Personally, I prefer the original music better as opposed to this remix ...

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Biggie-vs-Hellzapoppin-D-n-B-mix-by-Voidstar

Biggie vs. Hellzapoppin (D'n'B mix by Voidstar) has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals.

Chris Farley, Elvis Presley, Tupac Shakur, The Beatles (they were all fucked up on various abuses, including physical), Michael Jackson, River Phoenix, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Kurt Cobain, Heath Ledger, John Belushi, Amy Winehouse, Jim Morrison, Biggie Smalls, Gary Coleman...

I don't think Chris Farley is the prime example, but he's on the list.

But... that doesn't mean their works are any less for it. Getting famous for having talent brings reward, but it also blurs the lines and stunts maturity...

Most of these people didn't even make it to 30, or were so fucked up by the time they had hit this milestone, there was nothing they could do; they didn't have the necessary life lessons that guide us by constant evolution of being. Too many rewards and too much pressure with few threshold guardians to intercede. It's a gauntlet.

^ You can make all of that make sense by simply shifting your epistemological position to the only ones which truly make sense i.e. phenomenology &/or perspectivism.

To rephrase that in less impenetrable terms:
"Materialism" (or in your case I assume "Scientific Materialism") that is to say 'matter is primary', from a philosophers POV is a deeply flawed assumption. Flawed because there appears to be not one experience in human history that did not occur entirely within the mind.
When one see's say a Dog, one only ever experiences the images and sensations occurring within ones mind. You don't see the photons hitting your retina, only the way your mind as interpreted the data.

However the opposite position "Idealism" (mind is primary) is also fundamentally flawed in the exact opposite way. If our minds are the only "real" things then where exactly are they? And how do we even derive logic and reason if there is not something outside of ourselves which it describes? etc. etc.

Philosophers like Husserl, Heidegger and Sartre' got around this by defining a new category, "phenomena". We know for certain that "phenomena" exist in some sense because we experience them, the categories of mind and matter then become secondary properties, both only existing as definitions we apply retrospectively to experiences. i.e. stuff happens and then our brains kick in and say "that happened because of X because in the past X has preceded similar experiences" or "that thing looks like other examples of Y so is probably Y".

The problem then is that this appears to come no closer to telling us what is objectively happening in the universe, it's more like linguistic/logical housekeeping. The phenomenologists and existentialists did a superb job of clearing away all of the old invalid baggage about how we try to describe things, but they did little or nothing to solve the problem of Kants "nouminal world" (i.e. the "real" stuff that we are experiencing by simulation in our minds).

Its stumped philosophers for centuries as we don't appear to have any way to ever get at this "nouminal" or "real" world we naturally assume must exist in some way. But....

I reckon ultimately one of the first western philosophers in history nailed the way out 3000 or so years ago. Pythagoras said "all is number" and due to the work of Euler, Riemann and Fourier in particular I think we can now make it stick. (yeh its turning into an essay sorry )

Without wishing to go deep into a subject you could spend half your life on; Fourier transforms are involved in signal processing. It is a mathematical means by which spatio-temporal signals (e.g. the vibration of a string or the movement of a record needle) can be converted with no meaningful loss of information into frequency (analog) or binary (digital) forms and back again.

Mathematically speaking there is no reason to regard the "signal" as any less "real" whether it is in frequency form or spatio-temporal form. It is the same "signal", it can be converted 100% either direction.

So then here's the biggie: Is there any reason why we could not regard instrumental mathematical numbers and operations (i.e. the stuff we write down and practice as "mathematics") and the phenomena in the universe they appear to describe. I.e. when we use man made mathematical equations to describe and model the behavior of "phenomena" we experience like say Physicists do, could we suggest that we are using a form of Fourier transform? And moreover that this indicates an Ontological (existing objectively outside of yourself) aspect to the mathematical "signals".

Or to put it another way, is mathematics itself really real?

The Reimann sphere and Eulers formula provide a mathematical basis to describe the entirety of known existence in purely mathematical terms, but they indicate that pure ontological mathematics itself is more primary than anything we ever experience. It suggests infact that we ourselves are ultimately reducible to Ontological mathematical phenomena (what Leibniz called "Monads").

What we think of as "reality" could then perhaps be regarded as non dimensional (enfolded) mathematics interacting in such a way as to create the experience of a dimensional (unfolded) universe of extension (such as ours).

(R = distance between two points)
Enfolded universe: R=0
Unfolded universe: R>0

Neither is more "real", they are simply different perspectives from which Ontological mathematics can observe itself.

"Reality": R>=0

I've explained parts of that poorly sorry. Its an immense subject and can be tackedled from many different (often completely incompatible) paradigms. I hope at the very lest I have perhaps demonstrated that the Holographic universe theory could have legs if we combine the advances of scientific exploration (i.e. study of matter) with those of Philosophy and neuroscience (i.e. study of mind & reason itself). The latest big theory doing the rounds with neuroscience is that the mind/consciousness is a fractal phenomenon, which plays into what I've been discussing here more than you might think.

Then again maybe you just wrote me off as a crackpot within the first few lines "lawl" etc..

Aw shit, no biggie. That'll buff right out.

I wish Biggie Smalls was here.

No biggie. I can play opposite day too. Observe.

"Look at that little boy's anus!!"

Model additions to GTA, no biggie. Let me know when working portals are running in the sandbox world, then I will take interest.

>> ^kceaton1:

>> ^skinnydaddy1:
FAA is going to freak if they find this video and incident has not been reported. o.0

I'm right there with you, that may in fact be one hell of a major no-no and I hope they were over empty lands.
I wonder under normal regulations if they are actually even supposed to continue operating in an event like that, considering all the regulations put on flying (there are a lot). I know it looks like some guy's dumpy car just lost a side door, no biggy, but in flying they breath fire down your neck for missing certain bolts or those said bolts even being remotely loose... I'll have to look and see if a pilot can make a judgment call concerning no mandatory operation machinery attached to the craft coming off (that may be part of the main fuselage!)
I did look and see that the national statistic on flights that should have remained grounded getting fixed (some problems not so big, some big enough that when the plane landed emergency crews were needed to put out fires, not including MANY of the emergency landings at the wrong airport before the plane truly does CRASH) that number comes in at around 65000 flights over six years... This is from the FAA, so we're talking about mostly small business's up to large airlines like Delta. BUT, it must always be remembered that they do a better job than your average driver and their car by far; they just have much more "flashier" endings I guess you could say. Which makes the media frenzy about it like a feeding pool that CNN & FOX News ALIKE, engorge until nothing is left but the tasteless morsels that just reiterate everything we have been told by them before this...it is unfortunate that not only we are exposed to this media circus, but also that 'flying' is being dragged through the toxin-filled-sludge created by our media-hype-elite...
I'd figure the ONE group of people that might actually take great care of their machinery is the smaller business and solo-flyer's. I know one of my grandfather's brother spent hours on end with his plane making sure it was in tip-top shape and making sure his flight plans were exacting (he was kinda a bush-pilot, so that was important to him, if you know what I mean). A small off-topic element to this: I remember going through his flight plans and maps that went up through the Western U.S., into Western Canada, then into lower Alaska...it was amazing to see what detail he went into to get the job done; I would feel very safe flying with him if I ever did, because of the extreme measures he went to to get everything right...
I wonder if the pilot had to worry about anything when they landed, it's impossible to see from the clip, but you don't see if it goes up at all and hits the plane--but, I'd assume since everyone is acting basically happy and fine (no panic at all) I assume that the rest of that flight went normally, except for that and the large amounts of paperwork that wold follow it... (Assuming they weren't idiotic and DID report it...)


Found a little blurp about it here.

Quote
Nah it wasn't our fault. There were ten 'other' jumpers before us. Some were new and didn't know how to operate it. On takeoff they failed to close it properly and then in the back from held it down with there feet till 2500 where two of them stood up to close it properly. When they stood on it it was pushed below the stops on either side (the angle iron shaped things) and then turned the handle. I am assuming the locking pin went below the frame of the door. At height they stood to open the door - stepping on the door and turning the handle. The door didn't rise. They then stood on it harder with no change to the result. They then stood on it harder and pushed it down into the wind and it caught air and took off. One of the coolest things I have ever seen. The door landed in the quarry and has been recovered - it needs about $100 in repairs and will be back in action this weekend (or so i have been told).

Was looking for more on it but so far zip.

>> ^skinnydaddy1:

FAA is going to freak if they find this video and incident has not been reported. o.0


I'm right there with you, that may in fact be one hell of a major no-no and I hope they were over empty lands.

I wonder under normal regulations if they are actually even supposed to continue operating in an event like that, considering all the regulations put on flying (there are a lot). I know it looks like some guy's dumpy car just lost a side door, no biggy, but in flying they breath fire down your neck for missing certain bolts or those said bolts even being remotely loose... I'll have to look and see if a pilot can make a judgment call concerning no mandatory operation machinery attached to the craft coming off (that may be part of the main fuselage!)

I did look and see that the national statistic on flights that should have remained grounded getting fixed (some problems not so big, some big enough that when the plane landed emergency crews were needed to put out fires, not including MANY of the emergency landings at the wrong airport before the plane truly does CRASH) that number comes in at around 65000 flights over six years... This is from the FAA, so we're talking about mostly small business's up to large airlines like Delta. BUT, it must always be remembered that they do a better job than your average driver and their car by far; they just have much more "flashier" endings I guess you could say. Which makes the media frenzy about it like a feeding pool that CNN & FOX News ALIKE, engorge until nothing is left but the tasteless morsels that just reiterate everything we have been told by them before this...it is unfortunate that not only we are exposed to this media circus, but also that 'flying' is being dragged through the toxin-filled-sludge created by our media-hype-elite...

I'd figure the ONE group of people that might actually take great care of their machinery is the smaller business and solo-flyer's. I know one of my grandfather's brother spent hours on end with his plane making sure it was in tip-top shape and making sure his flight plans were exacting (he was kinda a bush-pilot, so that was important to him, if you know what I mean). A small off-topic element to this: I remember going through his flight plans and maps that went up through the Western U.S., into Western Canada, then into lower Alaska...it was amazing to see what detail he went into to get the job done; I would feel very safe flying with him if I ever did, because of the extreme measures he went to to get everything right...

I wonder if the pilot had to worry about anything when they landed, it's impossible to see from the clip, but you don't see if it goes up at all and hits the plane--but, I'd assume since everyone is acting basically happy and fine (no panic at all) I assume that the rest of that flight went normally, except for that and the large amounts of paperwork that wold follow it... (Assuming they weren't idiotic and DID report it...)

I am happy someone found the joke in that
In reply to this comment by braschlosan:
"Beats a cat video" harharhar

And he's back!!!!!!!! What's the first thing you're gonna do? Visit the Beggar's Canyon? See what the hot new discussions are? Oh my, so many new cat videos to see!!
In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
No biggie. Turn that frown upside down. :
In reply to this comment by UsesProzac:
/,

No biggie. Turn that frown upside down.
In reply to this comment by UsesProzac:
,

Your odds of being in a crash are already 1 and 14 million. But, reason doesn't stop irrational fears, it hasn't stopped mine (I am also a white knuckle flyer). Also, weather doesn't bring down planes as much as CFIT does, in other words, turbulence isn't the problem, your pilot getting lost and ramming the plane into a mountain is a greater possibility. With todays weather monitoring EQ, though, very few flights go down to bad weather, which would be related directly to turbulence. Turbulence is to flight like pot holes to driving, of no real concern to your safety. I actually love planes, I just hate flying in them...an irony. I have also studied (in my own time) most all the air crashes in the history of manned flight. So once again, turbulence is the least of your worries on a plane, and the odds say you have a better risk of falling off a ladder and dying than in a plane crash. Hopefully that helps some for you, it doesn't for me!

>> ^RhesusMonk:

Despite my frequent flying, I am TERRIFIED of turbulence and any kind of shakiness whilst in the air. I get a massive fear-sweat response, cling to the bottom of my seat, and have been known to tear up a bit. (Btw, I'm about 6'6" and 280 lbs, grew up a little punchy, and lettered in three sports). I've been on flights where there was movie-style crazy turbulence for hours on end, during which I was sure I was going to die. I guess my fear is because I don't really understand the physics of flying or turbulence (or maybe because I understand them too well?). I have also been on numerous flights that have been struck by lightning. Some where the flash made it obvious that we'd been struck, and some where the captain came on to jokingly let us know because of how little effect it had on our flight. My understanding is that the risk of a lightning strike to a plane in flight is about the same as the static prick you get from a doorknob in a carpeted room. No biggie.
Now if someone could kindly explain why turbulence shouldn't make me terrified, I'd be deeply gratified.

Despite my frequent flying, I am TERRIFIED of turbulence and any kind of shakiness whilst in the air. I get a massive fear-sweat response, cling to the bottom of my seat, and have been known to tear up a bit. (Btw, I'm about 6'6" and 280 lbs, grew up a little punchy, and lettered in three sports). I've been on flights where there was movie-style crazy turbulence for hours on end, during which I was sure I was going to die. I guess my fear is because I don't really understand the physics of flying or turbulence (or maybe because I understand them too well?). I have also been on numerous flights that have been struck by lightning. Some where the flash made it obvious that we'd been struck, and some where the captain came on to jokingly let us know because of how little effect it had on our flight. My understanding is that the risk of a lightning strike to a plane in flight is about the same as the static prick you get from a doorknob in a carpeted room. No biggie.

Now if someone could kindly explain why turbulence shouldn't make me terrified, I'd be deeply gratified.