Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Buzzer

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 57 posts

Re: The Buzzer

#31

Post by wheels »

sabat wrote: post #29
ugh wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Skeptoid has a nice episode on number stations and also “The Buzzer” including audio samples: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4107

Sorry, but I have to be skeptical about any show that declares itself skeptical. Skepticism isn't good science or good logic; it's just reverse religion. True science does not immediately believe or disbelieve. It investigates dispassionately.

Philosophical skepticism implies just that. It's not so much nay-saying as deference to evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism

Re: The Buzzer

#32

Post by ugh »

sabat wrote: post #29
ugh wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Skeptoid has a nice episode on number stations and also “The Buzzer” including audio samples: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4107

Sorry, but I have to be skeptical about any show that declares itself skeptical. Skepticism isn't good science or good logic; it's just reverse religion. True science does not immediately believe or disbelieve. It investigates dispassionately.

You have this beautiful (albeit probably incomplete) definition of what being a skeptic means in your comment – I only have to change one word: “True skeptics do not immediately believe or disbelieve.”

That would be my definition and I’m pretty sure it would also be one that Brian Dunning (author of the podcast) would accept.

What’s wrong with that definition? What wrong with using the word in this way?

I know there are a good many conspiracy nuts who abuse the term (which might explain your harsh reaction) but I can assure you that Brian Dunning is not one of them. Try to read or listen to some of his stuff.

Re: The Buzzer

#34

Post by ck2 »

Have there been sightings of a polar bear wandering around?

Maybe a crazy French woman?

Re: The Buzzer

#35

Post by zephjc »

ErrantX wrote: post #2

I know quite a few interesting Wikipedia entries get posted here but this was a particularly fascinating one! I've spent the best part of an hour learning about numbers stations and fail-deadly game theory :) Great submission. On topic: does anyone have anything extra (link wise) about "The Buzzer", Google searches are mostly leading to conspiracy sites...

http://brix.wikispot.org/ was pointed out to me by a friend - it has a collection of a number of the "weird" articles on wikipedia, everything from the "Baghdad Battery" to the "Ordo Templi Orientis"

Re: The Buzzer

#36

Post by [deleted] »

ebiester wrote: post #12
itistoday wrote: post #8

Another fascinating, possibly related link based on the hypothesis that this is a dead-man's switch: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand_(nuclear_war)

So, which of you wise guys did this? http://imgur.com/HIJCj.png

[deleted]

Re: The Buzzer

#37

Post by icey »

phreeza wrote: post #20
ebiester wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, which of you wise guys did this? http://imgur.com/HIJCj.png

In the comments everyone is civil here on HN, but as soon as they're on Wikipedia...

Or anywhere else for that matter. I've talked to a bunch of people who have posted apps for review here and had to spend the better part of the next 2 days filtering out obscene submissions on their sites.

Re: The Buzzer

#40

Post by cfpg »

Scott_MacGregor wrote: post #27

You are assuming it is a "Buzz" because that's what your ears "Hear" after it comes out of a speaker and after being processed by radio receiving equipment of a certain design. Perhaps the "Buzz" is not meant to be a sound anyone hears. Maybe it is something more like a dialup modem tone that is acted upon by something other than a shortwave receiver. Maybe there is more to this noise than just buzzing. Maybe the buz…

Aphex Twin style? http://www.bastwood.com/aphex.php
Post reply on HN