Search results

Obviously there's no simple end to it. People may or not agree about that business, it's no reason to fall out. That way 'they' win, whoever they are / were. But, there is something else that smells pretty rotten to me here. I'm sorry to have to say that because this is a really good place on...

Competing narratives. Yes, the poor US of A must contend with those who would claim that the idea of a 'War On Terror' is something of an Orwellian fiction, a hyperstition.

Why? There are loads of reasons to question the fuck out of this. If you don't think so then fine, whatever. Find out for yourself or don't. But for me much of this thread, why I felt I wanted to comment in the first place, was about the myths of what exactly was being discussed around this...

I wonder if the reason that the disdain you identify is so apparent now is that the phenomenon itself, that is to say subcultural one-upmanship for it's own sake (i.e. that which defines itself entirely in relation to that which it is not, a purely negative formulation), is actually on the way...

Sneering at people putting principles into action is sheer hipsterism is it not? The cry of the culturally castrated lashing out at those who still have the balls to believe. ;) That notion that individuals can not make a difference and the accompanying capitulating disavowal of responsibility...

Obviously semantics is a large part of where the argument is, yes. Aside from the accuracy or otherwise of what you think it means to talk about 'con-theories', broad generalities are not explanations of specificities. The 'reasons' here are still very much of the kind 'all things I say are...

Yes it is very good, big up. People should download. Perhaps bordering on the prematurely autumnal in tone? Will go down a treat in a couple of months I should think, not that it can't be enjoyed now. Thanks.

Where is she supposed to iron her towels? Down the pub?

No I'm not. You're just wrong in various different ways. :p Anyway, I think there should be considered at the centre of all this (;)) the conception of what you might call the 'classic' Grand Conspiracy Theory of tradition. This can of course be understood as something arising out of dark...

Gettin' deep on a Friday afternoon So, is there a paradox? Of what kind? Or if not, why not? Is it a mathematical 'fallacy' of a kind? A failure to include an observer? Is it to do with comparing unlike quantities? Is it to do with introducing a meta-temporal element in comparing the rate of...

It's about the granularity of time and space, man. / The Dude ;) More later...

The unarticulated assumption in this 'paradox' is that there is a discrete event, an isolated system, with definable beginning and end points. Or rather that such a thing can be said to 'exist'. This is implicit in the notion that there is a point in time when you can say you have a 'full...

:slanted: Just kidding, sort of. Actually I remember Plastician playing the last set at a DMZ a couple of years ago and his stuff seemed quite a bit louder than the set before. Maybe more crisp and harsh than loud as such. Looked like he was using Serato (Serato Scratch, right dave?) then.

I propose the use of these ingenious new units of my own devising, then. 1fD = 1 full cone depth 1fA = 1 full cone area Now they will both become numerically smaller than 1 as soon as the water starts evaporating, which is to say immediately and simultaneously. Instead of area or depth being...

No, but the area and the depth are related via the angle of the cone, i.e. the ratio, which remains constant.

Aw, one small error then? The ratio of the rates of change of the height and surface area doesn't change, as I said on the next line. In other words the rates of change remain constant or change at the same rate. Yes but this is deceptive. As you've said, they are quantities of 'different...

That's right, they are not the same, just numerically the same at that point, which doesn't tell you much. What matters is the ratio, which of course depends on the angle of the cone No it's dependant on the angle, that is to say on the ratio between height and surface area, or just width if...

What this says is that the surface area (evaporation rate) of the water approaches zero faster than the remaining depth. That would mean that the water would have zero surface area before there was none left. So that can't really be right, right? Of course the surface area and the depth reach...

It was just a bonus, you understand that if there is less water it requires less energy to achieve a given rate of evaporation - and so the rate at which the rate of evaporation approaches zero is not exponential and so does not reach infinity at least, right? That's the main point there that...

I'd have to check I think. It doesn't matter though, the main point still stands. Less water requires less energy to achieve a given rate of evaporation, so there is a relationship to volume. Just to be clear, I was taking about the proportional relationship between the volume of water in the...