untitled (intended original mix)

ok.

i've decided to keep the intro guitar part out of the 2002 mix, because i'm going to soundscape the fuck out of it in ways that i couldn't have really done at the time and it just doesn't sound good in raw form.

so, this mix is done. the rss will update. i'm back at the three vst mixes for tomorrow.

when this comes up, crank the bass on it....

carefully. it's potentially speaker-blowing. but it's made to rock the low end hard.

that was the hard part, this should be quick from this point.

this compiles all the 2002 files into a mix that is as close as i can get it to sounding as i initially imagined it back in 2002. mix completed jan 27, 2015.

http://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/untitled-intended-original-mix

this really isn't that new. it's been clear for a while now that there are far too many named species; there was paleoanthropological literature produced in the 80s and 90s that put forth the idea that all these homo *s are just presenting variation, and they need to be condensed into two or three species rather than a dozen or more. you're fighting against the egos of the researchers. this will eventually come out in the wash.

if neanderthals and sapiens produced viable offspring, and it is clear now that they did, then what that means is that - by definition - they were actually not distinct species. rather, what you're seeing in the difference in the bones is just local variation.

likewise, there wasn't a dozen "archaic" species in africa, but merely a lot of variation. these are going to need to be deleted.

now, the next question is regarding erectus. i don't see any reason to rule out interbreeding, a priori, by analyzing bone fragments. rather, it strikes me as entirely reasonable to project a discovery of erectus genes, should they be possible to really analyze.

once you get to more primitive forms, you lose the ability to differentiate. that is, you can place early sapiens (which probably interbred with ergaster) in africa, neanderthalensis in europe, the denisovans in northern asia and erectus in southern asia. but these would all just be local populations, not distinct species. any further hybridizing would exist within these base populations, which would have existed in these regions for a very long time before the out of africa migration.

the result is nothing revolutionary. it's merely a synthesis of the once competing singular and multi-regional hypotheses - out of africa, yes, but what came out of africa interbred with local populations wherever it went, creating continuity in local populations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ScqOVxPHA8

you need to take this stuff with a grain of salt. the reality is that everybody working in the field wants to name a species and is willing to twist any fragment they can find into an opportunity to do so. look around you; human variation is dramatic. we should be reducing the number of named species, not increasing it.

Grant Molyneux
I prefer wombats myself, but what is wrong with Koalas?

deathtokoalas
the nefarious cuteness of koalas cannot be tolerated by any polite society. they must be destroyed.

Grant Molyneux
You should give them a break. After all their brain size has actually reduced over evolutionary time due to the tough food they have to digest. And hey if cuteness and nefarious (comments about defenseless marsupials) are concerned you should be destroyed also. LOL :)

deathtokoalas
you fool. do you truly believe these nefarious creatures have suffered decreased cognitive abilities, or do they merely have you under their psychological control? when a caterpillar loses it's legs, it gains it's wings. their cuteness has served as a distraction. they must be annihilated before they control us all.

he brings up something important near the end, and i'm not going to fill in the blanks, here. if you see this message, do not reply to it or like it or share it. i'm only posting it here, now, because i know my life is coming to an end. just simply read it and understand it....

it was understood through most of the 20th century century that reform, for the elite, was a hobson's choice. they could share their wealth or be sent to the guillotine. and, the grisliness of the consequences aside, most people can realize the justice in the threat - so long as it's used carefully.

but, technology has changed and, because of it, the elite no longer need to live in fear of the consequences of their greed. it creates a dour future.

first, there will be no sharing. that has been decided. there will be war. that is all.

second, the technology will be used to it's maximum extent. riot police. precision drone strikes. surveillance. there's nowhere to hide. 40,000 dead in ohio...

there's always this discussion about tactics. putting 1+2 together means there's not a choice whether to fight or not, and there's not much question as to the outcome.

don't fight. in any way.

flee.

get out....