump
between at will, or, for mind to have the capacity to believe you
were elsewhere than you are and seriously believe it as certainty,
which would instantly render you psychotic, catatonic and insane in
this reality.

---
On the contrary, Steve, I believe that's what actually happens. That
is, our every action changes the fabric of the universe irreversibly and
produces a new light cone for us, its singularity meandering about as we
do. We don't perceive the changes because of something like persistence
of vision, so time seems to flow seamlessly, and continuously, making us
believe we live in a jello-like universe when actually it's more like
grits, as we're starting to learn.
---
------------------------------

Fine, but that has nothing to do with causation. The important thing
to note is that you cannot, by an effort of mere "Free Will", change
the tiniest thing you believe sincerely, it must change beneath you
of its own deeper process, and then even the thing you call You cannot
stop it either. This means that we change each other, but not as we
would wish to perhaps, but we cannot change ourselves, and BE ourselves
at the ssme time. We cannot "pull ourselves up by our bootstraps".

We don't have Free Will because it would make existence impossible
and chaotic, with no continuity or cause and effect.

---
Well, it _is_ chaotic, probably because of noise in the system, but if
we didn't have free will, existence would be pointless and we'd only be
along for the ride.
------------------

No, we are indeed along for the ride, and it is NOT pointless but
not so merely because of the ILLUSION of Free Will that our mind
tacitly accepts as the premise upon which Self-existence is conceived!
But don't be mistaken, our Awareness is product, not process.

Kind of like a ball in a pinball machine. _But_,
even if that were true, someone/something would be working the flippers,
so it wouldn't always be the same ride. And if it wasn't, then
something would be exerting its will, making things happen in
unpredictable ways from the point of view of the ball. You might
counter with the argument that the flipper operator is also operating
under deterministic rules, but how many levels would you want to
traverse before Occam's razor would start making that trip look absurd?
-----------------------------

I don't bother with your "turtles all the way down".
All possible Lives exist. This is one of them.
The ones which are impossible preclude their own aware existence
by their own structure, the "rules" are inherent in each life.
All possible sets of rules ALSO exist. At the level where they
are too chaotic to be lives no one can be aware anyway.

In dreams we take giant leaps compared to the little steps we normally
take in our waking state, and yet we have no trouble with continuity or
cause and effect in that world, so why should we have trouble with it
here where this filter called "reality" keeps us bound?
John Fields
----------------------------------

Even dreams can be separate because they aren't contiguous. The rules
that underly our dreams versus those of our life obviously differ
somewhat.
-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Kevin Aylward wrote:

George Buyanovsky wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" <kevin@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<D6zPa.15946$4O4.1764028@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>...

I'll re-phrase. Standard QM, says there is no direct cause and
effect.

You exaggerated:
Probably statement "there is cause/effect correlation" is more
appropriate

I already addressed the statistical nature of cause and effect, I used
the qualify "direct" to highlight what I think is missed by many doing
QM. Its easy to do all the sums, get your PhD, yet still not have it
sink in that QM fundamentally says "things happen without a cause". As I
noted, its why Feynmann says "no one understand QM". Without bringing it
to a clear head one simply does not, imo, understand how really
profound, and how at odds it is to conventional understanding QM is.

Kevin Aylward
-----------------

I don't know why you find this so hard to understand, but we really
do KNOW that "things happen without a cause", except that the "cause"
in that phrase is some process within reality. It does NOT preclude
all possible lives existing, and each being separated by each being
a different outcome such that each is Determined yet without Cause,
even a Divine one.
-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[Shiva]

"George R. Gonzalez" <grg2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hYTPa.43358$N7.5224@sccrnsc03...

I seem to have stirred up a lot of controversy here. Let me summarize the
responses:


(A) You're right in adding the "missing" snubbers, missing fuses, missing
bias controls, missing bias filters, missing bias test points, missing
bias
set points, especially since the amp
is acting up, even after replacing capacitors, looking it over... etc.

(B) This Bogen amplifier is a part of our honorable tube heritage, the
ancient designers never made any design compromises, you should be flogged
for even hinting of any possibility of cutting-corners by the engineers,
or
suggesting
that the amplifier could be improved with a few modern components and
techniques.

(C) Bogen made high-quality stuff that lasted forever.

(D) Bogen made some stuff that was marginal, that blew tubes a lot.

---

In other words, all over the spectrum, and a lot more heat than
illumination.

I'll readily concede that all of the above may be true, although not all
for
the same
amplifier model.

But as my viewpoint is mainly an engineering one, I see this more as
a challenge to tame, not as a historical artifact that should be preserved
and worshiped as-is.

You all, are of course are entitiled to differ and to treat your
amplifiers
as you see fit.



Regards,


George

Once again, George, an interestin' take on things you've got there. You've
got some conflicting (in your eyes) replies, and thus think that the replies
offered "a lot more heat then illumination" (you punster, you...) let me
try to make sense of this for you, shall i? (I shall)
The people who suggested it was fine to add all the crapola to the amp may
have felt "hey, it's not my amp, if the guy wants to play Will E Coyote, let
him". perfectly valid. You paid for the thing, you can turn it into
anything your heart desires, it's *yours*.
No one reply which i have read implied that the amp you got was "A part of
history [attempt at bitin' sarcasm & bullshit snipped]" and, thus, should be
preserved. Dude! The things are common coz they didn't shit the bed in
their youth & got tossed - no one will miss your Bogen. And, ads far as
"using modern techniques"? Hard as i try, can't think of a single thing
you've mentioned that was not known when the amp was built. Or, do you
really think Bogen was unfamiliar with bias pots, snubbers & filter caps?
What the people were politely tryin' to tell you (since you approach this
from an engineering perspective) was that instead of finding the problem you
chose to redesign the amp. Well, that's fine, but if you really want to
play engineer, why not find the actual *cause* of the problem first (after
all, the sucker worked for years without all them new-fangled techniques
like snubbers), and *then* try to improve on the design? In other words, if
you can't even *fix* the foolish thing, perhaps you're not quite yet in a
position to mod it? With all respect to your engineerin' prowess...

 

[bigmike]

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:3F10B548.165@armory.com...

Kevin Aylward wrote:

George Buyanovsky wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" <kevin@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<D6zPa.15946$4O4.1764028@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>...

I'll re-phrase. Standard QM, says there is no direct cause and
effect.

You exaggerated:
Probably statement "there is cause/effect correlation" is more
appropriate

I already addressed the statistical nature of cause and effect, I used
the qualify "direct" to highlight what I think is missed by many doing
QM. Its easy to do all the sums, get your PhD, yet still not have it
sink in that QM fundamentally says "things happen without a cause". As I
noted, its why Feynmann says "no one understand QM". Without bringing it
to a clear head one simply does not, imo, understand how really
profound, and how at odds it is to conventional understanding QM is.

Kevin Aylward
-----------------
I don't know why you find this so hard to understand, but we really
do KNOW that "things happen without a cause", except that the "cause"
in that phrase is some process within reality. It does NOT preclude
all possible lives existing, and each being separated by each being
a different outcome such that each is Determined yet without Cause,
even a Divine one.
-Steve
--

Go outside on a clear night Steve, when it's easy to see many stars in the
sky, look into the heavens above, and clear your mind of the idea that we
have a clue what life is all about. Let the mystery and wonder of it all
come back into your heart and mind. As much as I love science, if your not
careful, it can strip these basic, wonderful, human attributes from you.

 

[bigmike]

Would you guys please do us a favor and "snip" your replies and quotes so
they do not become a m---i---l---e-- long I enjoy these debates also, but
we tend to lead them get a little long in the tooth...

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:3F10B051.1381@armory.com...

ShrikeBack wrote:

There is something that we can show, and that is that the assumption
that all events are ultimately predictable is false. We can show
this through the same mechanism that Godel's Incompleteness Theorem,
and the Halting Theorem use, that is to say, through the Liar's
Paradox.
-------------------
And luckily, nothing I base my philosophy upon depends on it.
Of course I decided what to believe with that concern in mind!

You're lying.
----------------
Nope.


In fact, the Halting Theorem itself is enough to prove that some
outcomes are, in principle, unpredictable. The conclusion of the
Halting Theorem is that no algorithm can be constructed which will
determine whether or not a given computer program with a given
input will halt, or run indefinitely.
--------------------
Even if it were provable that things are not predictable, which seems
obvious to me anyway, since our lives are finite and possibility is
NOT, still, causation operates and generates ONE SINGLE OUTCOME for
MY LIFE. this means that whatever cause and effect I CAN get is
entirely sufficient to indicate Determinism.

That doesn't follow. You seem to be saying that because you only
experience one chain of events, only one chain of events is possible.
This is a big leap of faith, not an argument.
------------------------------
I didn't say that. Obviously, I am NOT the Arbiter of the possible.
But I know what constitutes my Life, because it is Me. Its outcomes
are or will be what I am and became. And I DO have knowledge of what
was possible in MY LIFE after it did or did not happen! That which
happened was OBVIOUSLY possible, and that which did NOT OBVIOUSLY
WAS *NOT* POSSIBLE! ONE OUTCOME!


In Other Words: The only possible thing happens, NOT because it is so
provably possible, but because it IS the ONLY POSSIBLE THING!!! And
thus
everything that does NOT happen in MY Life, was OBVIOUSLY
IMPOSSIBLE!!!

Thus only the one possible outcome ever happens, and that DEFINES
Determinism! And all without any actual "cause and effect" that
anyone needs to argue about with physicists!!!!

The possible does not always happen, unless you define possible
as "that which happens". This is what you seem to be doing.
Hence your argument says, essentially nothing, for it is a
tautology, coupled to a leap to "this proves determinism!"
------------------------------
The word possible allows a fanciful "what-if" approach to events
that has NO usefulness or truth except upon OTHER FUTURE events,
and NOT upon ANY events once they have HAPPENED and have ONE OUTCOME!
Even pretending that anything COULD have happened instead of what
DID happen is obviously fallacious!! This "what-if" generator is
new in the human being, but it is not perfected yet so that it doesn't
suggest totally stupid things, like what if the past was different??
The past CANNOT BE different, that IS what PAST MEANS! But this funny
little trick we learned to do to imagine alternatives can be misused
when we try to use it retroactively!!


Therefore, it is impossible to predict every outcome.
-------------------
So how does the Universe decide outcomes, eh?

Well, according to QM, it throws dice.
---------------------------
Not in MY life it doesn't! I experience ONLY ONE outcome!


We know from Chaos Theory that there is NO SUCH THING AS RANDOMNESS!

Chaos Theory proves no such thing. It merely describes how chaotic
behavior can come about in a deterministic system. Thus, it does
establish that chaos is not disproof that determinism is operative.
There is a difference.
------------------
Not as *I* mean it, or as David Hume ever did.
I have spoken at length with the early theorists involved with Chaos
at UCSC.edu when I was there. They introduced me to that truth quite
thoroughly.


If only one outcome occurred, and it does, then clearly the Universe
"decides" (yes, pathetic fallacy, I know, re-phrase as you wish).

Even if the Universe ulitimately follows one path of events (which
cannot be proven, by the way), it does not follow that the "decision"
is predetermined.
----------------------
You are unaware of the proper terminology:

"Predetermination" is NOT the same as Determinism. The first insists
everything is planned, Determinism merely says it is inevitable. I
insist only upon the latter.


There is also the problem of the First Cause. If you don't
assume that the past is infinite, you are stuck admitting
that there was one of these, and a First Cause is by definition
uncaused. If one uncaused event is allowed into your ontology,
how can you disallow the possibility of others?
---------------------------------
I don't think it's provable that the Universe exists Except as a
set of Features to My Perception of it. It began this morning when I
woke up, or when I was born, or when humans arose, take your pick.

If you want to take that tack, then you are getting close to the
idea that existence is created by observation.
--------------------------
I do indeed hold that the process of observation is the nature of
Reality.


Those are all different and actually not terribly well related forms
of time, and all very different with different rules, some virtual.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. It doesn't sound very
deterministic to me.
-----------------------------------
I don't think you know what Determinism is.
Best nip off and look it up, eh?


And the "Big Bang" was actually a moment ago when I returned to
consciousness from staring into space living other lives. The Big
Bang is just Infinity when it arises in a new Manifestation.


The fact that reality is and always will be such that it has
only one
outcome
at any moment in one life at a time, which is the ONLY way
reality
occurs, is what makes Determinism absolutely unquestionable.

Well, prove that reality is and always will be such that it has
only one outcome at any moment in one life at a time.
---------------------------------
I know of no Life that does not have only one outcome.
Do you? Seriously? Don't give me any disingenuous posturing now!

Neither do I know for certain that all decisions are predetermined.
--------------------
I don't either, I know only they are Deterministic, that is,
inevitable!


So, if that is your proof that there is only one timeline, then
I have also proven predetermination false.
-------------------------------
You have proved nothing at all. That you imagine you did is amusing.
You have never experienced another timeline, nor showed it to anyone.


Bullshit! The fact that there is only one outcome doesn't mean
others
weren't possible.
--------------------
Possible is totally meaningless if THEY didn't occur.
If they did not, then they were obviously IMPOSSIBLE!

This is begging the question. You are assuming that determinism
is true when you say this.
------------------------------------
The word "possible" is inextricably bound up in the necessary
concepts, it cannot even be USED otherwise, as I demonstrated.
I was NOT begging the question, I was giving a paradoxical example
as a Socratic illustrative. When YOU USED the word "possible" you
made it necessary!

No. You are confusing the past with the future. It is impossible
for the past to be changed now. It does not follow that the future
is set in the same stone as the past. Possibility is still inherent
in the future.
-----------------------------------
If the future was not Determined, then many futures could occur. Since
we cannot experience this, and never have done so, that's stupid.
If it occurs in "many worlds", that's irrelevant. It doesn't happen
to ME!


Every single moment and event is the reuslt of cause and
effect, no matter
what the rules are.


Bullshit! Cause and effect cannot even be extracted from
Newtonian
mechanics. It needs to be added ad hoc.
-------------------------
This is genuine absurdity on your part. Cause and effect is
physics.

Cause and effect can only be universalized as an article of faith.
-----------------------
Maybe, but they can be redefined as something else I find useful,
but which you need not believe, and still they'll bite you!

Maybe.

And the more you say bullshit the more we can see you have nothing
you can really say!!

What are you trying to say here?
---------------------------------
That many times people merely posture instead of making ANY logical
points, and that the REASON they do this is BECAUSE they have NO
really
logical points LEFT, and they KNOW IT! Thus they are disingenuous.

You are being disingenuous.
--------------------
Posturing liar!


If we could immediately punish disingenuity with death, people would
have to stand up for their bullshit beliefs and admit when they were
wrong!

Who would decide who was wrong?
-------------------------
As usual, whoever wants to. If a majority can organize around that
notion, then THEY will, obviously. If people were required to prove
what they were saying, they would have to shut the fuck up instead
of merely opportuning upon our lack of ability to stop them lying.

Most such instances are obvious, and would shut up a lot of stupid
vicious bastards. Those less than obvious could be ignored till they
became more outlandish, and then they could be warned into silence
about it by acclamation.


We don't have Free Will because it would make existence
impossible
and chaotic, with no continuity or cause and effect.

The simple fact that several different outcomes are possible,
even if only
one is ultimately experienced, negates this conclusion of yours.
-------------------
Possible is strictly a hypothetical, and strictly based on our
awareness of our ignorance and inability to predict due to OUR
failure to know all circumstances, and NOT any failure of cause
and effect!!

It is already demonstrated that the ability to predict everything
is logically impossible. Thus any conclusion you draw about the
universality of cause and effect, and their one-to-one relationship
is a matter of faith.
----------------------------
Goedel's Incompleteness doesn't bother Determinism a bit. As long as
the unwashed everywhere know that there is never more than one future,
that it never comes in twos or threes, there is Determinism.

You haven't established that there is but one possible future.
---------------------------
It has always been so. I need no other proof, and neither do you.
The Future has always become the Past in this manner, so quit your
lying! None of us have ever experienced multiple parallel nows or
past moments when the future became the past!


Que sera sera
Whatever will be will be.
The future's not ours to see.
Que sera sera!
-Doris Day

;-

"Everything must be this way."
-Jim Morrison
---------------------------
Obviously, he must.


The problem is that this question is not a scientific one, but
a philosophical one.
----------------------------
Yes, I agree. But it is pop-QM amateur Xtian physicists everywhere,
dumb as a sack of rocks, who will imagine that THEY are the:

"masters of their fate, captains of their souls"

:thinking that surely people must be held responsible for their
sins, when every Xtian faith preaches that God is, as Isaiah 45:
says:

--
6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west,
that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.
7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create
evil: I the LORD do all these things.
--

Well, Christians seem to believe in both predetermination
and free will, simultaneously. That is true. But what does
that have to do with whether or not determinism is true?
---------------------------------
They are simply stupid, confused, and dishonest and they indulge
in ignorant fancy to promote whatever crimes against humanity
they wish to promote at the time. They like free will when they
wish to shame, guilt, and punish, and they believe that "God
makes everything" when they want you to kneel and suck up to
their Gawd. It's not about Philosophy to them, it's only about
vicious insidious social control. They don't even read their
own damned book.

Xtians are just sure that whatever they do that they should be
held responsible because they decided to, and as long as no one
is trying to punish them for things in themselves they can't
actually control, and they are accepted in the "in-crowd" who
gets to punish the nasty "out-crowd", then they are willing to
congratulate themselves for being so smart and beloved of Gawd
so as to have gotten themselves born into this life instead of
any other. Actually they have no control of that whatsoever,
and they simply like to hate others who are less lucky than they
are.


Actually the penchant to find people have "Free Will" to choose to
be believers or non-believers or to be responsible for crime all
began back in the Inquisition when the torturers sought comfort for
what they were forced to do, they wanted to know for certain that
those who believed other than RC Church dogma were doing so entirely
of their own "Free Will" and not because they couldn't HELP what
they believed because of their life experiences! Well of course
they were all told LIES about human "Free Will" so they could go
ahead and torture AWAY!! And so European society has had at its
core the seed of evil duplicituousness about "Free Will", ever
since!

I don't think the Inquisition was the genesis of the Liberty
of the Will. Moreoever, it is a fallacy to believe that the
genesis of a proposition has anything to do with its truth.
----------------------------
Everything is multiple-ly caused. The Inquisition was as much
symptom as cause, so of course you're right, but that's irrelevant.


That being said, this indicates why it is you are wedded so
dogmatically to determinism: because you don't want to be
responsible for what you choose to do. Well, QM randomness
works just as well for that purpose, I would think.
------------------------------
Nonsense. I'm simply not so stupid as to believe that I have
any control over who I am in this life. All lives are such that
if someone was to escape their Deterministic life they'd merely
escape into another and some other unlucky self would seemlessly
take their place in this one! Ever wonder who you are when you
wake up? ;-

The Self is a resultant feature of the Life it Lives In. We can
change each other by the efforts we will invariably try for often
specious reasons, but we cannot change our own tiniest belief!!
And when that belief changes we cannot stop it! We can lie about
it in arguments about Free Will, but even THAT choice is a result
of a deep congitive process that we have no aware control over
whatsoever!!

In short: Our Awareness is a RESULT, NOT a Cause!! If our Awareness
DOES have any causal effect on our Deep Cognitive processes, then
it is NOT any we might "choose" to have it be. Awareness is the
result of "Choice", beneath the level of what we call "Ourself",
which is a superficial product of deeper processes, NOT a master
of them.
-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[Sofie]

Buck Turgidson:
Gee....gosh..... PCs are soooooo very cheap, especially if you only want to
get on line....... not a lot of extras required. You should go to a PC
repair outlet or store and see what used or reconditioned "basic" computers
may cost you..... you don't need anything fancy..... explain to the clerk
what you want to do.
--
Best Regards,
Daniel Sofie
Electronics Supply & Repair
\-----------------------------------


"Buck Turgidson" <jc_va@hotmail.com> wrote in message
newsB2Qa.8649$AD3.6057@lakeread04...

I am wondering if anyone has made a device that is basically a sound
card that can receive an Internet audio stream, but without having a PC?
I want to pick up some feeds, but don't want to invest in a PC. Thanks
for any replies.

 

[Peter Gottlieb]

You need a small computer to interface to the internet streaming protocol.
If you want free, get a discarded old computer and investigate a Linux based
solution.



"Buck Turgidson" <jc_va@hotmail.com> wrote in message
newsB2Qa.8649$AD3.6057@lakeread04...

I am wondering if anyone has made a device that is basically a sound
card that can receive an Internet audio stream, but without having a PC?
I want to pick up some feeds, but don't want to invest in a PC. Thanks
for any replies.

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 21:38:36 -0700, "bigmike" <bigmike@cornhusker.net>
wrote:


tooth...

OK

John

 

[William R. Walsh]

Hi!

Very simple and very cheap solution to this...get a WebTV!

It'll plug into pretty much anything with line-level inputs (like you'd plug
CD players or tape decks into on a stereo receiver) and they do support most
audio streaming formats.

The only disadvantage of the whole deal is that the WebTV only does a
dial-up link. It's too bad they don't make them with NICs fitted in,
otherwise I'd have kept mine hooked up.

William

 

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:11:46 -0500, "Bob Shuman"
<reshuman@removethis.lucent.com> wrote:

Chris,

Thanks for the precaution. Yes, the schematic clearly shows the 120VAC is in
the ice maker. My design must be slightly different since the motor turns a
small plastic gear which turns a larger gear which has a cam with a raised
lobes that activate the three microswitches referenced in my previous

Sounds like a much better design than mine.

 

[R. Steve Walz]

bigmike wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:3F10B548.165@armory.com...
Kevin Aylward wrote:

George Buyanovsky wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" <kevin@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<D6zPa.15946$4O4.1764028@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>...

I'll re-phrase. Standard QM, says there is no direct cause and
effect.

You exaggerated:
Probably statement "there is cause/effect correlation" is more
appropriate

I already addressed the statistical nature of cause and effect, I used
the qualify "direct" to highlight what I think is missed by many doing
QM. Its easy to do all the sums, get your PhD, yet still not have it
sink in that QM fundamentally says "things happen without a cause". As I
noted, its why Feynmann says "no one understand QM". Without bringing it
to a clear head one simply does not, imo, understand how really
profound, and how at odds it is to conventional understanding QM is.

Kevin Aylward
-----------------
I don't know why you find this so hard to understand, but we really
do KNOW that "things happen without a cause", except that the "cause"
in that phrase is some process within reality. It does NOT preclude
all possible lives existing, and each being separated by each being
a different outcome such that each is Determined yet without Cause,
even a Divine one.
-Steve
--

Go outside on a clear night Steve, when it's easy to see many stars in the
sky, look into the heavens above, and clear your mind of the idea that we
have a clue what life is all about. Let the mystery and wonder of it all
come back into your heart and mind. As much as I love science, if your not
careful, it can strip these basic, wonderful, human attributes from you.
----------------------

Garbage. Only an ass hides his superstition behind the romance of
mystery.
-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public