it's hard to fault the guy for the reaction. maybe dude was just looking for a couch. maybe not. he can't take liberties in guessing.

but, it is reasonable to ask questions about a society that allows the conditions which lead to something like this happening in the first place.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AG1Xq5wRWxo

publishing the imaginary tour demo ep (inri059)

ok, that finishes inri040, which i'm releasing as a download-only release.

these mixes are a little messy at points, but it's marketed as a demo, so i'm ok with that.

--

something like this would have been the demo brought along on an acoustic tour that never happened. tracks 1-4 would have represented a live set over the summer of 2002, while tracks five and six are otherwise stranded acoustic demos. the style could be broadly categorized as folk punk, but it also leans heavily towards the emo of the period.

written and recorded in late 2001 and the first half of 2002. mildly remixed in november, 2014 to make the tracks more presentable; nothing substantial was altered, and no new sound was recorded. final mixes were on november 19, 2014. as always, please use headphones.

credits
j - acoustic guitar, voice (3)
sean - vocals, lyrics

released august 1, 2002

https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/the-imaginary-tour-ep



1) this is the original demo, that the main track was built over. it is completely unaltered from the 2002 file. feb 5, 2002.

https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/9-16-outside-the-magenta-box


2) this is a new mix of the original guitar and vocal parts. written and recorded in march, 2002. mix done on nov 19, 2014.

http://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/psi-4


3) when the idea of performing as an acoustic duo was decided upon, it became clear that much of the recorded material was unsuitable for this purpose. the original version of this track would have been painfully boring to watch as a duo, with the music consisting of nothing more than a basic bass line. so, i rewrote the song for acoustic presentation. this is a (rough) live demo that i made for sean. no recording with sean was created.

it's a tricky guitar part, and trickier to do while singing (which wouldn't have been necessary in a live setting).

obviously, a live version would have included sean singing his vocals rather than me reciting them. it would have also included dual harmonies at the end.

some minor editing of this may 5, 2002 mix was done on nov 19. 2014.

http://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/me-myself-and-the-time-i-thought-this-was-a-good-idea-2


4) this is actually a transitional version of the song, halfway between the initial folk version (jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/the-day-i-saw-you-cry-first-demo ) and the rabit is wolf version (jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/the-day-i-saw-you-cry). the guitar part was recorded live in may, 2002 for the purposes of it being the performance version of the track, and just as a way to show it to sean over icq (or was it msn?). i've reconstructed the vocals from recordings of the studio version, which is in itself a substantial reworking because those vocals were heavily manipulated.

i had no option but to time shift some of the tracks as some of this recording is in a different tempo, but these are otherwise naked vocals and this is otherwise what i would have wanted a live performance of the track to sound like, as the ending point of any live set.

this mix was done on nov 19, 2014, out of parts recorded in may and june of 2002, and is dated to june 10, 2002.

http://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/the-day-i-saw-you-cry-2


5) this was a live demo (with sean on the left channel and myself on the right) that i think was probably recorded in july. i've mixed the channels down, but not altered it, otherwise. mixed on nov 19, 2014. dated to july 14, 2002.

this was a song that had a split personality from the beginning; it was being converted into a techno song for my own uses at the same time that it was being written with sean, and to be honest i had far more invested into the techno side of it. i did play it for sean, but he wasn't interested. no final mix was recorded with sean. i think this version is best left as it is.

https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/penny-shoeman


6) this was a live demo (with sean on the left channel and myself on the right) that i think was probably recorded in july. this was never finished as a rabit tune, and i never expanded it into one of my own tunes. i think it's better left as it is. this acoustic ep is actually a good home for it, as it was intended that way.

the little bit of production i did was in mixing the channels. the intent was just to mix the two sources together, but i felt that the mixdown took something away from sean's vocals that they previously had when they were separated in the mix - this is hard to articulate, it's just something about the empty space. so, that's the idea going on there.

i constructed this final mix (date: nov 19, 2014) out of two mixes - one that continued the stereo rotation for the whole track, and the initial channel-separated one. it's dated to july 28, 2002.

http://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/jumped-up-and-down


note that this is also the last rabit is wolf release.

i'm going to put a box set up, but it's difficult to place the boundaries on it so i'm not sure yet. the rule will probably be "include's seans vocals". which will make the box set eight or nine discs.

publishing time (inri056)

sound raider isn't behaving...i probably wouldn't have uploaded it anyways....

so, inri037 is now complete.

--

time & psi were partially a rejection of the folk idea in favour of glossy, somewhat experimental pop. i realized that it was reasonable to move in a more commercial direction, but folk wasn't something i understood well, so it was a weird direction for me to be moving in. experimental or psychedelic pop, on the other hand, was something i had a solid grasp on...

time had been initially recorded in the fall and was remixed in late february to integrate a drum part. no original files exist. psi was recorded quickly in early march.

the track, as it existed in rabit, was a conscious pop compromise. i had ideas that weren't explored to keep it poppy and that have been expanded upon in the remixes.

the time machine is added here as a bonus track. it's based on an earlier classical guitar composition that was always meant to be reinterpreted as an idm tune and finally was in early 2014. the thematic overlap makes it relevant, but there is otherwise no connection between the two songs.

i started working on what would become my fourth symphony very shortly after the material on this ep was completed, and it really represents the point where i lost interest in rabit as a concept, under pressure to continue moving in a direction i didn't have any interest in. there are folk and psych versions of the track; sean never caught on to the psych version, and i never had my heart in the folk version. there were final folk demos recorded as late as the fall, but the disconnect was not solvable. the vocal version of the fourth symphony is in some way a corollary of but is ultimately too separate from these files to include here. psi & time, together, consequently comprise what is the fourth and final ("psychedelic pop") phase of rabit.

written in late 2001 and early 2002 and recorded in early 2002 and late 2014. the final mix was finished on nov 18, 2014. as always, please use headphones.

credits:
j - electric & acoustic guitars, bass, synthesizers, digital effects & treatments, drum manipulations, programming, digital wave editing, loops, sound design, production, composition.

sean - vocals, lyrics (3,4)
greg - drum performance sample source (1-3)

the rendered electronic orchestra on track 5 includes acoustic bass, synth bass, electric bass, brass, orchestra hit, drum machine, electronic drum kit, nylon guitar, electric guitar, synthesizer effects, music box, piano, bells and mellotron.

released march 10, 2002

https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/time

running out of time (final mixes)

1) the track, as it existed in rabit, was a conscious pop compromise. i had ideas that weren't explored to keep it poppy and that have been expanded upon in the remixes. written in late 2001 and 2002 and recorded in early 2002 and late 2014. the final mix was finished on nov 18, 2014.

http://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/running-out-of-time


2) this mix is a combination of tracks from the original song played at various speeds, with large amounts of processing on the individual tracks. there's actually no synths in this track. track released nov 18, 2014.

http://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/time-running-out-mix


3) a remixed instrumental version of the original track. released nov 18, 2014.

https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/time-unstuck-mix-2

i feel that people are a little bit confused about this discussion of streaming media, and a lot of it has to do with not understanding the words that are being thrown around.

so, we live under the system we call capitalism. while there are many ways to categorize people in capitalism, the most widely adopted (and most successful, in terms of explanations) way to do this is to broadly split people into workers and capitalists. it's not a clean partition, and it's not exhaustive, but it's fine for the discussion.

simply stated, the workers in a capitalist system are the people that make the goods, whereas the capitalists are the people that own the systems of production and appropriate a profit from the worker's labour, while not producing anything themselves.

now, let us analyze a music distribution system, like spotify. clearly, the musicians are the workers in such a system. and, who are the capitalists? that would be the managers - spotify, google, apple....

and, we see the same thing in this system that we see in every other capitalist system - the capitalists make large profits by exploiting the labour of the workers, while the workers starve.

now, it's pretty blatantly obvious that capitalism is an exploitative system. so, one of the things that anti-capitalists (like socialists and anarchists) seek to do is to gain control of the means of production, so that they don't have to pay the capitalists. anti-capitalists would consequently seek to smash systems like spotify and replace them with artist-run spaces. that is, independent labels and independent artists. bandcamp is not exactly an artist run space, but it's far closer to a socialist model.

the confusion stems from this idea that any process of exchange is upholding capitalism, which is just a misunderstanding of capitalism. capitalism is not exchanging things. there are diverse types of market socialism. capitalism, specifically, is the appropriation of labour by a managerial class. and, the entrenchment of services that stream music for peanuts that are sent to a centralized corporate bureaucracy, while the workers get nothing at all, is one of the most blatantly capitalistic things we've seen happen in our lifetimes.

this confusion is upheld by social norms which seek to trivialize certain economic activities as outside the market. generally, it's "feminine things" that are trivialized in this way - child care, housework, social work and art, to name a few examples.

i hope i've clarified a few things.

time (running out mix)

so, this is going to come in in three parts on the time single, which will be merged into one track on the record.

it's looking like it'll be around 20 minutes, which may be a mild problem when it comes to sequence the disc. but i can't worry about that right now. right now, i've got tons of space on the single...

the third part may end up not on the record. we'll see.

https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/time-unstuck-mix


this is the first section, which will open up into a remix of the song for the second section. the third section is an idea that will be chaotic, let's see what it sounds like....

written & recorded in late 2001 and early 2002 and mixed in early 2002 and late 2014. the final mix was finished on nov 18, 2014.

well, i got my permanent record mailed to me, but it's not my permanent record. it's for somebody else with the same name born in july, 1981. i was born in january, 1981. so i need to figure out where my files are...

the one thing i did get back was standardized testing results from when i was in grade two. apparently, they identified me as being at a ninth grade level at that time. i passed a test to skip me past grade five, but the principal vetoed it because she thought i needed to stay the year for maturity reasons.

the truth is i was always almost a year older than everybody because i was born thirteen days past the cutoff. so, i was almost eight going into grade two. the skip probably would have helped more than hindered in terms of behavioural issues.

anyways, these were my grade two standardized test results. these are percentiles, not grades.

vocabulary - 99
reading - 95
language - 96
work-study - 99
mathematics - 93
total rank: 99th percentile (national)

i look back and don't wish i would have spent more time on school, i look back and wish i wouldn't have bothered at all. and, had i not been pressured into it, i probably wouldn't have.

i mean, i'd probably have more of this discography done at this point.

but i think i got to the right approach eventually.

speaking of which, i need to start the next remix....

no, that's the right response for wearing a shirt that was clearly unprofessional. he deserved that pat on the back, patronizing or not. this is progress. ignore the neanderthals - in the end, the genome will.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOggVg2Ekko

this was an interfaith prayer service with the purpose of building bridges across muslim and christian communities.

....and what the responses here demonstrate pretty clearly is that it's a hopeless aim. religion is inherently suspicious of the unknown; the xenophobia it preaches cannot be resolved without abolishing religious thinking altogether.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrDK8UWsRFg

deathtokoalas
the guy's at work. it's not appropriate. and that's not rocket science.

Alex
if i was responsible for landing on a comet, I'd wear whatever i wanted. Also why is it inappropriate?

deathtokoalas 
no. you don't get to behave differently as a result of your accomplishments. you remain required to uphold the same code of conduct as everybody else. you're not special. you're not above the law. you're not entitled to special treatment.

he understood what was wrong with the shirt, it doesn't matter if you do or not.

xX444Xx1
well you should consider that in many scientific workrooms there is no real dresscode. since they have no contact to 'customers' on a daily basis like in many modern occupations, they can nearly werar whatever they want as long as they are not naked :D

warioman91
I love the shirt, because IT IS TACKY and funny. Maybe it's something I get from my dad, but bad taste is timeless.  My dad has worked in the air force and now other government project stuff and he would wear bad taste pink dress shirts and other stuff occasionally. Whatever, I just love this guy's look. It says "cool" scientist/engineer!

So if you still think it's inappropriate, then that's your view but I love it because it's exactly what it is.

deathtokoalas
i come from a scientific background. while it's true that dress codes are not generally articulated, it's not with the idea that anything goes but because it's assumed that people will use the proper judgement without having to be micromanaged about it. i mean, nobody wants to tell somebody with a phd what to wear. the assumption is that somebody with a phd knows what to wear without having an hr manager on their ass about it.

the guy knew he was going to be on tv. it's the kind of bad judgement that it's just assumed is never going to be an issue.

tacky is one thing, but it's clear what the problem is and i'm not going to go over the 101 course notes on the topic. nobody would have said anything if the shirt had palm trees on it. but, things have changed over the last few generations and a shirt like that just isn't acceptable in a professional culture anymore.

publishing 9:46 outside of the magenta box (inri055)

inri036 is now complete.

there's two new instrumental mixes here, and three vocal mixes from 2002. overall, it's sort of a psychedelic folk release, which is a bit of an anomaly for me. it was never done, never felt right. until now...

i'm quite happy with the two instrumental mixes here, so do check them out.

--

my memory is a little fuzzy with this track, other than that it was constructed all at once in the middle of the night on a cold february morning in a basement that wasn't well heated.

i believe that sean initially brought in the a capella vocal that is heard in the acoustic demo under the request that it be developed in a folky style, and the track was built from there. we seem to have done the live version the next week, meaning i must have written it over the week.

there was some hard drive corruption as the demo was being recorded. i was in a glitchy mindset at the time and decided the skips ought to be interpreted musically. i'm not sure i'd make the same choice now, but i'm not willing to second guess myself, either. so, i skittered up the bass and organ parts to make the entire track sound glitchy to compensate for the skips. i also ran the vocal file through a musical algorithm that involved slowing it down and pasting it over itself to create a collage of voices somewhat similar to a robotic choir. as the track is otherwise rather pastoral, all of this glitch provides for an unusual juxtaposition.

as mentioned, the track was built up quickly, but it was always meant as a demo. that is to say that the vocal-driven 2002 version of the track was not complete, and was never completed.

i came around to completing it as an instrumental work in mid october, 2014. the removal of sean's vocals required some mild rethinks in terms of melodic content, but the real additions are threefold. first, it is substantially remixed to make it sound thicker. second, some sound design or soundscaping was constructed, mostly for the beginning of the track, but some guitar parts were also added throughout. third, drums were added. this converts the track out of folk (a genre i spend almost no time in) and back into psychedelic pop (my usual home) with hints of fusion, prog and idm. as it is, this can be viewed as the definitive (if non-comprehensive) third incarnation of rabit is wolf, which was being torn between freak folk and folk punk tendencies in it's general tumbling towards "folk".

written in early 2002 and recorded in early 2002 and late 2014. the final fuck boxes mixes were finished on nov 15, 2014. as always, please use headphones.

credits:
j - guitars, effects, bass, electric air reed organ, electronic drum kit, voice (1, 5), sampling, sound design, vocal manipulations, digital wave editing, production

sean - vocals/lyrics (2,3,4)

released february 20, 2002

https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/9-46-outside-the-magenta-box

fuck boxes (overdub mix) and fuck boxes (final mix)

1) this mix removes the acoustic guitar(s) and integrates an electric guitar line into the end of the piece. it gives the track a very different, almost dubby, kind of glitch-hop sort of feel. written in early 2002 and recorded in early 2002 and late 2014. this mix was finished on nov 15, 2014.

http://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/fuck-boxes-overdub-mix


2) this is the final instrumental mix of the track, encapsulating all instrumental parts written and recorded for the piece except for a guitar line that is unique to the overdub mix. written in early 2002 and recorded in early 2002 and late 2014. final mix completed on nov 15, 2014.

http://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/fuck-boxes


3) the final mix is also on the j^2 record.

http://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/fuck-boxes-2

uploading already completed tracks to inri056

1) this is the rabit is wolf version. written & recorded in late 2001 and early 2002 and mixed in early 2002. track released march 2, 2002.

http://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/time-2


2) this is the rabit is wolf version. written & recorded in early 2002. track released march 8, 2002.

http://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/psi-2


3) this is included for thematic purposes, and otherwise has nothing to do with rabit is wolf. written in early 2001. drastically rearranged in june, 2014. further constructed, warped and appended to over july, 2014. track released july 19, 2014.

http://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/the-time-machine-4


three of what is currently four tracks slated for inri037. there's nothing new here, but this timeline will eventually be moved to my own site, so i'm documenting dates.

tentative writeup:

time remixes. inri037.

time & psi were partially a rejection of the folk idea in favour of glossy, somewhat experimental pop. i realized that it was reasonable to move in a more commercial direction, but folk wasn't something i understood well, so it was a weird direction for me to be moving in. experimental or psychedelic pop, on the other hand, was something i had a solid grasp on...

time had been initially recorded in the fall and was remixed in late february to integrate a drum part. no original files exist. psi was recorded quickly in early march.

the track, as it existed in rabit, was a conscious pop compromise. i had ideas that weren't explored to keep it poppy and that will be explored in the remix.

the time machine is added here as a bonus track. it's based on an earlier classical guitar composition that was always meant to be reinterpreted as an idm tune and finally was in early 2014. the thematic overlap makes it relevant, but there is otherwise no connection between the two songs.

i started working on what would become my fourth symphony very shortly after the material on this ep was completed, and it really represents the point where i lost interest in rabit as a concept, under pressure to continue moving in a direction i didn't have any interest in. there are folk and psych versions of the track; sean never caught on to the psych version, and i never had my heart in the folk version. there were final folk demos recorded as late as the fall, but the disconnect was not solvable. the vocal version of the fourth symphony is in some way a corollary of but is ultimately too separate from these files to include here. psi & time, together, consequently comprise what is the fourth and final ("psychedelic pop") phase of rabit.

written in late 2001 and 2002 and recorded in early 2002 and late 2014. the final mix was finished on nov , 2014. as always, please use headphones.

https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/time

i knew what i was walking into, but i'm still constantly amazed by what i'm seeing.

i actually wouldn't want to travel to this place on foot. i need to get a bicycle...it's clear....top priority in the spring...

it's amazing how much of detroit has this "old country road" feel, given that it's a substantial metropolitan center. areas in the center of the city look and feel like isolated, trapped-in-time towns in central ontario.

i haven't spent enough time yet to know if i'm walking into a village mentality.

i'm actually a big city person. i like the egalitarianism that comes with anonymity.

"The team argues that adopting a "moralizing religion" may be a mechanism to help cope with environments where there is little access to food and water."

this is completely backwards. nomadic societies have tended to adopt the opposite of "moralizing religions", precisely because the environment they live in does not allow for egalitarian social constructs. this is the root of the actual problem that we face in a hierarchical society.

moralizing religion, rather, is a product of settled societies that needed to find ways to distribute agriculture.

hence, you had the messianic religions in the settled areas of the middle east and what is essentially the nihilist concept of a "master morality" in the nomadic areas.

the error here is orthogenesis. the researcher wants humans to create fair societies to deal with limited resources. in fact, the evidence is clear that when we have limited resources we abandon morality and revert to might makes right.

what happened afterwards is an evolutionary mismatch that we've yet to work our way out of. communism is basically the way out of it. we've got these hierarchical systems that were created as an adaptation for nomadism enforced into settled societies - not because we adapted to the best solution possible but because, in evolution, shit happens the wrong way more often than not. it's going to drive us to extinction if we don't work it out, because we're *not* doing this right.

what's really frustrating with these idiots is that they'll openly argue that the evidence ought to be altered to fit a social narrative. which is religious thinking.

they don't see any kind of a problem with beginning with a desired social outcome, and then compiling evidence that "proves it".

they're often so blinded by their goals that they fail to see how easily deconstructed their propaganda is. you're not going to get anywhere when your nonsense is this transparent.

the idea that there's a "secular church" is absolutely accurate. it's an idea you often hear thrown around by theists. it's something they're right about, and careful thinking atheists need to be wary of it.

if we find ourselves up against difficult climate realities in the near future, we're going to see our concept of morals move out of a slave morality and into a master morality, because that's how humans react to dwindling resources...

https://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/study-climate-may-influence-religious-beliefs/39927

in fact, we're already bombing the world for it's oil.

it's not what people want to believe, but what people want to believe is irrelevant in the face of the data.

the point is this: if you have a limited amount of water it is NOT rational to share it, so that everybody is thirsty. it is rational to cull the herd - to kill the weak.

animals do this all the time.

humans are animals.

therefore....

sharing only makes sense when there's enough to go around.

again, the evidence is pretty clear on this.

people don't want to hear this, but that's too bad.

the idea i'm getting from this is that there are people that want to use religion as a way to lock us down to adjust to upcoming resource issues.

it's not going to work. it's just going to create a set of easy targets.

we're going to have to fight it out. people will die. that's how shit works.

excerpt from catch-22

"You mean there's a catch?"

"Sure there's a catch", Doc Daneeka replied. "Catch-22. Anyone who wants to get out of combat duty isn't really crazy."

There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's own safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane, he had to fly them. If he flew them, he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to, he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.

a little reminder that winter in canada starts in november...

apparently, this dip in the gulf stream is easily explained by a giant hurricane barreling through the bering strait. but that's actually the same mechanism i posted a few months back about the sun, just from a different angle.

the sun has come back a little. it might not be so bad. but there's a time lag involved, too.

but you have to understand that it's a really, really big hurricane and this shouldn't be taken as indicative of the weather for the rest of the winter.

it's reasonable to ask questions about factors producing such a strong hurricane. but it's not the same phenomenon that was responsible for the cold weather last year.

(well, it is the same mechanism, but not the same phenomenon)

again, this is the key graph. it's an exceedingly weak sunspot cycle. this doesn't disprove anthropogenic climate change (i'd argue both of these things are happening, and they're currently offsetting each other in the northern hemisphere), and i'm not arguing it's as simple as less sunspots equals lower temperatures, but the reality is there's research going back decades that ties these dips in the jetstream (*specifically*) to the oscillations in sun activity. it's actually well established. the media is ignoring this, and it's probably largely because nobody wants to go anywhere near the idea of presenting the sun as a cause of weather because they're afraid they'll be called quacks and "deniers". but, you don't need to argue against the greenhouse effect to understand that the sun is the dominant cause of weather on this planet. it's been set up as a binary choice, but it's a totally false binary.

there's no contradiction in suggesting that the hurricane strength may be caused by global warming, and arguing that the dips in the jet stream we've been seeing recently are caused by weak solar activity. effects can come from multiple causes.

the key plank in the argument is that this isn't a little bit of a weak cycle. it's not down a little, it's down a whole lot. it's one of the lowest we have on record.

i'm hoping the peak may help. but it's the peak. the truth is we could be in for some cold winters for a while.

i mean, insulating your house will help to keep the heat in.

but if you turn the heat down, the insulation is going to have less heat to trap.

it's kind of a worst case scenario, because it's not actually reversing any of the problems. it's just making it cold in the heart of the empire, and warping people's perceptions.

but, i mean, what's actually going on? are these jet stream dips due to melting ice? i think the science actually leans towards the sun, this time.

age aside, i don't understand what the target demographic for this is in the first place. i was a pretty messed up teenager, but i would have had no use for this, not even as a joke.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POCngEpkOLI

it might seem like she's moving backwards with this, but she's actually right. it's true that spotify is broadly what people want, and it's true that digital music is with us until at least the oil crash. but, people are expecting a free lunch.

the basic problem is that the price is a fraction of what it needs to be to compensate the artists. with the price that spotify pays out, you'd have to listen to a record every day for a year to get a dollar to the label on it, which is going to  be less than that to the artist.

the idea of access to a giant database of music is a good one, but in order for the revenue stream to get to where it needs to be some combination of the following things are necessary:

1) you need to cut the labels out. spotify is now the label. it's releasing, hosting and distributing. as it is, what spotify is doing is both decreasing the price and adding another middleman. that's economically impossible. in order for it to be sustainable, it needs to replace the existing middleman and work directly with artists.

2) there needs to be different pricing options, connected to how much is actually being listened to. $120/year is simply not enough. $120/month is more like it. plenty of people pay something close to that for cable. there's just as much content being delivered, and many more people that need to get paid. cable-like pricing options are required for this service to succeed.

3) one of the pricing options should be per-stream pricing, and at rate close to $0.10/stream. if you do the math, you'll see the dramatic disconnect between what it needs to be and what it is now.

there's a lot of rhetoric about how artists need to conform or get out, but that's not the way it's going to be. spotify needs content to work. if it doesn't increase it's price, artists are going to slowly start leaving. taylor's high profile and everything but she's not the first one out - and i'd expect people will follow her out. it may take another quarter or two, but this free lunch just isn't sustainable, and it's not going to happen.

the part of the catalogue that is safe is the old stuff that the labels own outright. the boomers don't have much time left, so this is about to explode - floyd, beatles, zeppelin, etc. jazz. classical. elvis. etc.

unless a tactic is developed for consumers to pay more into it, this is the future of spotify - an archive of recordings by dead people.

as it is, they basically did everything wrong. if this model does pick up, and it will if it's done right, it's almost certainly going to be through a different service.

after looking into it a bit more, i'd put my money on google driving spotify to bankruptcy.....

like most advanced mammals, lions need to be taught in order to know how to do things. that doesn't mean it's a good idea to have a pet lion - you're too easy of a meal if you're standing there naively patting it's head, with your gut pressed up against it's face. there's no skill required in munching you. but, young lions that are not taught to hunt will not know how to hunt until they are taught or they figure it out through trial and error.

taking an elephant down, in particular, is something that requires a lot of teamwork. that means it requires a lot of practice, which means it requires a lot of training. it's a task for seasoned, professional lions only.

that's a lot of lions in one place, and it's a little curious as to how they all got there. but it looks to me like the lions are also quite young - a year old, maybe two.

that's the explanation of what you're seeing - it's baby lions v baby elephant.

i'm glad you got the last one on film.

that's the variable that a lot of these "social experiments" completely miss.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yvq6pH5Rheg

deathtokoalas
you know, i don't want to listen to religious music any more than i want to listen to schmaltzy fake-soul quintets do pop covers, but the idea that your opinion on the band's religious views is in any way meaningful is exactly the reason religion won't die. the more you hack it down like this, the stronger it comes back. you really need to adopt an avoidance strategy, and learn to just ignore it.

besides. a couple of dorks singing lame songs in a cave is hardly the dark side of christianity.

PhourQ
lol @ your emotional fear of theism. Face it, religion will never die and thank God for that...since it is our human experience to apprehend that God exists...no matter how much it scares you to believe it.

deathtokoalas
i sure hope that religion has a best before date, but i don't deny that i have an immense fear of what religion is capable of.

that's a circular argument, by the way. you're stating that god must exist because god created us to have a "human experience" to apprehend it. most atheists would toss your whole conception of "human experience" in the trash heap.

i don't think there's any reason we exist at all, except to carry the dna to the next level. i get that it's maybe a bit overwhelming to get your head around it, but i think it's a pre-requisite to building a truly free society.

it's a catch-22. religion is incompatible with freedom, and it consequently must be abolished on the cultural level in order to attain a free society. but, forcing people to drop it creates a backlash which merely stunts the process. don't get me wrong - i'd be in favour of rounding up all the theists and sending them on a one way trip to jupiter if i thought it would work. but, i know it just pushes it underground, where it forms the basis of the next inevitable revolt against state tyranny. it places a flavour on the revolutionary character that is difficult to transcend.

people have to figure this out on their own. a little bit of ridiculing is maybe a step in the right direction, but it needs to be done carefully. censorship or persecution is just out of the question - it's simply counterproductive.

PhourQ
I wasn't trying to argue for the existence of God in saying it is part of our human experience. I am making that statement with God's existence as a given. I am not concerned about atheists tossing my arguments anywhere. My beliefs will never be swayed by what someone else thinks of them. The fact that theists find meaning in life makes atheists uncomfortable, but atheists provide no rational basis for theists to chuck their beliefs. The problems atheists associate with religion completely disregard the fact that those problems arise when the theist is not in accord with his own beliefs...the problems voiced are rarely the teachings of religion themselves. Furthermore, to suggest that religion is incompatible with freedom may be your opinion, but again, disregards the freedom that the religion teaches itself. Mankind naturally will seek to control and destroy regardless...some corrupt theism to accomplish this, others use atheism. Completely removing beliefs in religious ethics or morals in exchange for varied and subjective morality will have obvious results. 

deathtokoalas
right. so obviously that statement about "human experience" isn't going to mean anything to me, then. you'd might as well have been speaking to the wall. it's about as useful to me as a discussion about pink unicorns. which is kind of a refutation, but why bother...

the idea that atheists ought to be convincing theists to modify their beliefs is again a circular presentation. atheism argues that we need to look at the world in terms of evidence-based reasoning. it wouldn't argue in favour or against any specific belief, so much as it would demand that evidence is gathered to argue in favour of the belief. it's nothing more complicated than backing up your argument, which is something we teach kids to do in grade school - and place a great emphasis on. for example, i have a belief that extra-terrestrials exist in the universe, and the bible is evidence of their contact with us in the past.  that's an evidence-based argument that is consistent with atheism, but it is still a belief. what we get upset about is not over the fact that you believe things but that you use faith-based reasoning to back it up. we then get frustrated over your refusal to accept the superiority of evidence-based reasoning over....magic, basically. let's be sure that this much is clear.

atheists tend to use the same process to deduce morality that the christian fathers did, which is rational discovery. atheism is not the elimination of morals, it is the elimination of magic. now, that necessarily eliminates any kind of authoritarian basis underlying legal systems, but that's the point. "infringing the rights of others is to be discouraged" is a much better statement than "thou shalt not kill" - an improvement, an advance, a step forwards - for the precise reason that it provides for more subtlety in analysis, and stops people from enforcing the rules with a blunt stick. few atheists are going to argue with the general content of religious morality (the few points of contention are largely going to be in the heteropatriarchal nature of the religious systems, but that these exist in religion is reflective of society's influence on religion, rather than the other way around); the point is more that it oversimplifies complex issues, often leading to undesirable outcomes. if the religious texts were thousands of pages long and full of carefully analyzed case notes, there'd be less contention. but, then nobody would read it. it's a tragic flaw in the outcome.

which is where the issues of freedom exist. a group of people that believe a book tells them what is right and wrong and belong to a culture that requires the enforcement of it's contents to reach immortality is....it's insane. whatever the cause, whatever social ill, it's organized madness. and, a free society simply cannot exist in these conditions of coercion and self-righteousness. the proselytism that enforces this self-righteousness into hierarchies and tyrannies is worked into the bulk of the major religions. the idea of free will may be inherent to most religions, but this idea that religion mostly preaches tolerance is absolutely false. every religion seeks to convert the entire world to it's path. this is simply not compatible with a free society.

he's clearly an actor...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeykDZnZa3M

this is an interesting discussion.

i think this makes a valid and accurate point. i've been trying to find a way to articulate myself with this and have been largely unsuccessful and consequently haven't. part of the reason might be that the simplicity of the pop form is not able to provide for the subtlety that is required in the discussion. it's one thing to talk of it setting off a discussion rather than getting a concrete message across, but i feel that the song is maybe so blurry in it's messaging that it's not able to even specify what the starting point is. so it's not easy to produce a defined reaction when it's not clear what it is that ought to be reacted to.

i think this is the crux of it: before you get into analyzing or criticizing the original video or the response to it, you have to understand that fat v. skinny is a false binary. it's one thing to point out that there's a lot of unrealistic messaging and it's a cause in continuing the problem of eating disorders (which are substantial). it's another to point out that "body positivity" is just as often used as an excuse for unhealthy people to stay unhealthy, promoting the continuing obesity epidemic (which is statistically a far greater public health issue). putting pressure on overweight people to be more healthy is not the same thing as enforcing an unrealistic beauty standard.

so, is the song a criticism of the enforcement of beauty norms (which would be a good thing), is it a "fat anthem" (which would be a bad thing) or is it in truth too simplistic and vague to be specific and is consequently being interpreted as both, creating confusion as to how to respond to it?

sometimes, when things are complicated it's because they're vague rather than because they're specific.

personally? i get more of a "fat anthem" feel out of it, and i'm not really comfortable with upholding that as a "positive message".

listen: i wouldn't put it past the advertising executives that work for monster to try to tap into this. some of this may really not be a coincidence; satan's been the hippest shit out there for well over two generations, now.

with dogs in the wild, it's probably as simple as not wasting protein.

for domestic dogs? that's probably the only real meal it'll ever have.

ever.

publishing rabit is wolf (inri057)

this is inri038. which is done. inri036 needs another week. inri037 needs some analysis before i make predictions about...time.

there's no new recordings here. it's not even remixed, it's just finally sequenced correctly.

--

this is the sum total of the completed rabit is wolf studio experiments, which wound through a number of paths on their way to the project's eventual collapse. while there would be further acoustic demos recorded with sean, i ultimately decided to abandon their folky underpinnings and finish all further tracks as electronic, instrumental recordings. there was some thought of completing an acoustic tour demo at the time; it will appear shortly as inri040 and contain those final demos.

the recording was initially sequenced as a demo in mid may, 2002 but i foolishly deleted the files (i was running low on hard drive space) only to find out that the burn was corrupt and that the result was skipping. i did eventually recompile an ep of material, but it was in a different order and made no attempt to mix the tracks together. in reconstructing the demo, i've decided to recreate the original sequencing. the only difference between this collection and the initial collection is that the last track now includes sean's vocals, whereas it was initially an (eventually rendered incomplete) instrumental recording.

i need to be clear that the decision in sequencing the material this way is unilateral on my behalf. during this period, sean had made it clear that he was not satisfied with the more experimental and electronic tendencies underlying some of the tracks; specifically, he wasn't happy with the first or last tracks on this disc, as he felt they did not represent his vision for the project. on the other hand, i was less interested in purely acoustic music and more interested in electronic music. i was envisioning the project as having a split personality between an acoustic live presentation and an electronic studio presentation. sean argued this would be disorienting; it's less that i disagreed with him and more that i thought that was a good idea. this divergence in vision is one of the factors leading to the project's dissolution.

while i feel this recording stands up on it's own, i've also taken the time over the second half of 2014 to reclaim some of the tracks as my own instrumental works. only tracks two and four exist uniquely as rabit is wolf collaborations; the other four tracks have been resequenced as completed instrumentals in my main recording sequence. please open the track pages for more information.

written and recorded in late 2001 and early 2002. resequenced to mimic the original sequencing on november 8, 2014. except to sequence the record, these files have not been altered since 2002. as always, please use headphones.

credits:
j - guitars (electric, acoustic, classical), effects, bass, synthesizers, digital piano, electric air reed organ, flute, drum programming, drum manipulations, vocal manipulations, loops, sequencing, sampling, digital wave editing, production, cover art.
sean - vocals, lyrics, harmonica (1), ring modulator (6).

greg - drum performance sample source (5,6)
jon - guitar performance (2)

released june 20, 2002

https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/rabit-is-wolf

ok, i'm coming to terms with the fact that i'm probably not hearing back from the psychiatrist and i'm going to have to wait until the 12th to get somebody to fill out the forms.

i'm expecting that the forms will not be filled out. if so, i will immediately attempt suicide in the doctor's office. so, you can pencil in the first suicide attempt for jan 12, 2015. i expect that this attempt will be stopped, but it seems as though i'm going to have to actually go through with it.

i'm also going to have to sit down over the weekend and explore artist grant options. it's not what i want. what i want is long term odsp. but if i get the grants, and it lets me live an extra year or two to get the work i want done done, then it's a better option for future generations. so i'm obligated to do this.

i mean, if the point of this is to save money, they may want to recalculate that because it's going to cost money and resources to pump my stomach and put me through all this processing. if somebody ends up dying in the meantime, i'd argue the doctors should be held liable for it. there's no reason to play out this pointless drama.

but, you know. world. stage. actors. yeah.

i just wish people had more foresight and were able to make decisions more rationally.

i mean, i don't want to spend the weekend in the hospital any more than the system wants to expend the resources on me for it....if i can find even one doctor willing to dislodge head from ass and get a grip on the reality of the situation, i won't have to.

i'm not expecting this.

so, you can pencil in an acetaminophen overdose on jan 12th at the windsor branch of the canadian association of mental health.

i wouldn't expect obama to get in the way of a republican-controlled congress. rather, i'd expect it will mostly break the gridlock. it's what obama's really wanted the whole time.

he can't introduce the kind of legislation he wants because it'll expose him for who he is, and the republicans are so intent on their absurd framing that they'd have voted it down anyways.

but by simply refusing to veto the onslaught of right-wing legislation that is coming, under arguments about not abusing power (while he's drone striking people), obama can get what he wants done without the problems with the optics from either side.

it's going to open a coalition between the white house and the republican congress against the hopeless congressional opposition.

so, finally, here comes your hope and change....

....but i think you're going to be a bit disappointed by it.

hrmmmmn.

maybe harper's not so bad, after all. maybe i should give him another chance...

google+ really needs to have a way to disable tagging. i'd do it if i could, if the option existed...

ethical oil is a front group for the canadian oil industry, who came to power here by railing against our decision to legalize gay marriage. yes - canada legalized gay marriage roughly ten years ago, and it was the right choice, but it also cost the sitting government it's hold on power. if you give them your oil money, they will continue their anti-gay agenda. this is politicking of such a level of cynicism that it's hard to believe it's even possible.

it's like david duke doing an anti-racism infomercial.

the manufacturer isn't guilty of any sort of negligence here. it's understood that there is some risk. the guardians accept the risk when they make the vaccination choice. suing the vaccine company for this would be like suing the peanut butter manufacturer for setting off an unknown allergy. it's a freak accident. in legal terms, an "act of god". hey, nobody ever said god wasn't an asshole...

personally? i think the flu vaccine is a little overkill. they're useful for older people and very young people, but healthy people between five and 60 don't really need it - we can produce our own antibodies. i agree that the idea of vaccinating everybody yearly is being driven more by the economics underlying it than by public health concerns. more serious vaccinations? well, yeah, the risk is worth the benefits and we should all keep up.... 

deathtokoalas
this is beyond fucking creepy. turn the fucking camera off and enjoy the meal.

you guys are in a three-way relationship with your video camera.

i've been accused of being in love with my guitar, so i sort of get it. it's weird to be jealous of inanimate objects, but they get in the way. personally? i really do love my guitar more. it's taken me a long time to understand that.

the only thing that's really important to keep in mind about making choices is to be honest with yourself when you're making them. really honest.

honestly. he's sitting in a restaurant enjoying a meal with his girlfriend, and he pulls out a camera and motions for the world to eat with them. this is too ridiculous to be believable. it's the behaviour of a character in a jim carrey film.

there may be some kind of ocd or something setting in, granted, but in the end choosing between your partner and yourself is not always an obvious choice. sometimes, the right choice is yourself.

Jake
Or maybe 'Vlogging' is their job and how they make money, so they try to include as much of what they do as possible so it makes an interesting video for people to watch.

Nah that must be too much of a simple answer as to why they do it, huh? It's got to be an illness and he has to be choosing it over here (Even though they both film things). Yup that sounds right... Not.

deathtokoalas
it's pretty obvious from her body language that she's finding it invasive, and feeling like she's competing with the vlog for attention.

i mean, you could ask her, if she's willing to be that forthright in public, which she probably isn't - and then you'd know, rather than needing to read into it. but sometimes that kind of formality is kind of just that.

i pointed out the dinner section as something that's legitimately whacked. but watch when he takes a u-turn down the alley to talk to the camera. that's an "i thought we were walking" look.

if you take a step back from the "they vlog for a living" thing, like, realize that work getting in the way is a pretty common point of relationship failure, and it's usually something you have to accept rather than something that can be "fixed".

Jake 
But you're just guessing on all of this and you can't be sure as you're just seeing things that you think she 'means' with her body language. It's their job to film themselves, they choose to do it, she chooses to do it. If she isn't feeling it then she shouldn't keep doing it.. But when the cheques come in I bet she doesn't mind how 'invasive' it is.

deathtokoalas
well, sure, i'm guessing. that's kind of obvious. but what i'm getting across is that the tensions appear to be stemming from whether she wants to keep doing this or not. it's not such an easy choice to just walk off, either.

Jake 
Well no it is a pretty easy choice. She was a nurse before this (I believe, not too sure) so she won't have huge trouble getting another job. But if she isn't happy then she needs to walk away and if not, put in place things where they won't film in certain places. Otherwise she needs to get over it and if the relationship problem is to do with the camera, then it's down to them to decide to take a break or stop to keep the relationship healthy.

deathtokoalas
that is indeed the process that appears to be playing itself out. but what i meant was that walking away from a partner of many years is not reducible to an economic decision the way you're suggesting that it is.

Jake
I wasn't talking about walking away from her partner. I was talking about stopping Vlogging if it's getting in the way. And she can stop him vlogging at dinner by telling him that isn't something she wants. She also does vlogs of her own when they're apart and with friends, so it can't be in the way that much either.

deathtokoalas 
it sounds quite simple in the abstract, doesn't it? i do hope they work out what each of them want.

Jake
Could easily be put into place... But she's not asking for it as she doesn't want it or she wouldn't vlog when she's away from him. Simple.

deathtokoalas
i don't think your logic here is very sound. that's kind of like saying that if you really want family dinners then you won't eat lunch at work.

Jake
How is it like that? If she enjoys vlogging then she enjoys it. If she sometimes wants dinners without it then she needs to tell him and sort it out. Either way, it's her problem and lack of communication from HER that's causing it, not his fault.

deathtokoalas 
i'm not really trying to assign fault. it's not something where somebody has done something "wrong" and should be "blamed" for it.

but, communicating these sorts of things isn't always easy. sometimes people don't react well. and sometimes that's predictable.

Jake
'honestly. he's sitting in a restaurant enjoying a meal with his girlfriend, and he pulls out a camera and motions for the world to eat with them. this is too ridiculous to be believable. it's the behaviour of a character in a jim carrey film' A quote from your earlier reply to somebody. So you are assigning blame, to him. Like I said though, that's her lack of being able to communicate, if she can't speak to her bf and tell him something they shouldn't be together really if they can't talk.

deathtokoalas 
no, i'm not assigning any kind of blame. if that's who he is, it's up to her to accept it or move on. i think it would be invasive to try and change who he is for her benefit.

but, most women would find that exceedingly unattractive.

i'm not sure if it crossed anybody's mind that there may be religious or otherwise cultural reasons underlying her hesitancy to dance on camera.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzc3Ndk5x8w

deathtokoalas
i still use xp...

the only blue screens i've ever seen have been due to buggy drivers or broken hardware. it's the actual truth of it. apple's more integrated approach is maybe better in terms of minimizing points of failure, whereas linux driver support remains largely hopeless. but, you have to consider a trade-off in price and customization. the key thing is this, though: if you get compatible hardware from respectable vendors, the bluescreens really don't happen. when they do, it's because the hardware manufacturers didn't create drivers that work properly in the system, and you can't really blame microsoft for it. you just have to do that research.

Schwarzer
XP of gaming, Linux for working.

deathtokoalas 
it depends on your job, though. if you're working in science, that makes sense. if you're working in art, serious software and hardware support for linux is going to require a change in the economic system we live in. and, of course, windows remains the dominant operating system in networked work environments. i've stuck with windows because i don't have linux driver support for my audio hardware (which is my "job"). i could switch to a mac, but i'm not keen to pay 30-50% more for the privilege of losing control over the customization of the machine.

i acknowledge that linux is in some ways a superior system. but, in terms of day-to-day functionality, it's just not there - and will likely never be so long as we organize our technology sector in terms of corporations.

i've stuck with xp because i have a minimal winlite image connected to dozens of scripts. upgrading to seven would cost me several months of rebuilding the image and rewriting the scripts, and i'm not convinced a lot of it is even really possible. this is the same problem businesses are dealing with, but i don't have the resources of a business to deal with it. on top of that, i don't think i'd really gain anything besides higher ram usage. i mean, my final xp sp3 image is only about 100 mb. it's very fast, because i've completely ripped 85% of the os out. and, it's very safe because i've removed essentially all of the networking functionality - including most of the code libraries.

it's mostly stopped, now. i think the companies have reacted to the outcry, or moved to more sophisticated tracking methods (social media). but something that i'd see happen around 2010 was that i'd download software from a respected company (adobe, say) and then get error messages when the spyware kicked in. what was happening was that the spyware was going looking for dialer software in windows, and erroring out when it couldn't find the c libraries. that would tell me where the executable was and what i needed to remove - or if i needed to uninstall the entire program.

xp was created to exist in a safe, corporate networking environment behind a hardware firewall. it's very open and trusting, but it's by design because you're only supposed to be talking to other computers in close proximity that you have serious one-on-one trust with; security is supposed to be dealt with on the way in and out of the network. this is of course inherently meant for "work" use. it's not a home operating system, and trying to use it as one is never going to be safe - unless you set up behind a hardware firewall, recreating the same conditions.

what that means is that the best way to make xp safer is to take all that inherently trusting networking software right out of it.

kanekan
what people forget is that windows (at least started) is a software company and apple is a hardware company but people blame windows for a hardware problem anyway which is stupid but many also buy an apple computer and put windows on it

Schwarzer
That sounds really stupid. Apples and PCs are build from the same parts.

deathtokoalas 
most people don't really have the kind of modular understanding of a computer as a collection of parts that defined the early days of the industry, they take it as a single thing - like a car or a phone. this idea that they're dealing with something complicated that needs to work together is sort of beyond them. when the os crashes, they blame the os.

apple computers were really something entirely different until relatively recently. i think they moved to the x86 architecture around 2005. up until that point, they were really very different computers.

regardless, apple still produces it's products as single entities, which means everything is tested over the same hardware, drivers are built for specific purposes, etc. so, this idea of complicated things working together is very much minimized.

microsoft just doesn't deal with this. it throws the operating system down and tells the hardware companies to figure it out on their own - with varying results. i think they introduced a driver testing process around vista, but it's still a step down in terms of rigorous testing.

when you keep that in mind, you would have to expect that apples are going to be more stable with the hardware they ship with. and, this is generally true.

the trade-off is a loss of flexibility. if i want to swap the hard drives out on my pc, i'll do it myself and not expect the stability to move up or down. but if i want to break the warranty in swapping a mac's drive out (if it isn't soldered in), i have no assurances that i'm not going to destabilize the system.

i do agree that i couldn't see any reason to pay 40% more for an apple logo and then put windows on it, given that apples are mostly made in the dell factory nowadays. i experimented with hacking os x for a while around 2007, though. in the end, the software flexibility i thought i could get out of it never really materialized and i just formatted it...

Blue Dragon
In the last 2 years since I use Linux as my main desktop system,I haven't met a device without Linux drivers and I have had 1 kernel panic.

deathtokoalas
you must not be doing anything interesting with it, then.

don't get me wrong: if you work in science, linux is the way to go. and if you just want to browse the internet and other normal "computer stuff", it's as good as the next operating system.

but if you're using virtually any kind of specialized hardware, you're more or less at the whim of the company that's making it. and, if they don't feel like it's a worthwhile investment, you're probably shit out of luck.

well, unless you can write them yourself.

(deleted response)

deathtokoalas
well, xp comes in 64-bit flavours....

...but, to be honest with you, i'm more concerned about running 16-bit software than running 64-bit software. and i'm not concerned about support or security for the reasons i outlined. it's a recording pc - it needs to launch a version of cubase from 2005, host vst plugins and connect to a few hardware consoles (neither of which have stable 64 bit drivers). now, i admit i've recently run into a few circumstances where i wish i could upgrade my ram past 3 gb. but it hasn't reached the breaking point and probably won't for at least a few more years.


i think the reality is that computing hit a kind of functional flatline around 2005 or so, where increasing specs don't really make any difference unless you're into really high end gaming or something.

i'm simply not going to gain anything of value by upgrading windows, increasing my processor speed or moving to 64 bit. i'm just going to lose an image i spent a lot of time with. what's going to finally break me is when i can't launch a sampler because it has minimum requirements of 8 gb of ram.

(deleted response)

deathtokoalas
that's what i'm saying - i will probably stick with xp until i feel i need more ram. and that's probably years into the future. even so, i'll probably end up dual booting into 32-bit xp due to the hardware. i mean, even if i end up upgrading the hardware one day i'm not going to discard the old devices...

i built this thing myself in 2007; i dropped quite a bit of cash into it, because i expected it to last at least ten years. it's a 64-bit chip and the board can take 8 gb, but, like i say,  there's no 64-bit drivers and i like my image. people actually laughed at me. "you'll upgrade in two years.". but i haven't. and all i've lost in that period is one of the four hard drives.

like i say: it's going to be the ram, eventually. and it could be another ten years...

and...i'll still be running xp, even if i upgrade the music pc, because i've got it running on my old pc that just sends a youtube signal to my tv, which is from the 90s (those quantum fireballs don't die. there's a 20 gb hard drive in it. it still spins. it belongs in a museum.) and can't run anything newer than xp. if that drive goes one day, i have every intention to hit a pawn shop and find another one just so i can put xp back on it...

deathtokoalas
you're telling me there's zero soy in your meat products?

if so, then why not? sounds like a smart way to reduce costs to me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJoMzhStPNk

McDonald's
Hey. Farmers feed livestock grains like corn & soybeans, and over 90% of the U.S. corn and soybean crops are GMO.

deathtokoalas
yeah. and i'm not really opposed to gmo crops in principle. i understand that roundup is a less toxic approach than the other economically viable options, and i don't see any chemical reason why our bodies would react differently to meat that is raised with gmos vs meat that is not. the cow is not going to digest the corn differently, and we're not going to digest the cow differently. neither the cow's stomach chemistry nor our own is sophisticated enough to differentiate between one strand of dna or another. it's all broken down to it's building blocks the same way.

but, that's not really my question. there are a lot of economic, environmental and even health reasons why filling your burgers with 30-50% soy would be a step forwards. why don't you do this? if i were you, i sure would...

it's not like your customer base really cares.

(deleted response)

deathtokoalas
you really think the average mcdonalds consumer honestly cares if there's soy in the burgers?

(deleted response)

deathtokoalas
but, are the people that post all this stuff actually mcdonalds customers? and, i mean, they're the same people that don't vaccinate their kids because they think it's a government plot to make us compliant. they're crazy people.

i'd think the average mcdonald's consumer would be more like "meh. this pink slime tastes pretty good. ", and isn't going to react much differently to news of soy in the burgers.

and, given all the benefits, i think that produces a strong case for switching.

so, i'm considering starting a petition to put soy in mcdonald's burgers. post your support here if you agree with me.

Marty Mac
No, because we live in America, and America loves MEAT. McD's has been marketing 100% beef for a long time and that has helped to make them numero uno on this planet. To do anything different, to satisfy a few vegetarians, would be tantamount to suicide.

deathtokoalas 
again, i don't really think that's true. i think your average mcdonald's customer would eat a moldy sock if it came with special sauce.

Marty Mac
Why do you think that? That may be true of kids because of their Happy Meals and kids just like fun things, but adults? No, I don't eat much at McD's for their hamburgers, but a lot of people do. My wife loves their quarter pounder with cheese and my sister is a McNugget fiend! I know that most people in this country would abandon them in a minute if they weren't using 100% beef in their burgers because we want value for our money and soy is not a good value.

deathtokoalas
the whole argument is that soy is better value than hamburger on virtually any metric.

mcdonalds' success has been largely driven by it's prices and convenience, not the quality or even the nature of it's food. we tend to take the first thing that is available to us, rather than shop around for what we actually want. that is, few of us have any real attachment to this watered down concept of democratic freedom that we've attached to "market choice". we eat what we can, when we can. because we're animals that react on impulse, not gods that behave rationally.

the only way to find out is to try an experiment. but i think the results are obvious...

it's not really that i'm irresponsible.

i mean, i am. i can't really argue.

but it's really more that i avoid responsibility, so i don't have to be irresponsible - partly because i know i'm really not overly irresponsible, when forced to not be.

i mean, have you thought about all the conditioning that goes into this? if people actually desired responsibility, we wouldn't need to drill it into kids as they grow up. it's a type of socially enforced brainwashing, and it's arguably necessary to uphold the status quo.

but, if you don't like the status quo, it's collapse is not frightening to you and these arguments about the breakdown of society sound more like a goal than a disaster.

so, if you acknowledge that people don't really desire responsibilities, is it not rational to avoid them?

now, just wait until you have to take their cocaine away from them.

i'm trying to think how i'd react at that age. it definitely wouldn't be yelling and screaming. i'd probably simply expect it to be replaced. in fact, i'd probably see the positive in getting to pick out the candy i wanted as replacement...

it's a general point, and it applies equally as well to microsoft and google and facebook. but, it's also ignoring the effect of patents in the technology world, which have the ability to block off innovation and may be on the cusp of that breaking point. making a new soda is kind of just using basic high school chemistry. making new technology products at this point is a high finance project of intense r&d. i know that if you look into this you find out that most of the technology was public sector military stuff, but it's getting to the point now where only the oligopolies have the resources to innovate and compete. if they're not driven to, there's not going to be much innovation at all.

i've always felt that apple's products are vastly overrated. even the few things they get legitimate credit for are kind of stretching it. i mean, an ipod is just a walkman. and the iphone wasn't revolutionary in ideas or scope so much as it won the race to get there first. the stuff apple and google are pushing in the consumer market nowadays come off mostly as silly toys. they seem to realize that the real profits are in running those military contracts. that, is they're on the path to becoming  the next generation of lockheed martins and raytheons....

so, the upstairs neighbour bought a new fridge, and he may have had the ice connected incorrectly.

it's a valid hypothesis, let's hope that's all there was to it. if so, i should be happy that it hit the counter rather than fall in behind it.

again, though, it's not confident-inducing regarding water damage in the structure.

after haggling him a bit to check under the sink, i'm pretty sure he found the connection that was leaking and stopped it. he was trying to convince me the window was leaking from the rain...

it hasn't rained in days. he's a little slow. but, hey, i'm used to living in a kafkaesque world, so i can deal with this...

"it could have been the rain from on friday"

"but it just showed up out of nowhere and then stopped."

"maybe it took a few days to seep down."

"ok, maybe. but can you look under the sink for me?"

"ok."

burst pipes...

jessica
hi.

we know the plumbing down here is aging; unfortunately, i think something may have blown deep into the wall.

i left around 11:00, was back around 12:30, left again around 1:00 and was back a little after 3:00. between 1:00 and 3:00 a significant amount of water appeared on the counter. there's none on the floor. the counters and cupboards are dry. the counter on the other side is dry. and the sink is dry. so it was initially very confusing as to where that water came from, to the point that i was worried about an unauthorized entry.

however, as i was cleaning it up, i felt a sprinkle come down on me from behind the cupboard. i need to be clear that this is very weird as a source - the cupboards and counters are completely dry, but something has sprung a leak behind them and is squirting out from a small hole in the wall.

here's the thing: with the flow rate i'm seeing, the amount of water that built up would have taken more like two days than two hours. that indicates to me that something likely burst and the sprinkle is just dead pressure. it also indicates that whatever's flowing through there is going to mess behind the wall when it gets turned on.

there was also a little bit of leaking coming out of the wall and the pipes. this seems to be migrating. in terms of the amount of water, is little more than condensation - not concerning. but in terms of the source it maybe is because it's right across the window.

so, i'm guessing that there's an exploded pipe behind the wall that can't be gotten at it without ripping things out. i can't provide any more information until i see more water. but i suspect it could be a messy situation fairly soon.

i've attached two files.

i know it's weird. i just need to reiterate that the inside of the cupboards are dry and under the sink is also dry. there just seems to have been a burst of water out of that crack...

(pause)

just to let you know...

it IS still dripping. it's not a lot, but it's coming down. i'm willing to accept the misinstalled fridge as a hypothesis, but if it's true than there's either still water in between the floors or it's still not set up right.

i'll keep monitoring.

(pause)

now, the paint or plaster is starting to peel and i'm getting concerned it might take the cupboard down or worse. wherever it's coming from, it's coming down beside the plaster and bubbling out of it.

so, we know:

1) something happened this afternoon which left a large amount of water on the counter.
2) it stopped.
3) something happened around 8:00 which led to it leaking again.
4) now it seems to have slowed down, if it not stopped.

i'm leaning towards an action-reaction relationship, which tells me it's plumbing related. it very well may be the fridge, but, whatever it is, i think the source needs to be determined and turned off...

the landlord
I found the problem, under my sink the connection was lose, it has been  snug up stop dripping, should be ok: stay in touch: Let me know if it stop dripping. It should dry up. Thanks for the info:

jessica
it seems to have stopped for now, hopefully it holds.

gah. the pipes in here are...ugh...

as far as i can tell, something busted when i was out. there was water all over the counter, but no obvious source - except that the space between the cupboard and the wall was wet. the cupboards are dry. it's dry under the sink. so it must be so deep into the wall that there's no answer besides turning it off. what i don't know is if i can turn it off or not.

i tested all the water sources in here and can state with certainty that, whatever the pipe is, it's not connected to my plumbing.

i emailed the landlord(s) and we'll have to see what i get back.

i suspect something upstairs froze and then burst when it unfroze. i wonder if it has to do with the switch to a furnace that happened over the summer, and if it's something i can expect more of this winter.

they've mentioned previously that most of the pipes are plastic, but there's obviously a bunch that aren't right above the counter. the end solution may be to swap them to plastic. but that's going to be expensive and annoying from what i can gather.

the other thing to point out is that moisture behind the walls is terrible news for keeping out bugs, which i feel i've been largely successful with.

it's going to be a piss off if that gives them the damp space they need.

(outside of obvious structural water damage issues, which i feel this place is pretty sketchy with - but i mean you get what you pay for when it comes to that)

there's no pipes anywhere near the gear, that's the most important thing.

this is a property that i'm more or less convinced *will* eventually cave in. the tub will go through the floor or something. it's a matter of time. i just hope i'm able to get what i need to get out of it before it does.

if somebody one day decides to sort out the cause, it's almost certainly going to be a combination of negligence with the pipes and negligence with the structural integrity of the flooring. i'm not thinking about this right now, i just want the pipe issue identified and turned off.

i mean, do i think this place would pass a safety? with much difficulty, and a laundry list of fixes. it's not imminently dangerous, but it's not being upkept, either.

but that's why it's dirt cheap, so i can deal with it...

this is the fourth or fifth time i've seen leakage this year. it always gets dealt with. this will get dealt with. but the sum of this - and all the damage that no doubt occurred before i moved in - adds up. like i say, it's a matter of time...

there's a half dozen places in the ceiling where you can identify the water damage. i initially decided it was probably just cosmetic. i don't think that's true anymore.