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 - LuciferX

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 ... 111
46
The Richard Nixon school of ballet and the arts / Re: Swingers
« on: May 25, 2015, 12:25:27 pm »
I hate to say it, though it is abundantly clear, monogamy remains the path of least resistance to developing meaningful relationships.

I disagree. A lot.

Like Howl said upthread, there's a difference between poly folks and swingers. While there's plenty of variation on the individual level, it mostly boils down to: swingers want to have lots of sex with lots of partners, and poly people want more than one relationship that can include sex. Ain't nothing wrong with wanting to have lots of sex with lots of people, but when you combine that with the shitty attitude privileged-types get when they think they're being oppressed* and a total lack of respect of other people's boundaries and identities** it turns ugly real fast.

It's not a super popular opinion, but I really believe that monogamy/non-monogamy is one of those axes of sexuality that we are for the most part born with. I know people who straight up cannot do non-monogamy in any way, they are just hard wired to only be interested in one person at a time. Some people, myself included, are miserable fucking failures at relationships until they figure out that non-monogamy is an option and they're not bad people for giving it a go. Lots more folks could take it or leave it to varying degrees (like my husband).

There's this idea that poly is way fucking harder than monogamy, and maybe it is for some people but I've never seen it that way. Poly relationships definitely have more explosive potential just because of the extra TNT lying around, but they're not actually more prone to failure than monogamous relationships. There are a lot of conversations poly folks have to have in very explicit terms that a lot of monogamous couples gloss over, but a) I don't think monogamous couples should be glossing over things like "what you can't do with other people without upsetting me" in the first place and b) that's work now?

Of course, all of this is different from swinging, which is usually a matter of "hey, I like to have lots of sex, and these other people like to have lots of sex, I'm gonna fuck one of them and it'll be awesome. Hope that's cool with you, exclusive romantic partner!" The goal there isn't to build a meaningful relationship, in fact it's frequently discouraged.


* How many non-white non-straight swingers do you know? Because it's basically none of them. Bi girls are allowed and encouraged in the scene, because male gaze grossness, but bi guys are almost always excluded and there's no room ever for teh gheyz. Nigel has made some excellent posts in the past about this

** In addition to the OP, swingers (and some poly folks) have a bad habit of assuming everyone is really non-monogamous, and if you say otherwise you're either a stick in the mud or lying to yourself. Which is super demeaning and also pushy and gross.

Yea, I'm cool with a split too, however, the bolded is false beyond what you can conceive, Mnkay? :roll:

Really, honey, I think monogamy admits to more than that to which you or I may realize.

47
I am heat irrational brain unconditionally :lulz:

48
The Richard Nixon school of ballet and the arts / Re: Swingers
« on: May 25, 2015, 11:44:34 am »
I hate to say it, though it is abundantly clear, monogamy remains the path of least resistance to developing meaningful relationships.

49
Although I was maybe hinting to a possibly proximate grow op, just wetting the concrete/stone will cause evaporation from retained heat capacity.  Getting a hose should cost less than an ionizer, unless the smell of ozone is thermodynamically cooling to you? [and there's a plug to fit the hose to common faucet]

50
Well, I feel pretty good.  Last night was the first night in...hmm, about five days that I've had more than 4 hours of sleep a night due to the flat I'm in being ungodly hot and without air-con.

Even with a window open, fan on 24/7 and cold showers before bed, it's still disturbingly warm in here...enough that I sweat just laying in bed.

Maintenance, of course, swear there isn't a problem.
I'd go old-school, attach a hose to best faucet and spray outside of building and street before sleep.  Catching vegetation also helps SA evaporation.  Yay science!

51
Literate Chaotic / Re: ITT: Original Story Ideas
« on: May 25, 2015, 05:46:07 am »
i had meant them as two seperate ideas, but that works (i think)
Maybe the attempt at synthesis will yield a most lovable monster, that I would set free to pleasently roam some pastoral field in the English countryside.  Or maybe then I'd also advertise an exotic game hunting expedition, for Bigfoot, or it's exiled cousin, with a surprise predator-prey style role-reversal in the third act.  All of it would be televised, live, of course, mixing narrative viewpoints from hidden camera footage with 1st person player perspective and respective cam feeds.  One of the players is a paid actor, provoking things if/when nescesary.

52
Bring and Brag / Re: Music challenge
« on: May 25, 2015, 05:15:06 am »
Steely Dan might not be cool, but listen to their albums for engineering ideas. That had some cool shit going on with instrument isolations.
Just listened to some again recently - loved rediscovering lyrics that went over my head before.  Still looking for "that" sound, though Pretzel Logic nails it, visually representing some transforms I best obtained with convolution algorithms, separating stereo, like you said.

53
Or Kill Me / Re: How to Use a Toilet
« on: May 24, 2015, 10:27:34 am »
JIGGLE THE HANDLE :Lulz:

54
Speaking of procrastination, I went and saw this lady speak last week: http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/fykny6/patricia-churchland

Oh, she's GOOD.

She really, REALLY is. Someone asked her whether she was concerned that neuroscience was sucking the mystery out of life, and she just cocked her head and said, kind of wistfully, "You know, people ask about the mystery and I think about all the people I've known with schizophrenia, Alzheimer's, Huntington's Disease, Parkinson's, muscular dystrophy, bipolar disorder... what were you saying about 'mystery'?"

Hear, hear!

People who think the mystery of life can be dispelled by learning things are either pitiably misguided or have incredibly small imaginations.

Imagine all of human knowledge as a big sphere, and the outer edge of that sphere is mystery. When you expand human knowledge, you push the surface of that sphere further outward. This increases the surface area of the sphere, thereby increasing the total amount of mystery.

You can pretend I'm smoking a clove cigarette and sipping a latte while I say the above statement.

  Swans Commentary swans.comDecember 31, 2014  
 

 

Perspectives: A Review of 2014

 

"Lanterninosofia" the Philosophy of Small Lanterns
 
 

by Guido Monte

 

Multilingual Poetry

 

Translation by Adele Ward

 

Verses inspired by "Lanterninosofia" and "Non conclude" ("it does not end") by Pirandello

 

 

(Swans - December 31, 2014)  

darkness doesn't exist?
we people feel alive,
a feeling like a small lamp
which lights us up inside; the moment
our last breath arrives,
and the perpetual night of being is here
for us, burnt out and remote fireflies
in the darkness of time.

the small lamps have so many colours
and a common colour for each age;
red was the great lantern of pagan virtue,
violet, that of christian virtue.
because of this, many still get from the church
oil for their small lanterns.
but sometimes the wind
even puts out large lanterns.
and then the small lanterns swing around.
they turn back or cry
like abandoned ants, like nowadays.
darkness and confusion,
with the large lanterns extinguished!

in its own way the small lantern shows us
only shadows of strange ghosts,
at which we can be frightened or laugh.
but what if even darkness is a trick?
and if the lantern going out
is only a way to re-enter
the eternal stream of being,
into a life that is universal
and without an end
to everything?

in the flow you no longer have a name;
"names are for the dead,
who have finished".
the ones who live are the tree,
new leaves, a cloud, a book, the wind,
all the fresh things from dawn,
clouds mountains air sky.
blades of grass, a donkey, assorted fields:
you are reborn every moment in things.
the sound of bells: instant death
to be reborn again, without memories;
alive, no longer inside yourself,v but "all on the outside",
in the outside of things.
 

 

Adele Ward is a poet, novelist, and co-owner of Ward Wood Publishing in London.
 


 

     
 

Care about Guido's work? Then please consider a donation. Thank you.

     
 

Legalese.
This material is copyrighted, Guido Monte 2014. All rights reserved

55
I'm sorry for your loss Cainad. Much love and condolences to the family.

56
Literate Chaotic / Re: ITT: Original Story Ideas
« on: May 24, 2015, 09:50:15 am »
-Something with a race of robotic beings that evolved from Von Neumann Probes sent out by an ancient and long vanished alien civilization

EDIT:
also...
-A baseball umpire or other sports referee who makes a lot of bad calls turns out to be an avatar of Azathoth. Or perhaps it turns out that all baseball umpires and miscellaneous sports referees are avatars of Azathoth. Certainly referees and Azathoth are the only classes of beings that routinely get called "blind idiot"s

- protagonist becomes Azathoth, realizing that the miniature alien crafts are flying american flags.  Upon understanding that he both fornicated with, and also murdered some of his progenitors, our hero physically blinds himself, accidentally, only losing one eye.


57
I wonder if accelerating by sling-shot with gravity is essentially like trying to travel by car without turning the direction opposite, or distal, to the driver's side.  Like trying to get home only making left turns in right-hand traffic: good times.

I think using only left turns in right-hand traffic could be used to get home as long as the roads are built in a way that allows you to spiral out from your current destination to the exact distance out that your home is (I feel like this wasn't very clear, or that there was some sort of flaw in the way I described this. I can't put my finger on it though). A grid-like road system could be viable for that.

As I reach the half-way mark in this response, your statement is starting to seem more and more rhetorical. In-fact, it's starting to seem like a form of mockery and disparagement. So, before I continue, can you explain its relevance?
I was just driving some distance, noticing how the spiral was common for changing elevation/velocity, say highways to street, with the latter instead favoring slower traffic and more turns.  This, extrapolates to space travel and it occurred to me that we might be doing it wrong.  The question then is in what direction do we turn to better travel through space/time?  Funny or rhetorical as the question may be, this does not make it invalid IMHO.

If I understand you correctly, you're referring to the fact that we loop our equipment around cosmic bodies/planets to get places far away. That said, considering that modern space travel techniques and astrophysics aren't my specialty, I must also assume that you are implying that we use the "slow traffic - more turns" approach, in which we loop around each body several times, and we do so around more bodies than you think is necessary.

I think you might be on to something, but I can see a possible explanation as to why we still use the method that I assume we do: If we use smaller loops around more bodies, we are a bit more certain on the affects on our equipment from the gravitational pull. If we get out further away from the bodies and loop less, we might be able to be more direct with our travel, but we also run the risk of running into less predictable gravitational fields. I assume, if you're speaking on this level, that you're familiar with the Lagrangian Points for cosmic bodies. I'm not sure on the complexity of the trips our equipment is taking, but I'd guess that based on your conclusion, our equipment's trips are tending to avoid specific Lagrangian points (I actually forget how all of them work. I only remember the basics of a few). But, my idea is, if we skip bodies to loop around, and get further away from the larger bodies, we get into zones that have smaller cosmic bodies that have more intense Lagrangian Points. As I understand it, the smaller the body, or the smaller the gravitational pull, the more contrasting the Lagrangian points and gravitational zones can be. Moving across two small bodies' Lagrangian points can be more dangerous to our momentum than if we moved across two large bodies' gravitational zones or Lagrangian Points. But then you have to factor in distance between the bodies as well if you want to determine the strength of the points. I think this way due to the fact that a Black Hole the size of the Earth would rip you apart as you were sucked in. But a Black Hole the size of the one in the middle of our galaxy would keep you fully in-tact. This happens because the difference in gravitational acceleration as you get closer to a smaller body is a steeper ramp up than with a larger body's gravitational acceleration. As I type this, I wonder if that may be what they use to get the faster momentum increases when launching our equipment around a body. Send it by the right Lagrangian points of smaller cosmic bodies and you can get a massive momentum increase. But it would be sporadic. Send it by a set of larger cosmic bodies' Lagrangian points and you would get less of an increase in momentum, but the direction would be more stable and predictable. Also, let's not forget that direction around these points and fields is a MASSIVE factor.

Ideally, I think, if we got better at directing our equipment and predicting gravitational acceleration changes in the gravitational zones of far-away bodies, I think we could get faster at looping and space travel. Also, it might be wise to bring up the effects of Time Dilation on the amount of time it takes for our equipment to travel. Keeping it by large gravitational fields affects the passing of time for the equipment more strongly than do the small gravitational fields. But, I'm getting to the edge of my knowledge now, considering I don't know how to factor in the gravitational acceleration curve with Time Dilation.

If this was not your direction, then please specify. I haven't talked about this stuff in years, and when it interests me like this, I get into long, drawn out rants that become hard to understand due to the amount of tangents I make. I'm pretty sure I've got ADHD or something.
It's been quite awhile since I've tried to take into account that many factors. I hate labor jobs. They make me forget all the fun I had doing things with my brain.

And I'd say I feel like an asshole for hijacking this thread, but LuciferX started it.   :eek:
I'll read this after you watch Tomorrowland, how bout that?

58
Literate Chaotic / Re: Five word horror
« on: May 24, 2015, 09:19:12 am »
It was an infinite seesaw.

60
I wonder if accelerating by sling-shot with gravity is essentially like trying to travel by car without turning the direction opposite, or distal, to the driver's side.  Like trying to get home only making left turns in right-hand traffic: good times.

I think using only left turns in right-hand traffic could be used to get home as long as the roads are built in a way that allows you to spiral out from your current destination to the exact distance out that your home is (I feel like this wasn't very clear, or that there was some sort of flaw in the way I described this. I can't put my finger on it though). A grid-like road system could be viable for that.

As I reach the half-way mark in this response, your statement is starting to seem more and more rhetorical. In-fact, it's starting to seem like a form of mockery and disparagement. So, before I continue, can you explain its relevance?
I was just driving some distance, noticing how the spiral was common for changing elevation/velocity, say highways to street, with the latter instead favoring slower traffic and more turns.  This, extrapolates to space travel and it occurred to me that we might be doing it wrong.  The question then is in what direction do we turn to better travel through space/time?  Funny or rhetorical as the question may be, this does not make it invalid IMHO.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 ... 111