How Many Calories Does A Corn Tortilla Have

Whenever something is wrong, something is too big

Jean Honoré Fragonard: Lesson di musica

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whenever something is wrong, something is too big.

Quando qualcosa non funziona, qualcosa è troppo grande.

Leopold Kohr


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In fase di ri-produzione (di un qualsiasi evento) si creano delle incongruenze, degli errori.
Dovuti in massima parte al paradosso spazio/temporale che viene a crearsi.
Il nuovo tempo ed il nuovo spazio (che ospiteranno la riproduzione), sono alieni ai significati ed ai contenuti dell'evento originale.

Nel modo di agire convenzionale (tipico della maggior parte degli oggetti in commercio), che contempla solamente le misure del fenomeno fisico (peraltro estraneo alla reatà percepita dall'uomo) vengono a crearsi un numero di errori tendendi all'infinito.

A parità (o quasi) di ignoranza progettuale (termine usato per indicare un modo di fare che trascura o ignora le problematiche spazio/temporali) succede che compiono "meno errori" (anche se parlare di meno errori in ambito che tende all'infinito può sembrare impreciso) certi diffusori di piccola dimensione rispetto ad altri di grandezza maggiore.

Questo non significa che la soluzione sia nel dover usare minidiffusori.

Significa solamente che se no concern to analyze and solve certain problems, the small speakers will almost always preferable.

take any catalog of any company.
I almost always small speakers reproduce music more consistently than large ones, in the absence of solutions to the problems space / time indicated.

We'll always have the audiophile or "technicians" who will oppose as a matter of "completeness" (with the same old story: the low low low ... the SPL SPL SPL ...) .

actually a system built without careful analysis of the issues set out above, certainly will give more bass and play even harder. But
this alleged completeness has nothing to do with music playback.
Indeed, a caoticizzazione increase dramatically, ruining what little there was of "coherent" in the mini.

why with the "mini" it generally has a natural feeling, and very often with large conventional systems this is lost in favor of a "chaos", mistaken by most to "complete".

There is no way that someone reported that a larger speaker (of the same company) has the exact same "magic" of the little, if anything, the opposite happens.

You can certainly build a floorstanding speaker that really is the most complete "mini" and has the same magic. To do this you can not
leaving aside the study of the errors that occur (inconsistencies space / time).

not exist today, amio view, a speaker is "acceptable" (in optics physiological re-production of musical meaning) that has a bass bigger than 20cm. And I say 20cm
because I want to "save" some monitors BBC, for more "affection" for objectivity.
Although a little bit of "good" is still possible to discern, really listening to shows already widely the "seed" of the "chaos".

Fabio Ferrara (Dueeffe)

How Many Calories Does A Corn Tortilla Have

Whenever something is wrong, something is too big

Jean Honoré Fragonard: Lesson di musica

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whenever something is wrong, something is too big.

Quando qualcosa non funziona, qualcosa è troppo grande.

Leopold Kohr


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In fase di ri-produzione (di un qualsiasi evento) si creano delle incongruenze, degli errori.
Dovuti in massima parte al paradosso spazio/temporale che viene a crearsi.
Il nuovo tempo ed il nuovo spazio (che ospiteranno la riproduzione), sono alieni ai significati ed ai contenuti dell'evento originale.

Nel modo di agire convenzionale (tipico della maggior parte degli oggetti in commercio), che contempla solamente le misure del fenomeno fisico (peraltro estraneo alla reatà percepita dall'uomo) vengono a crearsi un numero di errori tendendi all'infinito.

A parità (o quasi) di ignoranza progettuale (termine usato per indicare un modo di fare che trascura o ignora le problematiche spazio/temporali) succede che compiono "meno errori" (anche se parlare di meno errori in ambito che tende all'infinito può sembrare impreciso) certi diffusori di piccola dimensione rispetto ad altri di grandezza maggiore.

Questo non significa che la soluzione sia nel dover usare minidiffusori.

Significa solamente che se no concern to analyze and solve certain problems, the small speakers will almost always preferable.

take any catalog of any company.
I almost always small speakers reproduce music more consistently than large ones, in the absence of solutions to the problems space / time indicated.

We'll always have the audiophile or "technicians" who will oppose as a matter of "completeness" (with the same old story: the low low low ... the SPL SPL SPL ...) .

actually a system built without careful analysis of the issues set out above, certainly will give more bass and play even harder. But
this alleged completeness has nothing to do with music playback.
Indeed, a caoticizzazione increase dramatically, ruining what little there was of "coherent" in the mini.

why with the "mini" it generally has a natural feeling, and very often with large conventional systems this is lost in favor of a "chaos", mistaken by most to "complete".

There is no way that someone reported that a larger speaker (of the same company) has the exact same "magic" of the little, if anything, the opposite happens.

You can certainly build a floorstanding speaker that really is the most complete "mini" and has the same magic. To do this you can not
leaving aside the study of the errors that occur (inconsistencies space / time).

not exist today, amio view, a speaker is "acceptable" (in optics physiological re-production of musical meaning) that has a bass bigger than 20cm. And I say 20cm
because I want to "save" some monitors BBC, for more "affection" for objectivity.
Although a little bit of "good" is still possible to discern, really listening to shows already widely the "seed" of the "chaos".

Fabio Ferrara (Dueeffe)

20 Questions Online Genie

Measure of nature, nature of the measure


Rebecca Hamm: http://rebeccahamm.net/

Often her content is still taking over what she calls "human constructs.

What Could be more satisfying than that, seeing nature recovered from humans?
---------------- -------------------------------------------------- ---------------


The Grand Masters of Esotericism (very rare, indeed, amid a sea of \u200b\u200bcharlatans ... well that's good, because it is required the skills of discernment) of all ages have spent some time trying to understand the more "famous phrase:" Nature Notes ".


The observation of nature is through the senses.
Man did not have other means to interact, per indagare, per conoscere...

Gli input sensoriali vengono poi elaborati dal cervello.

Quindici o venti anni or sono (non saprei più indicare precisamente quanto tempo sia passato, chiaramente...), ricordo di aver intrapreso una discussione con uno di quegli amici "artisti" (di cui sopra parlavo).

Succedeva spesso al "piccolo caffè" (e succede ancora), denominato il "caffè degli artisti" (e per questo magari "evitato" da una certa "cerchia", che preferisce gli altri bar, più "classici", più largi, magari anche molto più "chic" o "trendy").

Si parlava di colori.
Ed io, fiero, sfoggiavo l'atteggiamento "tecnicista" (simile a quello che si osserva sovente nell'ambito hi-fi, ieri come oggi).

"I colori non esistono", dicevo...
Sono radiazioni elettromagnetiche.
Lunghezza d'onda, frequenza...
L'uomo le traduce e le vede come colori, ma è un artifizio, un inganno.
La realtà, la fisica, dicono che sono radiazioni elettromagnetiche.
Perfettamente misurabili. Non si discute.
Il resto è falsità, inganno, suggestione, interpetazione...

"Pipino dopo la valle" mi rispose:
"non solo i colori esistono, ma possiamo anche miscelarli, per ottenere tonalità e sfumature praticamente infinite".

A quel punto mi fu chiaro che non avesse capito.
Parlavo di scienza, io...di fisica!!!
E quello invece si raffigurava i suoi bei tubetti di colori, per dipingere.
Era ovvio che avesse torto. Magari per ingoranza o per "deformazione professionale".

Così oggi ragionano certi nostri scienziati dell'hi-fi.
Con la stessa "certezza scientifica" che avevo io a venti anni.

Fortunatamente c'è stata evoluzione, in me...

Ripensandoci oggi, è chiaro che "Pipino dopo la valle" non avesse concezione di alcune "certezze" elementari della realtà fisica.

Però...

...però questo non inficiava minimamente il fatto che avesse ragione.
Cosciente o meno che fosse, di certi reasoning.

The only reality that man can know is that due to information arriving from the senses and their subsequent processing in the brain.

The mere physical reality, with the spectrum of "visible" or "invisible", it is not known (and can not be) as such.

The only "real" reality (that is knowable, "liveable", creator of emotions and reactions) is full of colors.

When my son takes me a remote control, because it does not work, one of the first things I check is the emission from the LEDs.

infrared LED ... we can not see them.

I have a digital camera sempre a portata di mano. La accendo e...miracolo!
Nel display LCD si vede il led, che si accende.
La fotocamera è sensibile anche all'infrarosso.

Si, ma..."che colore è" l'infrarosso?
Il display lo mostra bianco.

Perchè proprio bianco?

Per la realtà fisica (quella che non conosciamo e non possiamo conoscere) quella radiazione non è così dissimile da quella della cosiddetta luce visibile.

Per l'uomo, invece, c'è una differenza sostanziale.

A parte questo, quale realtà andrà a tentare di rappresentare (a mo' di "icona", o fac-simile, o "quel che volete voi") quella fotocamera, dal momento that is sensitive to radiation us "foreign" (at least in visual perception)?

the days gone by, the photographic technique could boast black and white films with different chromatic sensitivity.

orthochromatic, panchromatic ...
Perhaps some of them you could see some "missing"?
Some of them have never been considered less "hi-fi?
Yet one of those films is missing a large chunk of spectrum "physical" spectrum ... The other counts
what should not ...

"Frequency" ... same can be said that our "scientists" (from doing "century"). They
the "measure" and want "complete" (rispetto a cosa? alla sensazione umana che gli strumenti di misura non conoscono?) e "lineare" (de che??).

La vogliono "estesa".
Ritenendola "condicio sine qua non" per un ascolto (termine con il quale si "confondono", rispetto alla riproduzione della musica ed alla sensazione) "realistico".
Un po' come per la presunta dinamica, o la "pressione", realistica...

Realistico...
Per soddisfare una realtà fisica che non conosciamo?
(Cosa ci importa degli aspetti estranei, perciò inutili?)

Piuttosto che indagare le molteplici impicazioni dell'unica realtà conosciuta, che è quella sensoriale, emozionale ecc. ?

La realtà che conosciamo è molto diversa da quella fisica...
Bisogna studiare.

Molto.

Non lo fanno?

Va bene!



Mi rendo sempre più conto che esiste una sorta di profonda confusione, ad ogni minimo accenno a “certe” questioni.
Quando si dice che certe misure non possono essere utili, data la presenza dell'uomo nel sistema, molti interpretano questa affermazione come se fosse un tentativo di "opporsi" alla tecnologia, alla scienza.
Loro si ritengono "scienziati", difensori della tecnologia e del progresso ed "accusano" di anti-scientificità, di misticismo, di filosofia chi asserisce che certe measures are unnecessary.
In reality, the true scientist is one that understands the nature of the various phenomena and make the analysis thereof.
Let me explain: Many are accustomed to seeing "calculations" and "measures", for example in the design and construction of a building, and then merge that application with others.
I tend to think that the "modus operandi" of science, specifically in that area (like many others) is the universal method of science.
Why, however, is not?
We have said that playing music involves the human senses. The music was created and exists for man.
In a room where a stereo is turned on and a lamp, but there is no human presence, there're no music and colors.
since these terms, these feelings are related to humans, are created within man, his brain.
We also said that the physical reality (which is dealt with the well-known physical laws) is unknown to us, at least "directly".
For man knows only the reality, as it is presented by its meaning and its related mental processing of the particular information (sensory).
The study of physical reality has been made over the centuries, through the investigations often external to man.
A microscope as an oscilloscope, for example, are "hearing".
They can study what man can not know through their senses, and here, for example, the study of materials (see "maybe we the percentage of carbon in the steel through the eyes, or fingertips or nose?) and everything else.
This allows us to know and to act in the physical world and so far I hope that we agree.
To build a house should be calculated and measures, but one of the purposes of that structure will be to try to remain standing.
E "try" to do so is when people are present, and when it is not.
is different speech use measurements and calculations when the final goal returns as inherent in man himself.
Whether it's style (kitchen) of image or music (or whatever) does not matter, it's back to a sensory context, that is, in fact perceived and interpreted by the man who is different from physical reality.
It makes perfect sense to study the physical reality of sound or light, to know her.
Just as it is foolish to believe that physical reality and perceived reality coincide.
And this is rather what I think unfortunately our nefarious techniques (careful, not scientists ... technically).
If you are not able to do this elementary distinction, what do we expect?
you see them run with the "sound level" you see them published curves.
good exercise, exercise ... I would say that applies to that is: an attempt to indicate the physical reality, however, has nothing to do with the perceived reality.
Those are frequencies, the perceived reality is music.
should agree that to have any claim to take care of music playback, one can not ignore the study of the senses, the development of the brain, how music is created within the human feeling and so on. etc..
We continue to talk instead of decibels, the frequency of physical reality, and there's also the claim (Often expressed in an arrogant manner) to be on the side of science. Ever seen a painter
measure the wavelength of its color before painting.
Neither the "forgers" or enthusiasts to "play" any work.
decided to offer ...
Blue relaxes, excites the red, green is calm ...
Paint in blue or green bedroom.
can explain with steps? We believe that it is unscientific
perhaps that the shops are full of colored lamps, complete with instructions on their effects? Turns
with sound level meter, I said.
Although aware that the perceived intensity has no correlation with the level pressure measured at a point arbitrarily, at any given time, in a given place. Can
perhaps the man to say "there, at that point, there are 123 dB?"
the morning the sound of an alarm can seem deafening.
the evening a concert can be enjoyable.
The same music is composed, is designed to create feelings of "strength" or "whisper".
A melody may appear dynamically growing upward.
Yet the sound level meter is not. When the Korean
school teaches children the art of music, I noticed that the piano is often referred to as "strong" sound serious, and as a "floor" a loud sound.
In fact, the piano makes this impression, whereas a violin makes the opposite effect (some acute are perceived as "exuberant") as well as a flute.
All measurements, indeed, would have major problems groped to reproduce the physical sound (given the variables involved), and can only serve the purpose of study of that area.
have nothing to do with perception and music.
I'm surprised that this simple assumption of science, is not included.
I marvel even more that almost no one takes the trouble to study this world of perception, that is the only real area that interests us, then apply principles.
The few times he writes, "our brave men" lead to fierce debate in an effort to minimize or to flaunt knowledge on the matter, citing "this" or the "text" ... Things
write notes ....
"cocktail party", "noise contours", Fourier and who has me on and so forth.
But then prove not to treasure even the little that quote.
are back in fact a great hurry (and as if nothing had happened), a (s) discuss with the decibels, with the "curve" and everything else. Never seen so much hypocrisy ...
masking, this (un) known
... Already this would be enough to understand the immense difference between the physical sound and music perceived el'inesistenza of correct relations between the two.
woooooofer The 48-inch down to 12Hz ...
They say the measures!
And all the "damage" that is? There
finally be noted that speakers are accustomed to one hundred years much of humanity.
passing cars because they feel that they go to a "reaction" of woofer?
is also a cultural issue now.
If your company offers this model, it is clear that it becomes the norm!
We have become accustomed to the sound of the speaker.
We are used to lower stomach, the concerts in the square at full volume ... There
who leaves the cinema (as was mentioned) with a huge satisfaction. Citing
, once again, the example of the glass breaking, I wonder, "but it really makes the earthquake (in the human reality, the only known because the only perceived) that a glass is broken?" Yet almost
no one comes to mind this simple objection.
issues now have become "disconnected". Here are some
explained stereo systems, which are pleasing to molti.Va good too, but I will not be said that this "system" has something to do with the music.

Fabio Ferrara (Dueeffe)

20 Questions Online Genie

Measure of nature, nature of the measure


Rebecca Hamm: http://rebeccahamm.net/

Often her content is still taking over what she calls "human constructs.

What Could be more satisfying than that, seeing nature recovered from humans?
---------------- -------------------------------------------------- ---------------


The Grand Masters of Esotericism (very rare, indeed, amid a sea of \u200b\u200bcharlatans ... well that's good, because it is required the skills of discernment) of all ages have spent some time trying to understand the more "famous phrase:" Nature Notes ".


The observation of nature is through the senses.
Man did not have other means to interact, per indagare, per conoscere...

Gli input sensoriali vengono poi elaborati dal cervello.

Quindici o venti anni or sono (non saprei più indicare precisamente quanto tempo sia passato, chiaramente...), ricordo di aver intrapreso una discussione con uno di quegli amici "artisti" (di cui sopra parlavo).

Succedeva spesso al "piccolo caffè" (e succede ancora), denominato il "caffè degli artisti" (e per questo magari "evitato" da una certa "cerchia", che preferisce gli altri bar, più "classici", più largi, magari anche molto più "chic" o "trendy").

Si parlava di colori.
Ed io, fiero, sfoggiavo l'atteggiamento "tecnicista" (simile a quello che si osserva sovente nell'ambito hi-fi, ieri come oggi).

"I colori non esistono", dicevo...
Sono radiazioni elettromagnetiche.
Lunghezza d'onda, frequenza...
L'uomo le traduce e le vede come colori, ma è un artifizio, un inganno.
La realtà, la fisica, dicono che sono radiazioni elettromagnetiche.
Perfettamente misurabili. Non si discute.
Il resto è falsità, inganno, suggestione, interpetazione...

"Pipino dopo la valle" mi rispose:
"non solo i colori esistono, ma possiamo anche miscelarli, per ottenere tonalità e sfumature praticamente infinite".

A quel punto mi fu chiaro che non avesse capito.
Parlavo di scienza, io...di fisica!!!
E quello invece si raffigurava i suoi bei tubetti di colori, per dipingere.
Era ovvio che avesse torto. Magari per ingoranza o per "deformazione professionale".

Così oggi ragionano certi nostri scienziati dell'hi-fi.
Con la stessa "certezza scientifica" che avevo io a venti anni.

Fortunatamente c'è stata evoluzione, in me...

Ripensandoci oggi, è chiaro che "Pipino dopo la valle" non avesse concezione di alcune "certezze" elementari della realtà fisica.

Però...

...però questo non inficiava minimamente il fatto che avesse ragione.
Cosciente o meno che fosse, di certi reasoning.

The only reality that man can know is that due to information arriving from the senses and their subsequent processing in the brain.

The mere physical reality, with the spectrum of "visible" or "invisible", it is not known (and can not be) as such.

The only "real" reality (that is knowable, "liveable", creator of emotions and reactions) is full of colors.

When my son takes me a remote control, because it does not work, one of the first things I check is the emission from the LEDs.

infrared LED ... we can not see them.

I have a digital camera sempre a portata di mano. La accendo e...miracolo!
Nel display LCD si vede il led, che si accende.
La fotocamera è sensibile anche all'infrarosso.

Si, ma..."che colore è" l'infrarosso?
Il display lo mostra bianco.

Perchè proprio bianco?

Per la realtà fisica (quella che non conosciamo e non possiamo conoscere) quella radiazione non è così dissimile da quella della cosiddetta luce visibile.

Per l'uomo, invece, c'è una differenza sostanziale.

A parte questo, quale realtà andrà a tentare di rappresentare (a mo' di "icona", o fac-simile, o "quel che volete voi") quella fotocamera, dal momento that is sensitive to radiation us "foreign" (at least in visual perception)?

the days gone by, the photographic technique could boast black and white films with different chromatic sensitivity.

orthochromatic, panchromatic ...
Perhaps some of them you could see some "missing"?
Some of them have never been considered less "hi-fi?
Yet one of those films is missing a large chunk of spectrum "physical" spectrum ... The other counts
what should not ...

"Frequency" ... same can be said that our "scientists" (from doing "century"). They
the "measure" and want "complete" (rispetto a cosa? alla sensazione umana che gli strumenti di misura non conoscono?) e "lineare" (de che??).

La vogliono "estesa".
Ritenendola "condicio sine qua non" per un ascolto (termine con il quale si "confondono", rispetto alla riproduzione della musica ed alla sensazione) "realistico".
Un po' come per la presunta dinamica, o la "pressione", realistica...

Realistico...
Per soddisfare una realtà fisica che non conosciamo?
(Cosa ci importa degli aspetti estranei, perciò inutili?)

Piuttosto che indagare le molteplici impicazioni dell'unica realtà conosciuta, che è quella sensoriale, emozionale ecc. ?

La realtà che conosciamo è molto diversa da quella fisica...
Bisogna studiare.

Molto.

Non lo fanno?

Va bene!



Mi rendo sempre più conto che esiste una sorta di profonda confusione, ad ogni minimo accenno a “certe” questioni.
Quando si dice che certe misure non possono essere utili, data la presenza dell'uomo nel sistema, molti interpretano questa affermazione come se fosse un tentativo di "opporsi" alla tecnologia, alla scienza.
Loro si ritengono "scienziati", difensori della tecnologia e del progresso ed "accusano" di anti-scientificità, di misticismo, di filosofia chi asserisce che certe measures are unnecessary.
In reality, the true scientist is one that understands the nature of the various phenomena and make the analysis thereof.
Let me explain: Many are accustomed to seeing "calculations" and "measures", for example in the design and construction of a building, and then merge that application with others.
I tend to think that the "modus operandi" of science, specifically in that area (like many others) is the universal method of science.
Why, however, is not?
We have said that playing music involves the human senses. The music was created and exists for man.
In a room where a stereo is turned on and a lamp, but there is no human presence, there're no music and colors.
since these terms, these feelings are related to humans, are created within man, his brain.
We also said that the physical reality (which is dealt with the well-known physical laws) is unknown to us, at least "directly".
For man knows only the reality, as it is presented by its meaning and its related mental processing of the particular information (sensory).
The study of physical reality has been made over the centuries, through the investigations often external to man.
A microscope as an oscilloscope, for example, are "hearing".
They can study what man can not know through their senses, and here, for example, the study of materials (see "maybe we the percentage of carbon in the steel through the eyes, or fingertips or nose?) and everything else.
This allows us to know and to act in the physical world and so far I hope that we agree.
To build a house should be calculated and measures, but one of the purposes of that structure will be to try to remain standing.
E "try" to do so is when people are present, and when it is not.
is different speech use measurements and calculations when the final goal returns as inherent in man himself.
Whether it's style (kitchen) of image or music (or whatever) does not matter, it's back to a sensory context, that is, in fact perceived and interpreted by the man who is different from physical reality.
It makes perfect sense to study the physical reality of sound or light, to know her.
Just as it is foolish to believe that physical reality and perceived reality coincide.
And this is rather what I think unfortunately our nefarious techniques (careful, not scientists ... technically).
If you are not able to do this elementary distinction, what do we expect?
you see them run with the "sound level" you see them published curves.
good exercise, exercise ... I would say that applies to that is: an attempt to indicate the physical reality, however, has nothing to do with the perceived reality.
Those are frequencies, the perceived reality is music.
should agree that to have any claim to take care of music playback, one can not ignore the study of the senses, the development of the brain, how music is created within the human feeling and so on. etc..
We continue to talk instead of decibels, the frequency of physical reality, and there's also the claim (Often expressed in an arrogant manner) to be on the side of science. Ever seen a painter
measure the wavelength of its color before painting.
Neither the "forgers" or enthusiasts to "play" any work.
decided to offer ...
Blue relaxes, excites the red, green is calm ...
Paint in blue or green bedroom.
can explain with steps? We believe that it is unscientific
perhaps that the shops are full of colored lamps, complete with instructions on their effects? Turns
with sound level meter, I said.
Although aware that the perceived intensity has no correlation with the level pressure measured at a point arbitrarily, at any given time, in a given place. Can
perhaps the man to say "there, at that point, there are 123 dB?"
the morning the sound of an alarm can seem deafening.
the evening a concert can be enjoyable.
The same music is composed, is designed to create feelings of "strength" or "whisper".
A melody may appear dynamically growing upward.
Yet the sound level meter is not. When the Korean
school teaches children the art of music, I noticed that the piano is often referred to as "strong" sound serious, and as a "floor" a loud sound.
In fact, the piano makes this impression, whereas a violin makes the opposite effect (some acute are perceived as "exuberant") as well as a flute.
All measurements, indeed, would have major problems groped to reproduce the physical sound (given the variables involved), and can only serve the purpose of study of that area.
have nothing to do with perception and music.
I'm surprised that this simple assumption of science, is not included.
I marvel even more that almost no one takes the trouble to study this world of perception, that is the only real area that interests us, then apply principles.
The few times he writes, "our brave men" lead to fierce debate in an effort to minimize or to flaunt knowledge on the matter, citing "this" or the "text" ... Things
write notes ....
"cocktail party", "noise contours", Fourier and who has me on and so forth.
But then prove not to treasure even the little that quote.
are back in fact a great hurry (and as if nothing had happened), a (s) discuss with the decibels, with the "curve" and everything else. Never seen so much hypocrisy ...
masking, this (un) known
... Already this would be enough to understand the immense difference between the physical sound and music perceived el'inesistenza of correct relations between the two.
woooooofer The 48-inch down to 12Hz ...
They say the measures!
And all the "damage" that is? There
finally be noted that speakers are accustomed to one hundred years much of humanity.
passing cars because they feel that they go to a "reaction" of woofer?
is also a cultural issue now.
If your company offers this model, it is clear that it becomes the norm!
We have become accustomed to the sound of the speaker.
We are used to lower stomach, the concerts in the square at full volume ... There
who leaves the cinema (as was mentioned) with a huge satisfaction. Citing
, once again, the example of the glass breaking, I wonder, "but it really makes the earthquake (in the human reality, the only known because the only perceived) that a glass is broken?" Yet almost
no one comes to mind this simple objection.
issues now have become "disconnected". Here are some
explained stereo systems, which are pleasing to molti.Va good too, but I will not be said that this "system" has something to do with the music.

Fabio Ferrara (Dueeffe)

Cute Neoprene Camera Cases

Oh, that harmonic noise ....


Giampaolo Ghisetti, Concertino.

------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------


Amplified ...
A concert that already contains the artifact in its extension.

Why is amplified?
Perhaps hath been started to benefit from the event to an audience "massive"
Marketing?
Light, the electric guitar to be amplified.
But the voice and the drums?
In a "local" would not help ...

They began to amplify, increase the public ... the great outdoors.
will raise the volume. Rises more and more people seem happy ... Some concerts

have begun to be encoded that way.
By convention, of course. The disc
built in the studio (Pink Floyd, for example) with no family live concert ...

What would we play? The disc
built studio at a level close to that received at the concert live, knowing that they are not "relatives"?

today is amplified more ...
Jump to hear the MPB, Joao Gilberto, Caetano Veloso ...
"'entry na' na guitar and a bit 'de moon."
the event must be amplified?
course. five thousand people to listen.

Yes, but if Harry Bicket to play the harpsichord?
fitting room ... no amplification. I should not

may claim a place suitable for Joao Gilberto and his guitar?
And then the people, where we put it?

Ah ... I understand ... marketing. Harry Bicket
satisfied with a night for one hundred people paying 20 euro each.
Caetano Veloso wants five thousand people who pay 40 euro each.

You can not tell Veloso or Gilberto to music in a serious way.
Pesenti with a guitar in a consonant, and accept two hundred persons per evening. We are

joke ...
People do not even pretend ... loves the joke.

sings a tenor at the Teatro Pagani, perhaps accompanied by the piano, you do not need amplification.

the Pagani is a full gospel choir, and amplify even the chandelier.



At the end of the concert I went there and I said, "but that there * Azzo amplified" which comes out a massacre.

But the people applaud. Raise the volume

applauds.
Boost and applauds. Make
Mozart ... cheers. Make
Verdi: cheers! Make the gospel ...
amplified applause.

The people applaud.



Fabio Ferrara (Dueeffe)

Cute Neoprene Camera Cases

Oh, that harmonic noise ....


Giampaolo Ghisetti, Concertino.

------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------


Amplified ...
A concert that already contains the artifact in its extension.

Why is amplified?
Perhaps hath been started to benefit from the event to an audience "massive"
Marketing?
Light, the electric guitar to be amplified.
But the voice and the drums?
In a "local" would not help ...

They began to amplify, increase the public ... the great outdoors.
will raise the volume. Rises more and more people seem happy ... Some concerts

have begun to be encoded that way.
By convention, of course. The disc
built in the studio (Pink Floyd, for example) with no family live concert ...

What would we play? The disc
built studio at a level close to that received at the concert live, knowing that they are not "relatives"?

today is amplified more ...
Jump to hear the MPB, Joao Gilberto, Caetano Veloso ...
"'entry na' na guitar and a bit 'de moon."
the event must be amplified?
course. five thousand people to listen.

Yes, but if Harry Bicket to play the harpsichord?
fitting room ... no amplification. I should not

may claim a place suitable for Joao Gilberto and his guitar?
And then the people, where we put it?

Ah ... I understand ... marketing. Harry Bicket
satisfied with a night for one hundred people paying 20 euro each.
Caetano Veloso wants five thousand people who pay 40 euro each.

You can not tell Veloso or Gilberto to music in a serious way.
Pesenti with a guitar in a consonant, and accept two hundred persons per evening. We are

joke ...
People do not even pretend ... loves the joke.

sings a tenor at the Teatro Pagani, perhaps accompanied by the piano, you do not need amplification.

the Pagani is a full gospel choir, and amplify even the chandelier.



At the end of the concert I went there and I said, "but that there * Azzo amplified" which comes out a massacre.

But the people applaud. Raise the volume

applauds.
Boost and applauds. Make
Mozart ... cheers. Make
Verdi: cheers! Make the gospel ...
amplified applause.

The people applaud.



Fabio Ferrara (Dueeffe)

Crumpler Bag Discoloration

perceived reality and reality outside our mind



All admit that neither our thoughts nor our passions, nor ideas formed by our imagination exist without the mind. No less clear to me that the various sensations, or ideas imprinted on the senses, in any way you combine (that is, whatever the object form) can not exist except in a mind that perceives them ... I say that this table exists, that is to say, I see it and touch . If you stand outside of my office, I say the same thing, I mean only that you perceive yourself here, or some other spirit that perceives it ... Speaking of absolute existence of inanimate things, without regard to the fact that they are perceived or not is meaningless to me. Their percipi them is it is not possible to exist outside of the minds that perceive them [...]
But, you say, nothing is easier than to imagine trees in a meadow or books in a library, and none of them from receiving them. In fact, nothing is easier. But, I ask, what if you did not form in the mind certain ideas which you call books and omit or trees at the same time the idea of \u200b\u200bsomeone receiving them? You, meanwhile, do not you think? I do not deny that the mind is capable of imagining ideas deny that objects can exist outside the mind.
(Berkeley, Principles of Human Knowledge)


George Berkeley


REALITY 'RECEIVED AND REALITY' OUTSIDE OUR MIND

idealism, but not limited to those of recent centuries, or even the Platonic Parmenides , is the idea that sensory perception is the only foundation of our knowledge, we have no way to distinguish reality from all the stimuli it receives, and in my opinion, this argument is irrefutable. Why can not we free ourselves from the senses, we can not imagine an experience of the external universe unmediated by the conductors of the signals, and even if we could make use of new and different sense than we have, the problem does not resolve but would only traversed .

But there are parts of reality that should not cause us to close the subject with what Berkeley said in the quotation above, and directs an adequate analysis - which is outside the my attempt at starting.

First berkeley's idealism does not deny the external reality, in case denies the possibility of discerning a possible external field by ourselves from something that takes place in the mind, is proof of our lack of testing the veracity of the external universe , of a universal objectivity, but that this should not necessarily be only mental and metaphysical, and not only the objective and independent sentient. Sets limits on our ability to perceive reality, but not the limits of reality itself.
Moreover, our mind is not free from similar concerns on the outside: the process of "no confidence" assegnateci tools in the physicality, the five senses, can be extended to a regression in our mind and our awareness and essence of thinking, let me explain: I perceive by sight, the presence of a table, and I can touch and feel solidity.
This is, however, before anything else, electricity flows between the nervous system and parts of the brain responsible for processing - which are formed by the fingertips and along the lines of confluence nervous transmit data to the mind - I do not know if the table exists.

Berkeley does not allow an external world but believes in the reality of the spirit.

I am not so convinced about that because even the pensiero che io sto articolando in questa pagina è frutto di consapevolezza di un prima e un dopo del ragionamento, ma questa consapevolezza potrebbe essere solo illusoria, così come l’affidabilità dei polpastrelli o della retina. Io credo di esistere e di avere un passato, ma ciò è arbitrario potere del mio cervello – o se preferite, più correttamente, della mia mente.
Posso essere convinto di avere un passato alle spalle di consapevolezze (memoria), ma queste potrebbero del tutto essere frutto di quest’istante nel quale ne percepisco il ricordo.
In breve il passato, il mio passato che mi rende identità definita e peculiare, potrebbe non esistere, potrebbe essere un’invenzione, contemporanea a questa battitura di testo, della mia mente che però mi convince, perché non posso esistere al di là di essa, che io sono questo e voi siete qualcos’altro.

Sto parlando di considerazioni fortemente anti-intuitive e palesemente assurde, ma non smentibili argomentativamente con tanta facilità, bensì rese trascurabili dal blando “buon senso”; ma ci possiamo fidare del buon senso?
Quali sono le sue basi logiche, a parte la consuetudine?

La sfiducia nei sensi può essere inclusa nel comprendere anche una diffidenza tra la mia mente ed il mio spirito, e niente può essere considerato effettivo.
Il ricordo potrebbe essere uno strumento di apparato di potere della nostra mind, so that I might not exist now, and only in these fractions of a second that the specious present enough of psychologists, this close to me by the consciousness of being alive.
The decline in confidence is just as applicable in accordance with what is considered to be independent, to some extent, from the outside world.
logic and reason we consider them as a fact and evidence, as well as useful and amenable to feedback and the dialectic. But the basic logic follows degl'assiomi in which, taken for granted as true-false duality, credible-not credible, right-not right, we create theories that are considered erroneous or persuade.

The problem is that the logic is based, first and foremost on the sense of right and wrong, the feeling of true and false.

If someone says you're a horse, I know that this statement is incorrect. But what happens in reality is that I feel the feeling that this assumption is false, this feeling is derived by a touch of conscious and unconscious, by memories of my experience of the world, from my way of judging the claims. But this is the result of its arbitrariness and mind than any impression that I may have it in any case it is honest with themselves - myself.

How do I know that my mind always tells the truth? On what basis can I trust di componenti della mia mente quali memoria, giudizio, cognizione?
I ricordi, e perciò l’esperienza del mondo, potrebbero essere fittizia ricostruzione e sensazione che io percepisco in questo singolo istante, e improntata dalla mente per costruire l’assodato che concepisco. Ma non abbiamo la certezza della sincerità della mente, dell’affidabilità della mente, così come non ce l’abbiamo dei cinque sensi. La logica è un prodotto che la vita ci ha insegnato essere affidabile per trarre delle conclusioni e dei dati di fatto, ma potrebbe essere illusorio – e ingannevole - come tutto il resto.


Un’ultima cosa.
Anche tenendo conto di tutte queste sfiduce possibili, there are some small (?) signals that lead us to believe that reality can be existing outside of our thought and perception.
We have already said that idealism does not refute the veracity of the external universe, but only an opportunity for us to give a detailed proof and unquestionable.
So you can not believe how not to do, and we have many elements to guide with critical skills.

A scientist who deals every day, both in thought than in action (maybe the same thing) of empirical facts and material, intuitively, is taken from the view that external reality is an irrefutable fact: there is not a stone because perceive, ma perché è atomica e stabile e continuativamente osservabile, con coerenza nel tempo.
In altri termini, pur se tutto quello che sappiamo dell’esterno sono il risultato di elaborazione di elettroni che ci arrivano dai sensi, queste elaborazioni sono analoghe e congruenti nel tempo.

Alla soluzione elaborativa dell’insieme di dati elettronici che equivalgono a “matita”, questi si ripetono e non sono casuali nelle successioni dei riscontri: indi c’è coerenza, continuità e disposizione a una realtà che, non essendo disordinata e caotica nei dati pervenutici, lascia credere che anch’essa sia coerente e credibile (sempre se i ricordi sono qualcosa di realmente riconducibile ad eventi past and impromptu tricks on the mind of this).
The scientist is more susceptible to the observation that the uniformity of the signals from the senses, "a whole continuum of perceptions that make up your mind" (Hume said), is given as common as self-evident.

So there is a consistency of perceptions, the same consistency that allows us to associate with similar stimuli always the presence of a table as a chair or water. Not conclusive evidence, there can be.
the doubt remains that even if a God exists should be sure of their own omniscience and omnipotence from some entity outside his awareness of being, else he is merely disturbing the illusion of self-awareness.

thought, nobody takes him seriously, except those who consider themselves professional philosophers or thinkers. But this in no way prevents it has its apparatus of power - and that is an effect of its apparatus of power that can tell people: Do not take me seriously because I think for you, because you do a compliance standards and rules, an image, which you can obey all the more as you say.

Gilles Deleuze

Crumpler Bag Discoloration

perceived reality and reality outside our mind



All admit that neither our thoughts nor our passions, nor ideas formed by our imagination exist without the mind. No less clear to me that the various sensations, or ideas imprinted on the senses, in any way you combine (that is, whatever the object form) can not exist except in a mind that perceives them ... I say that this table exists, that is to say, I see it and touch . If you stand outside of my office, I say the same thing, I mean only that you perceive yourself here, or some other spirit that perceives it ... Speaking of absolute existence of inanimate things, without regard to the fact that they are perceived or not is meaningless to me. Their percipi them is it is not possible to exist outside of the minds that perceive them [...]
But, you say, nothing is easier than to imagine trees in a meadow or books in a library, and none of them from receiving them. In fact, nothing is easier. But, I ask, what if you did not form in the mind certain ideas which you call books and omit or trees at the same time the idea of \u200b\u200bsomeone receiving them? You, meanwhile, do not you think? I do not deny that the mind is capable of imagining ideas deny that objects can exist outside the mind.
(Berkeley, Principles of Human Knowledge)


George Berkeley


REALITY 'RECEIVED AND REALITY' OUTSIDE OUR MIND

idealism, but not limited to those of recent centuries, or even the Platonic Parmenides , is the idea that sensory perception is the only foundation of our knowledge, we have no way to distinguish reality from all the stimuli it receives, and in my opinion, this argument is irrefutable. Why can not we free ourselves from the senses, we can not imagine an experience of the external universe unmediated by the conductors of the signals, and even if we could make use of new and different sense than we have, the problem does not resolve but would only traversed .

But there are parts of reality that should not cause us to close the subject with what Berkeley said in the quotation above, and directs an adequate analysis - which is outside the my attempt at starting.

First berkeley's idealism does not deny the external reality, in case denies the possibility of discerning a possible external field by ourselves from something that takes place in the mind, is proof of our lack of testing the veracity of the external universe , of a universal objectivity, but that this should not necessarily be only mental and metaphysical, and not only the objective and independent sentient. Sets limits on our ability to perceive reality, but not the limits of reality itself.
Moreover, our mind is not free from similar concerns on the outside: the process of "no confidence" assegnateci tools in the physicality, the five senses, can be extended to a regression in our mind and our awareness and essence of thinking, let me explain: I perceive by sight, the presence of a table, and I can touch and feel solidity.
This is, however, before anything else, electricity flows between the nervous system and parts of the brain responsible for processing - which are formed by the fingertips and along the lines of confluence nervous transmit data to the mind - I do not know if the table exists.

Berkeley does not allow an external world but believes in the reality of the spirit.

I am not so convinced about that because even the pensiero che io sto articolando in questa pagina è frutto di consapevolezza di un prima e un dopo del ragionamento, ma questa consapevolezza potrebbe essere solo illusoria, così come l’affidabilità dei polpastrelli o della retina. Io credo di esistere e di avere un passato, ma ciò è arbitrario potere del mio cervello – o se preferite, più correttamente, della mia mente.
Posso essere convinto di avere un passato alle spalle di consapevolezze (memoria), ma queste potrebbero del tutto essere frutto di quest’istante nel quale ne percepisco il ricordo.
In breve il passato, il mio passato che mi rende identità definita e peculiare, potrebbe non esistere, potrebbe essere un’invenzione, contemporanea a questa battitura di testo, della mia mente che però mi convince, perché non posso esistere al di là di essa, che io sono questo e voi siete qualcos’altro.

Sto parlando di considerazioni fortemente anti-intuitive e palesemente assurde, ma non smentibili argomentativamente con tanta facilità, bensì rese trascurabili dal blando “buon senso”; ma ci possiamo fidare del buon senso?
Quali sono le sue basi logiche, a parte la consuetudine?

La sfiducia nei sensi può essere inclusa nel comprendere anche una diffidenza tra la mia mente ed il mio spirito, e niente può essere considerato effettivo.
Il ricordo potrebbe essere uno strumento di apparato di potere della nostra mind, so that I might not exist now, and only in these fractions of a second that the specious present enough of psychologists, this close to me by the consciousness of being alive.
The decline in confidence is just as applicable in accordance with what is considered to be independent, to some extent, from the outside world.
logic and reason we consider them as a fact and evidence, as well as useful and amenable to feedback and the dialectic. But the basic logic follows degl'assiomi in which, taken for granted as true-false duality, credible-not credible, right-not right, we create theories that are considered erroneous or persuade.

The problem is that the logic is based, first and foremost on the sense of right and wrong, the feeling of true and false.

If someone says you're a horse, I know that this statement is incorrect. But what happens in reality is that I feel the feeling that this assumption is false, this feeling is derived by a touch of conscious and unconscious, by memories of my experience of the world, from my way of judging the claims. But this is the result of its arbitrariness and mind than any impression that I may have it in any case it is honest with themselves - myself.

How do I know that my mind always tells the truth? On what basis can I trust di componenti della mia mente quali memoria, giudizio, cognizione?
I ricordi, e perciò l’esperienza del mondo, potrebbero essere fittizia ricostruzione e sensazione che io percepisco in questo singolo istante, e improntata dalla mente per costruire l’assodato che concepisco. Ma non abbiamo la certezza della sincerità della mente, dell’affidabilità della mente, così come non ce l’abbiamo dei cinque sensi. La logica è un prodotto che la vita ci ha insegnato essere affidabile per trarre delle conclusioni e dei dati di fatto, ma potrebbe essere illusorio – e ingannevole - come tutto il resto.


Un’ultima cosa.
Anche tenendo conto di tutte queste sfiduce possibili, there are some small (?) signals that lead us to believe that reality can be existing outside of our thought and perception.
We have already said that idealism does not refute the veracity of the external universe, but only an opportunity for us to give a detailed proof and unquestionable.
So you can not believe how not to do, and we have many elements to guide with critical skills.

A scientist who deals every day, both in thought than in action (maybe the same thing) of empirical facts and material, intuitively, is taken from the view that external reality is an irrefutable fact: there is not a stone because perceive, ma perché è atomica e stabile e continuativamente osservabile, con coerenza nel tempo.
In altri termini, pur se tutto quello che sappiamo dell’esterno sono il risultato di elaborazione di elettroni che ci arrivano dai sensi, queste elaborazioni sono analoghe e congruenti nel tempo.

Alla soluzione elaborativa dell’insieme di dati elettronici che equivalgono a “matita”, questi si ripetono e non sono casuali nelle successioni dei riscontri: indi c’è coerenza, continuità e disposizione a una realtà che, non essendo disordinata e caotica nei dati pervenutici, lascia credere che anch’essa sia coerente e credibile (sempre se i ricordi sono qualcosa di realmente riconducibile ad eventi past and impromptu tricks on the mind of this).
The scientist is more susceptible to the observation that the uniformity of the signals from the senses, "a whole continuum of perceptions that make up your mind" (Hume said), is given as common as self-evident.

So there is a consistency of perceptions, the same consistency that allows us to associate with similar stimuli always the presence of a table as a chair or water. Not conclusive evidence, there can be.
the doubt remains that even if a God exists should be sure of their own omniscience and omnipotence from some entity outside his awareness of being, else he is merely disturbing the illusion of self-awareness.

thought, nobody takes him seriously, except those who consider themselves professional philosophers or thinkers. But this in no way prevents it has its apparatus of power - and that is an effect of its apparatus of power that can tell people: Do not take me seriously because I think for you, because you do a compliance standards and rules, an image, which you can obey all the more as you say.

Gilles Deleuze