Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Emperor_of_Algol

1 [2] 3 ... 5
16
Interzone / Re: Is there a bit of this degenerate in all of us?
« on: April 02, 2012, 08:10:17 PM »
Is it just me, or is it saddening that we live in a society in which human garbage like this stays alive for months (years?) after creating her blog? Seriously - any society worth living in would have fucking killed this bitch by now just to remove every trace of her from the earth. It would probably involve lots of pain and torture. A fitting end.

As for her psychology: does it matter? She is clearly disturbed in multiple ways; her mind is overthrown. Sure, she may not be the cut-and-dry child abuse case; however her alleged aspie-nature and "knowledge" of physics is completely irrelevant. Claiming that her psyche is some sort of extreme which is present in all females is laughable: this diseased organism bears no resemblance to the ideal archetypal female nature, found less and less in today's times (though still present and worth praising). I seriously think less will be gained by trying to analyse why exactly she is as fucked up as she is, and more will be gained by tracking her down and slaughtering her. And then posting that on the internet. Hopefully with a brief article about how modernity has produced wrecks like her, why it's good that she no longer exists, and lots of links to ANUS :-)

Also, agreed: she is vile and disgusting. Anyone seriously aroused by this needs fucking cleansing. Bare-knuckle box a 6-foot nigga or something. Your spirit needs cleansing.


17
Metal / Re: Dimmu Borgir
« on: February 12, 2012, 04:46:25 PM »
Watching this (it sounds rather strange without vocals...almost as if the vocals stuck some parts of the song together to achieve greater continuity) made me want to listen to Stormblast again. The manner of this band's descent is astounding.

18
Metal / Re: Bill Ward fired by Sharon Osbourne
« on: February 11, 2012, 11:49:09 PM »
Yeah, having seen some of this...

And while I am a large fan of Bill Ward...

We don't know the facts here.

For a band to be in this kind of limbo for this long, there is probably some greater underlying confusion than Sharon=Bad/Bill=Good.

While Yoko Ono was clearly bad for John Lennon (fuck you, pig) he was also weak-willed and fell into her hands, and his bandmates did him nor the band any favors.

Life is not Christian Binary (good/evil).

Now you get to put that abstract notion into practice.

All true words (the part about Yoko and Lennon made me chuckle), but this Sharon Osbourne person still has absolutely no fucking place in metal. She's a freaking judge on some moronic reality "talent" show. Clearly she has no love of metal, despite (but maybe because of) the fact she is married to one of its biggest showmen. She may be a gifted musical manager, I do not know, but this lady has zero interest in whether Black Sabbath release a good album or not, as long as its profitable. I know she is not their manager, but since Ozzy's solo career was/is a pile of turd, I'm guessing she is just a gifted entertainment money-maker, and nothing more.

That being said, Black Sabbath should not have re-united. They have a great place in metal history, and may just besmirch it with this latest effort.

19
Metal / Re: Romanticism naturally prevails
« on: February 11, 2012, 11:20:08 PM »
From contextual clues, I would guess this was written pre-WWII.

I think you may be right. If this is related to my comment above about whether the author would have seen metal as 'Romanticist', I meant it in the following sense: given his musical acuity, would he have been able to see what we see in it, i.e. recognize that the harsh vocals, distortion, dissonance, melody and rhythm are part of what makes metal music both 'Romanticist' and anti-pop, but that at its core, it is a representation of a certain ideological and cultural ideal - one which is in part inspired by the Classical/Romanticist masters.

Also, when I said 'late 1900s', I wasn't necessarily excluding 1950s-onwards from that. However it would have been clearer to just to say post-WWI.

If you're just mentioning it as a statement of fact, then kindly ignore what I have typed above:-)

20
Metal / Re: Romanticism naturally prevails
« on: February 11, 2012, 11:04:49 PM »
I came across an interesting couple of paragraphs in an old music history book I'm currently reading (link) which resonates with something I've felt for a while now, if not longer on a purely subconscious level. Any thoughts?
Quote
The wave of stark realism that swept over Europe's music in recent years was a natural phenomenon, with an undoubted origin in primitive sounds such as can be found in "The Ring of the Nibelungs"; and, to illustrate this statement, I would mention in particular the scene in "Gotterdammerung" where the Gibichung vassals assemble for the wedding of Siegfried with Gutrune. Here the din of the cowhorns, interspersed with the fierce shouts of the vassals, belongs to a type of music utterly inhuman and barbaric: savage, lustful, and repellent. From such music to Stravinsky's "Le Sacre du Printemps" is not a far cry. In this unique work the composer abandons himself to the most amazing concatenation of instrumental forces, all intended to convey the impression of a pagan festival in springtime. Nothing is left to the imagination, for the virtuosity of the orchestral technique is masterly in the extreme. We stand aghast at Stravinsky's expressed abhorrence of everything for which music had stood these many centuries. He makes us feel that the very essence of civilization, all beauty and romance, all human endeavour and progress are being ruthlessly swept aside to make room for hideous sounds primitive in origin and atavistic expression. At such a pass do we find the world of orchestral music som twenty tears ago.

But virtuosity of this kind must come to an end once it has been driven to such extremes. And so it speaks volumes for the common sense of the composer that few have attempted to follow permanently in the footsteps of Stravinsky, despite a certain craze when this composer's poularity was at its height. Had there been any such general desire, music by now might have been in bedlam. From this fate it was saved by the composer's interest in the living world around him and by that spirit of romance from which there is no escape once he is immersed in the creation of orchestral music. Other Stravinskys may come and go, but the results will always be the same. Stark realism must surrender in the end to rational romanticism. Future composers will, I fancy, emulate those of the present day who are content to write for the medium-sized modern orchestra. Atavism in music has had its fling and been found wanting. Cerebral music, too, is on the wane, for it can only succeed in pleasing its own generation and displeasing the next. But if anything can survive in an age of non-classical music it will be music of the romantic kind, for that comes nearest the hearts of men. It may have its weaknesses, and become in its worst moments, lush and unbearable. Still, in the hands of men like Strauss, Elgar, Bax, Delius and Debussy, it says something that holds the interest and stirs the emotions by its oft-expressed beauty. And the further the noise of the great war of 1914-18 recedes into the distance, the nearer will the composer approach music in that spirit of patience without which the great masterpieces of the past could never have been written. Will he, with all his accumulated knowledge of the beauty of instrumental tones evoke in time a new golden age of classical music, in which design and colour will no longer contend for mastery ? I wonder. Limitation of instruments may come before limitation of armaments.

I have not read the book, nor am I any sort of expert on romanticism and classical music, but I think it is fair to say that the author was incorrect in thinking (hoping?) that a new generation of masters would arise, in the romantic/classical tradition, in the late 1900s or beyond, who could compete with or even surpass their musical ancestors.

Since I'm not familiar with the author, I do not know whether he would have seen metal music in the way we do, as an instance of this 'eternal recurrence' we call Romanticism. Even though metal has it's downsides (there are plenty - it happens, when you allow hipsters to invade your cultural traditions), it still represents the greatest re-occurrence of this tradition in the artistic sphere, to date.

21
Interzone / Re: Going full Soviet
« on: February 11, 2012, 10:31:10 PM »
Quote
In a time when individualism is king, people are struggling hard to prove their self-worth. This is because no one wants to be just equal, and yet equality is a great destructor that levels us all. To avoid that anonymous fate, we struggle to be unique.

Since our equality is based on a moral argument, all of our counterarguments — of the sense “why I am more equal than the rest of you” — must be in the form of moral arguments as well. I run; I am healthier. I recycle; I am greener. I support the People and thus I am not Soviet, I am merely nicer than you.

http://www.amerika.org/social-reality/pretense/

It's merely a pretense that the "free" West is any "freer" than Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia.

Freedom and Equality cant exist in any real sense of the word but still there is the issue of degree. I don't think its unreasonable to claim that the list of things that will turn you into a pariah is shorter now than in the 1930s.

Certain freedoms have higher practical value when weighed against alternatives too. Freedom of speech for example: you're free to criticize the government and they're free to ignore you. The end result is the same as with the alternative yet now you've bypassed having to pay for people to  enforce speech laws and you prevent the nasty cases were people can falsely report each other for personal gain.

You think that kind of thing doesn't happen? Do you think, for instance, that government employees are allowed to openly criticize government policy on controversial issues (e.g. race) without some form of negative repercussions? You think it's not possible to, and that the government/media/crowd do not, censor someone with controversial opinions (in the true sense of the term [e.g. legitimate conservatives])? By censor, we  do not only mean it in the usual sense of the word. If I have the ability to make it hard for you to find employment in a non-shithole of a industry/career, am I not disabling your ability to even have political/societal opinions anyone cares about?  If I make you out to be racist-bigot-hater-of-equality, am I not ipso facto making you a pariah in certain social circles?

Besides all of this, the only 'benefit' you've attributed to this golden power called "Freedom of  Le Speech" is the bypassing of government informers for personal gain. Besides the inverse logic (see, X is good because Y doesn't happen as a result of it. Since Y is so bad, X must be good), this isn't even true. This kind of thing still happens, even in non-communist/totalitarian states. You would be naive to think otherwise.

22
Interzone / Re: Wealth inequality
« on: February 09, 2012, 07:22:14 PM »
A conservative view:

Quote
When it comes to income, inequality is largely a distraction.  We need to shift moral attention back where it belongs: to helping those in need overcome the sources of true material deprivation (such as failing schools, family breakdown, and government corruption).

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/03/economic-inequality-does-unequal-wealth-cause-hardship-for-the-poor/

Liberals focus obsessively on the individual: what do I get? if I were hungry, who would feed me?

Conservatives tend to focus on civilization as an organic whole or healthy body: is it functioning? If so, everyone benefits.

I'm also deeply skeptical of armchair dissections of cause-and-effect that distort through grotesque oversimplification and linearization.  For instance, one could claim that income inequality is a causative factor in, "failing schools, family breakdown and government corruption," with at least as much justification as the Heritage claim that these factors cause income inequality.  These are interwoven phenomena that are extremely resistant to simple, linear "solutions" and thinking.

Okay, how would you go about doing that? In fact, I'll play devil's advocate here. Let's say we claim that income inequality is a causative factor in the breakdown of:

a) the education system: because poor kids lack proper nutrition/good quality school stationery and books, and hence do not get an 'equal opportunity' to learn (?) Or does their poorness cause them to be impediments to the education of the other kids? (Left/right split, anyone? :-)

b) the family unit: because lower income households cannot afford sufficient material wealth to cover their basic needs, leading to major domestic schisms and an 'every man for himself' attitude?

c) government corruption: because either: i) rich people are greedy and use bureaucratic systems to gain more money and power, and/or ii) low income government workers (snort....) feel a sense of injustice when compared to their better-off colleagues, and hence purposefully corrupt government processes due to sheer spite.


Now, do you agree with any of the above?

(I won't deny accusations of the straw-man-attack variety, but I still think that the above is typically what people in favor of the argument, would argue. I invite you to offer an alternative, though:-).

23
Interzone / Message to the West: 'You're poor now so live like poor people'
« on: February 08, 2012, 08:08:24 PM »
Quote
According to former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, the message is simple but devastating: Europe must face up to the new economic reality.
"Europe... has lost a lot of money and therefore you must be poor now relative to the past," he reasons in an interview with BBC World Service's Business Daily.
"And in Asia we live within our means. So when we are poor, we live as poor people. I think that is a lesson that Europe can learn from Asia."
snip
Quote
"You refuse to acknowledge you have lost money and therefore you are poor," he says.
"And you can't remedy that by printing money. Money is not something you just print. It must be backed by something, either good economy or gold."
snip snip
Quote
In particular, he believes Europe and the West must begin the long slow process of restructuring their economies to reduce their dependence on the financial sector.
"I think you should go back to doing what I call real business - producing goods, providing services, trading - not just moving figures in bank books, which is what you are doing."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16918000

I think he actually makes a lot of good points here. Of course, what he says is also valid for some economies in Asia (not just Japan), especially given current trends, but I don't think it can be emphasized enough how broken an economic system which relies on false value is. And this seems to be a distinctly Western phenomenon. Also:

Quote
"I think you have paid your workers far too much money for much less work," he says.
"So you cannot expect to live at this level of wealth when you are not producing anything that is marketable."

Sage advice, indeed.

24
Interzone / Re: Neurotic sex
« on: October 16, 2011, 07:28:51 AM »

1-WHY WE HAVE NATURAL LUBRICANT FROM THE VAGINA AND NOT FROM ANUS ?


Its called shit.

If I remember correctly, all mammals have anal glands that release a shit lubricant so you can shit painlessly. If you have had dogs you might be familiar with having to have your dogs anal glands purged by a vet.

Haha...gross imagery. But our Ksatrian friend is sort of correct here. The anus is not as well-lubricated as the vagian during sexual stimulation - hence anal tears and all that nasty shit occurs during anal. But hey if you're into shoving your dick into shit-pools, go for it.

25
Interzone / Re: "right" & "left"?
« on: October 16, 2011, 07:22:02 AM »
Just because something sucks/doesn't fit exactly with your political outlook, doesn't mean you reject it completely and go your own way. This is exactly why the political landscape is a joke, why no consensus about anything important can be formed. People decide "hey these conservatives just care 'bout the economy and nothing else; screw that I'm going my own way *cracks open another beer*".  If you see some value in something, and if the alternative is far worse, you align yourself with that something, and improve it.

26
Interzone / Re: Making Money
« on: October 15, 2011, 11:30:24 AM »
You'll want maximum income for minimum specific education. I assume you can get computing and engineering work with only a bachelor's, so these are good areas. Economics and business should be excellent money wise, and can be worked into with a variety of skill sets.

And if you do go into a economics/business related profession, there's a better chance of meeting a decent female (two birds with one stone and all...). It really is true that female co-workers are pretty scant in the IT industry. However you may prefer not to Shit Where You Eat (SWYE). In which case go for computing: pay's good, and you'll mostly find geeky girls with self-esteem issues (or worse, nerd-power mania...) :-)

Alternatively, you may consider starting a non-degenerate business. There are always opportunities if you have, or are willing to gain, some entrepreneurial know-how. Examples are organic/local food stores/restaurants, book/music stores, or even something in computer service, if it's done with integrity (and ain't complete garbage, like being an Apple reseller). Admittedly it is quite tough to get a business going, especially in competitive industries like food, computing etc, but on a smaller, local scale, there are opportunities for those who wish to go that direction (and aren't concerned with making enormous profits off morons).

27
Interzone / Re: Singularity
« on: May 07, 2011, 05:04:52 PM »
I was just commenting on Chains's comment, and making a general point myself.  My response to the OP was the last sentence of my post, which was essentially an advert for this guy's books, which relate very much to the topic at hand (multidimensionality).

Yeah, I did catch on to that, kinda (I actually thought you were indicating disapproval of the book(s)). I guess I have to add this on to my ever-growing list of "writings I still need to (re)read."

28
Interzone / Re: Singularity
« on: May 07, 2011, 04:39:43 PM »
Wow, nitpickers, much? I thought it was pretty clear what was meant by 'natural laws not holding' (by the way, these words, and "unnatural", "supernatural", etc. weren't actually used by the writer )...it was also clarified by Conservationist: the rules of material not holding at the point of singularity, i.e. the physical laws we observe elsewhere in the universe possibly do not exist at these points.

Food for thought at the very least, especially when one considers that many scientists (physicists in particular in this case) and religious-types approach these issues as if on a warpath against the other... When really, both groups could learn a lot from each other when they realise they're both attempting the same thing: to advance our description and interpretation of reality, and in some way incorporate this into our lives in order to better adapt to it (reality). Also, it is indeed a humbling thing to consider: what humanity  thought it knew about the universe is probably insignificant when compared to what else exists, observable by humans, or not. Granted, you may have known this before reading the article, but that's essentially what I think it's trying to say, and not "blackholes are so supernatural, man".

So in conclusion, I think you guys agree with the article but were just lambasting scientific-humanist types who think that everything outside human knowledge doesn't exist/ is irrelevant, not worth further study and can be dismissed with "it's unpredictable"? Yes, no, fuck you and your assumptions:-)?

29
I find this more amusing than disheartening.
Same here.
While I say bravo to those who commited suicide, IF their only other choise was to continue being slaves, I would prefer a workplace shooting which is more heroic suicide.

The added bonus being that more slave-like people would have died, and/or gruesome combat would have been the last (and probably most worthwhile) action of the factory-proles.:-) Who am I kidding, it would have been just another factory version of the various pesky school shootings that keep cropping up every now and then, cue modern liberal democratic society (MLDS (TM), all rights reserved, 1- AD2011) targeting the symbol ("insane" gunman) instead of the actual problem.

Guaranteed most Americans would react in this manner - "OMG THATS HORRIBLE"....(next day) "Hey guise wanna go to the mall? I heard the iSodomy is coming out today!"

This is pretty standard stuff in society these days, outside America as well: pretend that you care about a bunch of faceless factory workers, then forget it and move on to the next latest-and-greatest product/distraction which is the result of a globalist consumerist society which creates factories which adopt such practices. Amazing how such a simple "truth" (scare quotes intended for the hardcore epistemologists) not only isn't grasped, but not even thought about, by so many people.

30
Interzone / Re: Ultimate Reality
« on: March 09, 2011, 11:05:17 PM »
Who here has read Goedel Escher Bach, which I recommended to everyone about a year ago?

Strange, my previous reply to this just disappeared. In short, I have read the book (it was recommended to me by a mathematics teacher in high school). I don't recall that much about it (this was nearly 5 years ago), though I did get a sense that Hofstadter was aiming at something above just descriptions of cool mathematical stuff in Escher's drawings and Bach's music. I guess you mention it because, in a sense, Hofstadter shows that by looking at the music of Bach, the drawings of Escher and the mathematical discoveries (and their philosophical implications) made by Goedel, together, instead of in isolation, the reader gains a deeper insight into The Ultimate Reality? I dunno, fill us in kind sir.

1 [2] 3 ... 5