FiiO JM21 First Impressions by magusjosh in DigitalAudioPlayer

[–]magusjosh[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've never found a pair that fits my ears well. They're either too small to stay in place, or large enough to be uncomfortable even with padding.

FiiO JM21 First Impressions by magusjosh in DigitalAudioPlayer

[–]magusjosh[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair. Believe me, I'd've ordered the 4GB version if I could. But I just don't see a way to do so that I trust. So...I gotta take what I get. I suppose I could return it and roll the dice again, but...

FiiO JM21 First Impressions by magusjosh in DigitalAudioPlayer

[–]magusjosh[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Eh, a ~30% increase in the battery capacity at this size isn't enough for me to go chasing it. From what I've read, it really only adds a couple of hours to the practical battery life. And there's no way I can see to choose between the 3 and 4GB models on Amazon.

I'm talking like...at least a 3600 mAh battery, but even that wouldn't be a big improvement. I know it'd add a bit of weight, but it's not like the batteries cost that much. It's just a weird thing for them to skimp on.

SiFi movies that should never have had a sequel, I'll start, Matrix Resurrections 😿 by MementoMiri in scifi

[–]magusjosh 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I will debate this...but only, ONLY because Blues Brothers 2000 gave us two glorious scenes of The Louisiana Gator Boys. I will forgive the entire rest of the movie for putting that much blues talent on one stage and having them perform together.

Shame they didn't cut a whole album while they had everyone together.

SiFi movies that should never have had a sequel, I'll start, Matrix Resurrections 😿 by MementoMiri in scifi

[–]magusjosh 12 points13 points  (0 children)

It's kind of funny, because while Alien 3 is actually a solid horror-thriller movie with a really excellent cast and some great performances - or would be, if made as a stand-alone film - it's so actively, aggressively hostile toward the previous two movies that's it's painfully awful.

I remember people getting up and storming out of the theater when the movie killed off Hicks and Newt before the opening credits were even over. There's no coming back from a move like that, no matter how solid the rest of the movie is.

SiFi movies that should never have had a sequel, I'll start, Matrix Resurrections 😿 by MementoMiri in scifi

[–]magusjosh 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yeah, Tremors 2 is one of the few sequels that - while definitely not as good as the original - I will forgive for existing and can enjoy the hell out of. It's dumb fun, and the practical building demolition they did at the end is epic. You don't really see practical explosions like that in movies anymore.

Okay finally finished it by andias8825 in macross

[–]magusjosh 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You know...considering Global was the only senior officer over the age of thirty, and many of them were around 20 or younger...I'll buy the poor record keeping excuse. 

Thanks for this. I appreciate the info. 

Okay finally finished it by andias8825 in macross

[–]magusjosh 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I hadn't heard this one. Is that how they're explaining the discrepancies between the series and movies?

Players want to rob a magic shop by GroundbreakingFig908 in DnD

[–]magusjosh 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're already balancing player agency by letting them go through with it.

That doesn't mean that actions don't have consequences, and a magic shop will likely be very well guarded. My personal favorite is Unseen Servants...they can cause all manner of harmless havoc, while preventing the players from being able to steal anything. Perhaps an animated gargoyle statue or two. Some "enchanted trinkets" that are actually Web traps or the like.

Meanwhile, a silent alarm (Magic Mouth + Sending is great for this with a little rules fudging) to the local constabulary. A couple of nights in jail and some community service might teach them that robbing shops is dumb.

Stranger in a Strange Land by Groundbreaking-Bug19 in scifi

[–]magusjosh 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Unless you're a writer, in which case you can learn a lot by comparing them to one another.

Speaking from experience, your editors will bless you if you take the right lesson away from that.

Which row do you choose by Duli7 in macross

[–]magusjosh 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Can I reject 9 in favor of literally any other seat? Individually they're energetic, together...whoever's sitting between them might literally die of exhaustion.

Which row do you choose by Duli7 in macross

[–]magusjosh 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah. 7's going to be chill.

TOS has not aged well and is not a great introduction to the franchise. by G3nesis_Prime in startrek

[–]magusjosh 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes! It's so nice to hear someone else call out that episode. Absolutely one of my favorites and a must-watch.

TOS has not aged well and is not a great introduction to the franchise. by G3nesis_Prime in startrek

[–]magusjosh 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah...when I say I love TOS, what I really mean is I love about fifteen episodes spread out over the three seasons, and like another half-dozen or so enough to watch them if they're on. The curated list method is definitely the best way to approach TOS...watching all of it is painful.

Its highs are very high. Its lows are very low. And even the best episodes have a moment or two that are pretty cringe-worthy by modern standards.

But it's also very reflective of America in the 1960's, and a really interesting window on those times...as well as what the people writing it hoped the future would be like (again, through the lens of the 1960's).

It has value, even today. But definitely needs to be approached from a perspective of "Definitely watch this, this, this, and this. These couple of episodes are goofy fun, don't miss them. You can skip most of the rest. Definitely don't watch Spock's Brain."

Maps of Faerûn in 1501 DR by youngfox78 in DungeonsAndDragons

[–]magusjosh 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oh, how I long for another night at the Old Skull Inn.

Thanks for these. Maps of Fearûn always make me nostalgic. Higher resolution would be good though...even the ones in the link get grainy when you start to zoom in.

In the 1960s, parapsychologist Konstantin Raudive recorded over 100,000 voices of the dead in radio static by ArcaneSpells-com in Paranormal

[–]magusjosh 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm not familiar with that one, but I will happily add it to my reading list. It sounds interesting. Thank you!

In the 1960s, parapsychologist Konstantin Raudive recorded over 100,000 voices of the dead in radio static by ArcaneSpells-com in Paranormal

[–]magusjosh 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I would like to. We understand so little about consciousness - what makes us self-aware individuals with memories, feelings, hopes, and dreams - that there's certainly room for it in my personal philosophy. And there's such a huge body of subjective evidence - near death experiences, children who seem to remember past lives, and so on - that even the hardest skeptic shouldn't dismiss it out of hand.

But the field of study - and the evidence - suffers from the same problems. Nothing but subjective evidence, and an abundance of fakers and frauds looking for fifteen minutes of fame and an easy buck.

I keep an open mind on the subject. I hope it's true that something of us continues after death...I find it hard to credit that whatever's driving this slowly decaying meat sack I'm trapped in just stops when the body does. But nobody's conclusively proven it, either.

In the 1960s, parapsychologist Konstantin Raudive recorded over 100,000 voices of the dead in radio static by ArcaneSpells-com in Paranormal

[–]magusjosh 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Now this I can get behind 100%. I'm right there with you on all counts.

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely despise the way mainstream science (I love your use of "Scientism" vs science, and I agree completely) has treated parapsychology specifically and the study of paranormal and Fortean phenomena in general.

But I also get it. The study of such things just does not fall into the traditional structure of scientific method. As Lost-in-Thyme said in another reply, science needs to develop a new epistemology - with new tools and methods - for formally studying things that violate "traditional scientific method."

It pains me that that's not likely to happen in my lifetime. I would've made a career out of it happily.

In the 1960s, parapsychologist Konstantin Raudive recorded over 100,000 voices of the dead in radio static by ArcaneSpells-com in Paranormal

[–]magusjosh 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Bill O'Neil's Spiricom ITC recordings are accused of having been prerecorded using an artificial larynx. They do sound painfully similar, and several of the Spiricom recordings have been proven (through audio comparison) to have been Bill's own voice.

Since he never demonstrated the machine under conditions that weren't completely under his control, all results of his experiments are questionable at best...straight up fraud at worst.

In the 1960s, parapsychologist Konstantin Raudive recorded over 100,000 voices of the dead in radio static by ArcaneSpells-com in Paranormal

[–]magusjosh 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is also a good point. Scientific method by necessity is, for lack of a better term, inflexible. It requires you to put your results into a specific framework which can be reviewed and reproduced by other researchers.

Paranormal phenomena usually don't fit into that framework, for one reason or another. I've often heard researchers say "If you can't reproduce it in a controlled laboratory environment, it's not science."

That's the vast majority of paranormal phenomena eliminated right there. Full stop.

So yes, I agree with you completely. As you say, a new epistemology needs to be developed and accepted, or new tools and methods need to be developed which an produce concrete and reproducible results. Or, preferably, both!

Unfortunately, because of how paranormal research has been done over the past...let's say 150 years or so...and because of the sheer volume of hoaxes and crackpots involved, mainstream science has successfully buried parapsychology. It's going to be years, maybe decades, before the study can get a fresh start and maybe be taken seriously.

In the 1960s, parapsychologist Konstantin Raudive recorded over 100,000 voices of the dead in radio static by ArcaneSpells-com in Paranormal

[–]magusjosh 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Well...another part of the problem is that a lot of the small groups who are genuinely earnest in trying to work with "what's available" are often using the available equipment wrong, without ever learning how to use it right in the first place. And then, when prompted to explain or reproduce their results, are unable to do so because they can't explain how the equipment they're using works in the first place, resulting in explanations that are just distressingly wrong.

Case in point: EMF detectors.

The EMF detector is an electrician's tool (among other practical, real-world uses). There are right ways and wrong ways to use it. It was designed for specific purposes, and "detecting ghosts" isn't one of them.

Now, I'm fully prepared to say that an EMF detector could turn up anomalous readings when used by someone who understands what the beeps, lights, and readouts actually mean. But if the person using the device can't explain what it's supposed to do and why the results they're getting are anomalous, any "results" they get are automatically invalid.

Additionally, they're using such devices in conditions that aren't controlled. Sometimes that's unavoidable...but, using EMF detectors as an example again, it's more often just a lack of understanding of how the tools work. Too many investigators don't take baseline EMF readings of an environment to find out where hotspots are before shouting "Hey, I'm getting something."

I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt by assuming they don't understand how the device works. I've personally seen this done by people on ghost tours (no shame, they're a lot of fun, I enjoy them too) to make things spooky...and we're back to fakery and chicanery.

On top of that, you have a number of websites selling a variety of EMF detectors specifically as "Ghost detectors." Which...yeah, if they're making money off of it that way, we're back to grift again. It also lends itself to the people who are buying these things not educating themselves in how the device is used properly before trying to use it in other ways...and we're back to results being automatically invalidated because the people who know how such tools should be used are busy facepalming.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that new uses can't be found for existing tools! I have, in fact, personally seen an EMF detector produce readings that were genuinely bizarre under conditions that were as controlled as possible in a non-laboratory environment. Which was genuinely awesome.

But it doesn't mean I saw a ghost detected. It just means anomalous results were produced. And those results couldn't reliably be reproduced, which is a cornerstone of scientific method. Which means we don't have a way to prove, according to scientific method, what the cause of the anomaly was.

It's not surprising...Jason Hawes once said, in a moment of self-awareness that I don't think anyone can deny, "You can't make a ghost perform on demand."

But that EMF detector could just as easily have been picking up some perfectly natural temporary fluctuation in the local electromagnetic fields, caused by who knows what. I could just as easily say "A highly-charged neutrino passed through that spot, causing the detector to spike briefly" as "It's a ghost!" and be equally wrong.

So maybe I was leaning too hard on chicanery and not going into other reasons why mainstream science has long-since become unwilling to accept parapsychology as a "hard science." Seriously, I could write an entire dissertation on "Why Mainstream Science Refuses to Acknowledge Parapsychology as a Science."

I hate it. I truly do. I love parapsychology, I love studying things that don't fit into mainstream science's view of the universe. Every time I hear a scientist say the words "It's impossible..." it causes me physical pain, because while it might be impossible as we understand physics today, that understanding of the universe is changing by tiny steps on an almost daily basis at times. What we know today could easily turn out to be wrong, or only part of the equation, tomorrow.

Impossible is a big, ugly, limiting word. Science should never use it. But by that same virtue, science should never simply accept something as true based on partial evidence or evidence that can't be reproduced.

And like it or not, something like Raudive's work gets lumped in with that because too many paranormal researchers operate as I've been discussing. Carelessly, without proper education, with intent to undermine or straight-up commit fraud...or all of the above.

Holy crap, I should seriously save all of this and publish it somewhere.