SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
I Don't Feel Safe
It used to slightly tweak my nose when the weaponized outrage mob on the left complained of not feeling safe. Primarily because they'd say it in response to someone doing nothing but disagreeing with them or even simply saying something they didn't want to hear. Since neither of those remotely implies impending violence, I figured they're either lying or so paranoid that they need to be institutionalized and medicated.
Nowadays though, I count it as a happy thing. Turns out it's usually a combination of them lying and being extremely fragile little pussies. That sets me up to call them out on both counts and I genuinely enjoy doing so.
Overconfidence in climate change
For example, the most important parameter in climate change, temperature sensitivity - how much long term global mean temperature increases with a doubling of CO2 (and equivalent in other greenhouse gases) is thought presently to be between 1.5 C and 4.5 C per doubling by the IPCC. Similarly, they present currently a rise of 1.5 C from pre-industrial age as a feasible stopping point (for example, here), if one mashes on the economic brakes. But that ignores that we probably are already over that threshold even at the average 3 C per doubling. For example, if we take pre-industrial CO2 as 280 ppm and assume that non-CO2 emissions increased at same rate, and then 3 C per doubling, then 1.5 C of warming hits at roughly 396 ppm (which would be 2012). Given the significant chance allegedly of higher sensitivity than that, it means that we have a rather high chance of being way past stopping 1.5 C of warming.
So what happens if they're off the other way? At 2 C, I'm getting two decades and at 1.5 C almost five decades before that threshold is exceeded (using a ok fit quadratic equation 0.0145*t^2 + 0.73*t + 315 in ppm CO2 where t is number of years past 1959 - meaning increasing CO2 concentration for the time span in question).
The most interesting aspect is what happens if we stop at a much higher threshold than advised by the IPCC. If we stop at 4 C threshold instead, that's reached in three and a half decades at the extreme 4.5 C per doubling, eight decades at 3 C per doubling, 150 years at 2 C per doubling, and 230 years at 1.5 C per doubling. There is plenty of time for things to happen (such as the entire world attaining developed world status) at those longer times.
Adaptation along with a high threshold and a low temperature sensitivity means a very long period of time till action needs to be done. Let us also note here that the short term sensitivity, which can be measured with reasonable accuracy, is more like 1.5 C per doubling, maybe less (if the Sun is more of a contribution to global warming than presently alleged).
So the IPCC, the supposed consensus of climatologists, has a peculiar certainty about what the future climate will be like, namely, that long term temperature sensitivity will be very close to 3 C, despite their own claims on the matter, that 1.5 C threshold is really important to not pass despite poor justification for that claim, and finally, that adaptation measures aren't important to consider at present, even though by their own reasoning, there's a good chance we're to the point where adaptation is unavoidable, even if we were to completely halt CO2 emissions tomorrow.
It's this sort of mixed message, here where a supposedly science-based organization presents a very narrow scenario in contradiction of their own data and knowledge - but there are many other examples, that leads me to doubt the honesty and integrity of this entire movement. Why should we accept a pig in a poke and assume they're telling the truth about temperature sensitivity and the harm of various temperature thresholds, when they contort their own science to present a very particular narrative? For example, why should I assume 3 C per doubling and 1.5 C of warming rather than 2 C per doubling and 4 C of warming?
Ultimately, this culture needs to be changed.
Tone wood (String Geek)
So, I'm going to put down a few words on one of the great eternal debates of mankind - the tonewood debate.
I'll try to put it down briefly and hit the important parts. None of this is new or original to me but maybe I can pull the critical pieces into focus.
The first thing is to distinguish between instruments like violins, cellos, and hollow body guitars - from solid body electric guitars.
No one with the slightest understanding of these instruments doubts that tone woods are a real thing *in that context.* These acoustic instruments are physical amplifiers, mechanical devices very similar to speaker cones. The top body panel physically resonates to create the sound the audience hears or the microphone picks up. Centuries of experience taught the makers of these instruments which woods are 'tone woods' and that means woods where you can find the right combination of qualities to make that top out of, something you can shave down until it's thin enough to resonate well, but without weakening it too much to hold up under use. You can make a perfectly functional instrument without any tone wood, btw, but it won't have much volume. That was important before mics and pickups and amps.
The most important tone wood is spruce. The stuff you make the back, sides, and neck from are NOT tone woods.
Now. Electric guitars are not mechanical amplifiers. Absolutely nothing learned from all these centuries of experience about tone woods has any direct application to electric guitars. Period. And I can't remember seeing one made of spruce or cedar either, come to think of it.
So, whenever anyone starts trying to sell you on 'tone woods' in relation to an electric guitar, your spidey sense should start tingling. There really isn't any such thing.
That said, the composition of the solid guitar *does* demonstrably affect the sound. Relatively little, compared to other components, as long as it's sufficiently solid to hold up under use. But it's demonstrable, it's measurable (*though I've yet to see anyone go to the trouble of measuring it properly there's no reason it couldn't be done.)
So then the question that comes into my mind is "Why?"
I haven't done any rigorous experimentation myself, just thought experiments, but I think there's a very simple answer which in this case is even correct.
Any effect of the body or neck materials on the sound in an electric guitar can only be due to damping.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damping_ratio
A solid body doesn't resonate, it's not going to ADD anything to the vibration of the strings which is sensed by the pickups and sent to the amp. Physically impossible.
But it can definitely dampen the sound. We can think of it as similar to the effect of the tone pot capacitor. Tone all the way up is the solidest of solid bodies, Les Paul's log, or maybe something you machined out of aluminum in your shop. The stiffest densest thing you can get. As you back away from that to lighter bodies that are just a bit less stiff and heavy, it's something like rolling that tone pot off the tiniest bit. You're not adding anything, you're only subtracting.
Not necessarily a bad thing, you'll probably subtract quite a bit more at other places before the signal hits the speaker cone. Cutting some frequencies ever so slightly can make others shine through.
(*The tests I've seen people do have all failed to be completely rigorous at one level or another. You'd really have to construct a test bed with a mechanical plucker, run a large number of tests on each configuration, and then spend a good deal of brain power analyzing them to really come to any conclusions. Most people just play their tests rigs (which means the difference you hear might just be the difference between two performances) instead of using mechanical player, and it's rare to even see an oscilloscope come out. But I'm convinced I do hear very slight differences. It's possible someone with better hearing would hear more; it's also likely that most of the public have worse hearing than I do. )
There is no such thing as chance
One is chance.
We say; 'When one flips a coin, there is an equal chance that it lands heads or tails. This is a 50/50 or .50 chance.'
Now 50/50 is 1/1, but no one seems to remember their fractions these days, and it's not important, so I'll let it slide.
The main thing is, this is nonsense. When one flips a coin, it will either land heads or tails. One or zero. There's absolutely no chance involved.
We think of it as a 50/50 chance, because the two possible outcomes appear to approximate equality, and the longer our test run, the closer the approximation comes. All very rational. Except, again, there's no chance. It's going one way or the other. We just don't have any way that we know of to tell which, ahead of time.
Doesn't mean there's a bit of chance involved though. With good perception and a lot of practice, you can throw a head, or a tail, nearly every time. I knew a guy that made a lot of money in tiny bets at parties proving this. In the case of someone without that skill, the outcome is still contained and determined by the flip, no less. It's just that they aren't consciously in control of the factors.
Einstein famously protested that G_d does not not play dice with the universe. I would add that if He does, it still not be random, as He would clearly be able to throw any numbers He wanted.
shopping for toolboxes
A lot of us use tools, daily. It can be difficult, or even unpossible, to work out of a stationary toolbox. Whether you're a home mechanic, hobbyist, a DIY'er, professional auto mechanic, aviation mechanic, or whatever, you often need to bring your tools and/or your workstation to the work. Rollaway tool chests and their kin are the solution for that, often enough.
For all of my life, Craftsman has been the standard for this type of tool storage. There are far more expensive brands, and there have been many cheaper brands that have come and gone, but Craftsman has always provided a baseline, by which to judge the quality of other boxes.
Unfortunately, Craftsman is tied to the fortunes of Sears. Sears seemed to be the exclusive distributor of Craftsman for most of my life. More recently, other stores have begun carrying Craftsman tools, but they often don't offer bulky toolboxes. Unlike Sears, of yesteryear, you can't walk into the store, and put your fingers on dozens of toolboxes, to see how they work, or judge the quality. Craftsman has always had reasonable quality, and better quality boxes after all. Now that Sears has closed down, shopping for a new box has changed drastically!
So - hit the internet. Try to locate Craftsman boxes, and as often as not, the box is only available for pickup. Or, you get a message, "We do not ship to your area", which amounts to the same thing. Most of Sears stock has been sold to Lowes, which is pushing that old stock in their stores, all around the country. Key words, "old stock". Worse, my local store doesn't have the models I'm interested in.
Hit the internet again. How DOES a person comparison shop items that he can't reach out and touch? True, I've done this to some extent in the past, but I've always had some sample at hand, by which I have already judged quality and suitability of a product. Here, I'm attempting to evaluate products that I cannot touch, cannot measure. How to start?
At work, I get out a set of calipers. Measure the thickness of the metal on my ancient Lumidor rollaway, then my slightly less ancient Kennedy. Both were high-value tool boxes, when new. But, I didn't purchase them new. Both were purchased from other people when they upgraded to better and/or larger boxes. Then I measured the thickness of the metal of Craftsman, US General, Sunex, and several other brands around the plant. Put the calipers away, get out a tape measure, and start measuring height, width, and depth of all these boxes. Then, I measured the inside dimensions of those boxes to which I have access. It is revealing that sometimes the larger box has less usable space than a smaller box!
Further examination reveals that some of these boxes actually have frames on which they sit, while US General and Craftsman have their rollers bolted directly to the 22 and 20 gauge bottom sheet metal. Ugh. The difference between friction slides and roller bearing slides on the drawers is more than obvious. Friction slides are alright when new, but after years of use, they all go to crap, while roller bearings remain easy to use after decades of use.
Let us first dismiss the idea that I might spend $10,000 on a tool box. Can I afford to do so? Ehhhh - maybe. But, this is Runaway's journal. Runaway doesn't even spend $10,000 on his vehicles, he's not going to invest that much money on tool storage!! So, that rules out Mac, Extreme tools, Montezuma, and a number of other well known high value brands.
I've mentioned that I own a Kennedy. Visiting their site, they *could* still be a consideration, based on cost alone. Unfortunately, the Kennedy lineup is, and always has been, targeted at machinists. That is, the typical cabinet and chest has a couple dozen small drawers, designed to hold small, high value tools. My Kennedy is a good example, in that finding a place to stow a 24" crescent is impossible.
I really like my old Lumidor. Searching the internet, I can find offers of used boxes, but I find nothing new. Lumidor doesn't even have an internet site. Finally, I do the right search, to learn that they are no longer in business, so I guess Lumidor is out of the running.
The next brand to consider is Kobalt. I've had a sample of Kobalt tool boxes to look at in the past. The gentleman who owned it left long ago, so there are no samples around now to look at. No real problem - Lowes carries the brand. Visit Lowe's online, then physically. Yeah, they're pretty good boxes. Overall, they seem to be equivalent to Craftsman. Similar gauge steel, similar construction, similar dimensions. There is little to distinguish a Kobalt from a Craftsman, even with both brands on display, side by side. Kobalt is shiny steel, Craftsman is either red or black - otherwise, they sit right at the baseline from which I measure tool boxes.
Then someone asked me if I had considered Husky tool boxes. Nope, I've never seen one. Don't think I've ever even seen an advertisement for them. I've seen a number of Husky tools over the years, but never considered that they might make tool boxes. An internet search took me directly to Home Depot. There is a wide selection of boxes available, some of them available for immediate pickup at my local store. So, I start researching the quality, first from the comfort of my own desk, online, then in person. I like what I see.
Like Craftsman, their boxes come in higher and lower quality. Sorry, no 14 gauge steel, or we would be talking multiple thousands of dollars again. 18, 19, 20, and 21 gauge steel is available, and the prices reflect those gauges as much as anything else. The better boxes have channels under that bottom deck, to which the casters are bolted, while the lowest cost simply bolt cheaper casters to the bottom deck sheet metal.
Interestingly, Home Depot carries some Milwaukee branded tool boxes as well. These boxes are about equal quality, and slightly higher prices, to Husky, offering just about the same features. I suspect they are manufactured by the same company, then Milwaukee marks them up to capitalize on their name.
A couple of features jump out at me. The depth of the cabinets and chests vary, with the larger boxes being 24 inches. That is a huge difference from the typical boxes of yesteryear, most of which were only 18 inches deep. My Lumidor is 20 inches, and experience tells me that space is valuable! Then, there are full-extension drawers. That is, the drawer pulls all the way out, so that you can see the back wall of the drawer, directly. No more squatting down, to see if some little item has rolled out of sight inside the drawer!
I've spent many hours over the last three weeks, considering what I want. Now, I face a quandary. Do I want a roller cabinet with a chest, or do I want a more basic work station? How long do I want this thing to be? There is a beautiful 80" storage option, complete with a side locker, where I can hang a change of clothes, ark flash gear, and a a small handful of very long tools. Moving that thing around would be a pain, though. It appears to be well worth $1300, but I just can't quite see me pushing this thing, or carrying it on a forklift from one end of the plant to the other.
Next consideration is their Industrial model at $900. At 52" long, it's still pretty big. The bottom cabinet section will hold everything currently held in both my Lumidor and Kennedy boxes, and probably a little space left. The top drawers would be less than half filled when I transfer all the goodies in my Craftsman mid- and top-chests. All that space in the very top section, or "hutch" as some manufacturers call it, would be available for various tools that I now store in a 4ft x 2ft x 2 ft Jobox. Battery operated drill/driver, two-way radio, chargers, clipboard, meters, etc. Most of my large tools would have to remain in the Jobox.
There is a 56" model, similar to the Industrial that compares favorably at $1100. More but slightly smaller drawers - otherwise it looks very much the same.
Work benches are appealing, though. The most appealing is 61" long, a full 24 inches deep, and has a hardwood work surface, AND a pegboard at the back. The downside to this bench is, I'll put things on the pegboard, and people will just help themselves to whatever is there. For storage space, it's almost right. Again, everything in the Lumidor and the Kennedy will fit in it. The Craftsman chests won't all fit though - and there really is no room left in the Jobox to store the leftovers.
Oh yeah - honorable mention goes to Gear Wrench branded boxes. No, they aren't manufactured by Gear Wrench. They look like Extreme Tool boxes, with GW branding. They have some "sex appeal", I guess. When I spotted them, I got a little excited. But, again, I can't justify the price tag attached to them. Still, they are nice boxes. If I weren't a cheapskate, I'd be buying them, instead of Husky.
Another honorable mention goes to Masterforce, sold exclusively by Menards. Quality, features, and pricing seems to be about equal to the Husky boxes I'm looking at. Unfortunately, there is no Menards near me, so I don't get to put a finger on one before I can buy it.
Decision time. I'm giving myself another week to think about all this, then I'm going to order one of these Husky tool boxes. I'm satisfied that Husky's better boxes sit just above my baseline established by Craftsman, all those years ago. Husky's lower end boxes sit just below that same baseline.
I found a Big Lou's
Not bad at all. I was afraid 1 7/8" at the nut might still be too narrow, but no, it's enough.
Pickups aren't great but I've definitely heard worse. The geometry is nice, very comfortable.
Didn't buy it, I think they have it rather overpriced. It's this model: https://www.biglouguitar.com/product/el-dorado/
It's not badly worn, though you can tell it's been played, it's pretty near new. Action is reasonable, all frets work, no buzzing. But the whammy bar and the tip of the three-way switch are both missing. And they're asking $320!
If you used that link you may have noticed this model is available brand new, with the missing parts, for $380.
So of course there's no way I'm buying it at that price, but I want to see how low they'll go on it. This same store had advertised the same guitar at the same price or very close, back in the spring, but by the time I got over there to take a look it was gone. They have several locations, so I'm pretty sure they just bounced it around to the other locations, where it didn't sell, and now it's back where it started.
The big boss wasn't in today, and the guys that were there couldn't bargain it down below a floor of about $270, which frankly I still think is a bit high. So I took numbers and I'll call the big boss himself on Monday and see what he can do. If they've really been bouncing this thing between stores for several months they should probably be willing to come down a good bit further... I hope.
Ah well, if not at least I learned something to go forward.
So anyway, the question for anyone that cared enough to keep reading and get here; what do you think would be a good price on this?
Euphemisms
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isMm2vF4uFs
Bass is easy
First off, at the most obvious and fundamental level, the statement is simply wrong. No instrument is easy.
But it's good to interpret the opposition as far in their favor as you can go. So I'll move down a level.
I think what most people actually mean to say, when they say this, is 'Bass is easier.' Easier than what? Easier than the little guitar with six strings.
So let's evaluate that interpretation instead.
It's not entirely untrue. There are senses in which it's easier. Almost all bass players (sorry Lemmy) play one note at a time, almost all the time. Six blades often play two or more notes at once.
But does that really make it easier? I would argue not necessarily. Depending on where the two notes are located, etc. But perhaps on a general statistical level it makes things a little easier, considered in isolation. And what about lead playing, supposedly the hardest part? That's single notes, like the bass, only with freer time, no?
A better argument, though, and one that I suspect many people with no musical experience actually rely on in making the judgement, is simply that there are fewer strings. And that's one case where the novice is right and the mid-level student often wrong - fewer strings is way easier, in one sense at least. Because every time you ring one string you need to mute all the others. Fewer strings to mute means easier, in isolation.
Another argument that the less musically experienced might rely on, but not such a strong one in my opinion - most songs you hear have simple bass lines. On the surface, that seems like it translates to easier, at least, if not actually easy. But that's a misunderstanding. Many bass lines are simple not because the instrument itself is easy, but because of ways that it's actually more demanding. It's easier to get away with something melodically complicated but loosely timed on virtually anything besides the Bass. It's much harder to express yourself while still holding down the rhythm section function, as opposed to doing so in free time over a solid rhythm section.
So while the Bass *can* expand beyond the rhythm section functions in the hands of an expert, it's much easier to do that with virtually any other instrument. Very much not easier.
Physicality comes into it too. Six blades are very finely tuned to the size of the folks that tend to buy guitars. And with six strings to worry about, often expecting several to ring at once, this is important. Relatively easy if your hands fit, relatively hard if your hands are larger.
Bass strings aren't really spread much wider. BUT you virtually never need to fret one while another rings further up the board, as is so common on six string. And the frets are more widely spaced, of course. Whether this makes one or another easier or harder though? Entirely dependent on your own dimensions and what you want to do. I can fret cleanly all the way up every Bass I've tried it on, I often can't do that with a six string, especially a 24 fret, at the 24th fret the distance between frets is much less than my finger takes up, it's not impossible to hit the note but it's virtually impossible to do so quickly and reliably. If I center my finger where it's supposed to go, I mute the note. If I press it down just right, behind the 23rd fret and rolling up, that works, but it's slow and awkward.
That's the main point, I think, it's not easier or harder, without context you can't tell. Context is always key.
But the consequences of giving generations of kids a hasty generalization as if it were absolute truth? Well that's another layer to this. There have been some incredible bassists, even as the trajectory has been for it to be where you find the least talented and least capable member of each band.
So I'll leave you with a positive example. Perhaps a slightly older one than you were expecting.
Perhaps one more topical in 2019 than you imagine as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CUeI9funsk [The Who - Won't Get Fooled Again - Studio/Recorded]
RIP Justin Raimondo
"Justin Raimondo, former editorial director and co-founder of Antiwar.com, is dead at 67. He died at his home in Sebastopol, California, with his husband, Yoshinori Abe, by his side. He had been diagnosed with 4th stage lung cancer in October 2017.
Justin co-founded Antiwar.com with Eric Garris in 1995. Under their leadership, Antiwar.com became a leading force against U.S. wars and foreign intervention, providing daily and often hourly updates and comprehensive news, analysis, and opinion on war and peace. Inspired by Justin’s spirit, vision, and energy, Antiwar.com will go on.
Justin (born Dennis Raimondo, November 18, 1951) grew up in Yorktown Heights, New York and, as a teenager, became a libertarian. He was a fierce advocate of peace who hated war, and an early advocate of gay liberation. He wrote frequently for many different publications and authored several books. He was also politically active in both the Libertarian and Republican parties."
Full obit at https://original.antiwar.com/Antiwar_Staff/2019/06/27/justin-raimondo-rip-1951-2019/
New Copyright Collection Society is needed
(crossposted from TechDirt)
If laws can be copyrighted, then would obeying the law require a copyright license?
Would obeying the law without a license constitute copyright infringement?
With so many jurisdictions (city, county, state, federal) and so many laws, there are a lot of copyright licenses that each citizen would need to acquire.
To simplify things, collection societies could be created. These societies would obtain the rights to license and enforce the licenses on copyright 'bundles' of various laws.
When a new law is passed, one of the copyright societies would acquire the rights to it and add it to its bundle. Now you can get a proper copyright license -- necessary to obey the laws -- from one convenient place, and with one single copyright fee.
Oh, wait -- but with multiple copyright societies, each licensing different subsets of the laws, it seems you would still have to go to multiple parties in order to acquire all of the necessary licenses in order to obey the laws without infringing the copyrights of those laws.
So maybe congress could establish a new federal department of law licensing. Give it suitably large budget, offices, staff, etc. Every citizen could be required, annually, just like with taxes, to file forms declaring that they intend to obey the laws, and paying the copyright license fees for those copyrighted laws they intend to follow.
There. That should fix everything.
