That was.... That had zero artistic value unless you count the amount of effort to engineer and arrange the perfect melding of these things.
In the end, it's just cutesie gothic lolitas prancing around to lull the crowd into ignoring that it's a prerecorded music track, and superficial construct of media.
I guess that's art in some form.
For some reason I still dig it. I guess that's the magic of a pure distillation pop-production.

EDIT: Curiosity got the better of me and I downloaded the album. It's pretty funny, and often wanders more into the realm of regular J-pop and electro-synth music, and with one song, for some reason, gangster rap.

For more than 20 years this was my favorite 'group' of musical artists. Then... they just stopped trying...?
I don't read interviews or keep up on any news outside of an artists album releases, but they went from revolutionizing (and I don't use that word lightly) electronic music with Classical Mushroom, to discovering whole new landscapes of sound, and bordering electro-pop, with Converting Vegetarians, and after that everything they released was unimaginative, repetitive, droning drivel. What happened?!

Tags for this video have been changed from 'stromae, belgium, rwanda, congolese rumba, electro' to 'stromae, belgium, rwanda, congolese rumba, electro, Papaoutai' - edited by eric3579

The backlash to the over-produced electro-studio sound starts here!

Yes, exactly. It seems strange that they were seeing failures from springs at such low engine rpm's, but in any case I have heard that you just can't achieve more than 18,000rpm with springs no matter what.

I have found a web page with some nice diagrams and explanations of the electro hydraulic system used by Renault... they have indeed done away with the cam entirely (at least in testing, not sure if it has raced since that article was published). Since the engine management system would have to manage this, and it is a control unit supplied by McLaren, we can be fairly sure that all the engine manufacturers have a common system.

http://scarbsf1.com/valves.html

*electronica (well, electro dance/breakbeat anyway)
*length=3:29

Radio: My favorite discovery of 2012 is "Radio Lab", a story telling show reminiscent of another favorite, 'This American Life', but with a much more sophisticated sound design. All episodes are available for free in the podcast section of iTunes.

Music: I fell in love with the New Orleans second line scene after Issy and I paid a visit to the crescent city this year. We saw the 'Rebirth Brass Band' live and had a great time. We also had a mini-meetup at the show with @dotdude. New Orleans music culture is like no other.

Music: Louis Cole & Genevieve Artadi: Highly unique and energetic electro-acoustic music. Hard to explain.

Music: Austin Texas band 'The Black Angels' - Dark, bluesy rock obviously influenced by the Doors. To be honest, I'm not crazy about blues rock or the Doors, but 'The Black Angels' manage to meld these influences into something I really dig.

Music: UK band, 'Metronomy'. Their sound is eclectic, hooky and heavily influenced by all the cool British 80's bands I loved as a kid. Goes down easy. Works in the background as well as the fore.

Movies: Django and Looper were the two films that captivated me from start to finish. Both films by gifted auteurs, one at the top of his game, the other on the rise. Great writing. Great Directing. Great performances.

Horror movies: The Cabin in the Woods (A clever and absurd meta-horror mashup) and the The Lady in Black (A classic, classy ghost story) both satisfied. It's nice that there were a couple of diamonds in sea of Paranormal-Activity-esque-found-footage detritus.

TV: same stuff that everyone else likes - BB, GoT, DoAb and Sherlock. I also got into Always Sunny in Philadelphia this year - very dark, very funny.

Books: Started a bunch, finished very few. Nothing to recommend. "Checklist Manifesto" is pretty interesting so far - it's about how the brain functions (or fails to function) in the information-dense present.

Games: 'Xcom' was a worthy update of the original. Loved all the detailed micro/macro strategy. 'Journey' was beautiful and fairly moving for a videogame.

It is NOT ELECTRO. This is house music.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electro_(music)

>> ^rychan:

This is so well done that when I first saw it I thought the music was composed to match the episode.
Also, I love the music "Justice - Peace" in the first two minutes. It's so industrial and shrill but it still so musical. Is there a name for this genre?



Do you mean "Stress," by any chance? That is the first song. It samples "Night on Disco Mountain" from Saturday Night Fever (which is why I like it so much, and the sample lends a lot of the shrill musical elements to the song). The overarching genre would be electro house.
Modern examples:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1BDGqIfm8U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jXmqKSlMlI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RJG0gi09ku0

Looking into it a bit more, the album from which that track is taken is considered disco house or electroclash which fall under the electro house umbrella. If you are looking for the feel of this specific song, you might be out of luck - it's pretty unique (I am not aware of many similar tracks). But you may find something you like if you look around the previously mentioned genres!

@ReverendTed
You have been a courteous sparring partner so I will try to answer in kind, but I must admit being very exasperated by your last response. Moreover, I do not think I want to pursue a debate with someone who cannot see how adoption-in-place-of-abortion is neither feasible nor even remotely ethical (vis-à-vis the woman, the would-be child and human society in general). So this will probably be my last wall of self-indulgent dross.

Let’s get one thing out of the way: we both agree that we need more education all ‘round, on all subjects. And as you know, those most opposed to it are the same that are against abortion. Abstinence education is redundant when proper sex-ed is given, because it goes without saying that “no sex = no unwanted pregnancies” is a part of basic sex-ed. Of course, it is un-pragmatic to expect teenagers (or anyone for that matter) to forego sex, so why harp on it, other than for misguided religious purposes?

Your conception of consciousness is fuzzy at best. Everything we feel, experience, etc. is due to electro-chemical reactions in our body/brain. Magical thinking is saying some non-physical “me” exists attached to it, what religious people call a soul. Consciousness is not subordinate to cognition in terms of value, but in the sense that without the one (cognition) you simply don’t have the other (“subordinate” as in “dependent upon”). I mentioned blind-from-birth people for a good reason; they have no visual aspect to their consciousness, their identity/consciousness is built upon the other sensory input. Now imagine a being that has zero sensory input (or a central system capable of making use/sense of it), and you have a mass of muscles/cells/organs devoid of consciousness. And that is what is aborted before the 25th week. I must make it clear, however, that even if this developed much earlier it would still be the woman’s prerogative to choose what she does with her own body/life. In that respect I think the “viability” argument is a pragmatic (albeit conservative) one, because it draws the line between an excrescence and a (possibly) autonomous being.

After the first two paragraphs, your response goes from bad to worse. What I said about adoption v abortion still stands, but I would add that it is still forcing women to go through a pregnancy they do not want (thus still affecting the quality of their lives), not to mention leaving them with the guilt of abandonment, the kids with issues, etc etc. And all for what? So some third person’s unfounded superstitions be upheld? And then you have the gall to compare criminalising abortion with criminalising incest and crazy people locking up/raping their families. You seriously need to think a bit before making comparisons. In the case of child abuse and/or rape (incest itself is a victimless crime, but that’s for a different discussion), there are actual victims, for one, and secondly, the crazies would lock them up whether it was legal or not, because it is a question of absolute control over the other.

Since you cite Guttmacher statistics, allow me to suggest you read a little more:

• Highly restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower abortion rates. For example, the abortion rate is 29 per 1,000 women of childbearing age in Africa and 32 per 1,000 in Latin America—regions in which abortion is illegal under most circumstances in the majority of countries. The rate is 12 per 1,000 in Western Europe, where abortion is generally permitted on broad grounds.

• Where abortion is permitted on broad legal grounds, it is generally safe, and where it is highly restricted, it is typically unsafe. In developing countries, relatively liberal abortion laws are associated with fewer negative health consequences from unsafe abortion than are highly restrictive laws.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_IAW.html

So basically pushing for the criminalisation of abortion is pushing for there to be more abortions, and more dangerous ones.

You note how a large percentage of abortion-seekers are above the poverty line. Obviously, they can afford it / are aware of the possibility. Ever notice how the poor/uneducated tend to have more kids than the others? Do you really think being poor makes you want to have more mouths to feed? Or perhaps it is because they lack access to contraception/abortion (not to mention the poor/uneducated tend to be more religious; religion thrives on misery). Of the “developed” world the US is a bit of a special case, because it is so backward with regards to healthcare and contraception. Notice how most women in the US pay for their abortion out of pocket, and “Nearly 60% of women who experienced a delay in obtaining an abortion cite the time it took to make arrangements and raise money.” (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html/) As an aside, the religious right here in Switzerland (not as influential but almost as stupid and backward thinking as that of the US) are trying to make abortion be no longer covered by the universal healthcare system.

On the “potential” question, everything has been said. I’d simply point out that your “95%” potential leaves out something absolutely crucial, namely the choice of the woman to terminate the abortion, which can reduce that to “0%”. You say “it’s nearly guaranteed”, but so what? Two people having heterosexual vaginal sex without projection over a long period of time will conceive of a child, it’s “nearly guaranteed”, therefore every possible pairing of male and female should have continuous unprotected sex otherwise they are depriving potential beings from existing. “But what if they don’t want to?” Exactly, what if the woman doesn’t want a child at that moment? See how absurd the “potential” argument is?

I’ll risk making this wall of text even wallyer and propose an analogy, The Analogy of the Film and Camera. When you put a film in a camera, the potential for it becoming a strip of individual, unique photos goes up. But so long as no pictures are taken, so long as nothing is imprinted on the film’s receptive surface, you lose no individual photos by taking the film out, and there’s the same amount of potential if you put in a different film at a different time. It’s wonky, I know, but it illustrates that potential individual (the film) is not the same as existing individual (the photo), nor does destroying the first cause any damage to the second, because the second doesn’t exist yet.

The comparison with the IGB campaign is terribly inappropriate and simply false. In one case it is question of keeping living individuals from ending their lives, whereas abortion is about preventing eventual individuals from coming into existence because it would harm the quality of life of an already existing individual (as well as the one to be). IGB is about giving people options/hope, whereas criminalising abortion is about taking that away (from women, to give it to the mind projections of superstitious third parties). The only connection between the two is that in both cases the unsubstantiated beliefs of third persons impinge on an individual’s quality of life and liberty. I already addressed your “good from bad” argument, which you draw out again in an emotionally manipulative way (which frankly made me sick).

On eugenics, oh boy. What you’re saying is akin to saying “self-defence should be outlawed because otherwise some (like Zimmerman) might commit crimes and say it was self-defence”. Or, a little closer to home perhaps: “we shouldn’t have universal healthcare because some might fraud”. Yes, some people fraud the insurance, and yes, some people are aggressive and try to pass it as self-defence. That’s why we have a judicial system. Bringing in eugenics is seriously grasping at straws and you know it.

I’ll end my last contribution to this exchange with the following: having a child should never be an inevitability. Bringing a human life into existence is way too big a responsibility to be an obligation. A women’s body is her own, to deal with as she chooses, uterus and co. included.

Cheers

Tags for this video have been changed from 'dubstep, electro, retro, mike diva, synth, zombies, dystopian' to 'dubstep, retro, mike diva, synth, zombies, dystopian' - edited by volumptuous

>> ^Gilsun:

Fantomas, ShakeyMcBones and jmd.
This is NOT DUBSTEP. This electro, im not meaning to be a music snob or anything but when people blanket any thing with a wobble noise in it as dubstep, it continues to lead people astray from what is an awesome genre.
Pls youtube Kode 9, Mala, Breakage, Seven, Kryptic Minds, Youngsta for some actual dubstep.


Ok you guys have officially come up with too many damn names for types of electronic styles of music. -_-

I considered it dubstep because its pretty much a mashup of dubstep songs. If that makes it electro then so be it. Still sounds good.

I stand corrected!

>> ^Gilsun:

Fantomas, ShakeyMcBones and jmd.
This is NOT DUBSTEP. This electro, im not meaning to be a music snob or anything but when people blanket any thing with a wobble noise in it as dubstep, it continues to lead people astray from what is an awesome genre.
Pls youtube Kode 9, Mala, Breakage, Seven, Kryptic Minds, Youngsta for some actual dubstep.

Fantomas, ShakeyMcBones and jmd.

This is NOT DUBSTEP. This electro, im not meaning to be a music snob or anything but when people blanket any thing with a wobble noise in it as dubstep, it continues to lead people astray from what is an awesome genre.

Pls youtube Kode 9, Mala, Breakage, Seven, Kryptic Minds, Youngsta for some actual dubstep.

I think we have to take certain things for granted because not everything can be proven empirically. There is no way to empirically prove that the Universe is actually real. To say that it is real you have to rely on your senses and reasoning. You can't say those are valid without using viciously circular logic. "My reasoning is valid because my reasoning says so" Without assuming certain things, apriori, the world would be unintelligable. Neither could you do science. To do science you have to assume the uniformity in the nature. How do you prove it? By assuming the future will be like the past. What is the evidence that the future will be like the past? The past. It's the same vicious circularity.

As far as Gods existence goes, I never assumed either way. I knew I didn't have enough information to say either way, so I was agnostic by default. I only changed my mind when I received evidence. I wasn't under any pressure to do so, nor was I even looking to do so.

So, while science has a pitiless indifference to how you feel in regards to what is true, it is not the sole arbitor of what is true. This idea that empiricism is the only way to determine truth cannot be proven empirically, ironically. It is an assumption that materialists make with no actual evidence. The argument seems to be that since we can build a space shuttle, empiricism must the way. Yet, that isn't a logical argument. Empiricism might be useful, but it isn't the only method of inquiry that is useful. Everything has its place, and empiricism has a hard limit to what it can prove.

Yes, there certainly is material out there. Does that we can see and test material means that material causes are the only possible solution? We can't see dark matter, dark energy, other universes, other dimensions, yet scientists have no trouble postulating about what we can't see. So why not postulate that the Universe has a non-material causation? Why not an intelligent causation? I would say the evidence is a lot more convincing for intelligent design than other Universes, yet science only considers one to be plausible. Don't you think that is irrational?

I'll ask you the same question I ask messenger..how would you tell the difference between a random chance Universe and one that God designed? What test could you conduct to find out which one you were in? When you can come up with a test to determine that, then you can tell me that there is no evidence. Logically, if there is a God, the entire Universe is evidence. Isn't it possible that you are staring at something divinely ordered but don't realize it?

>> ^gwiz665:

You make a good point. In our daily life we are certain about a lot of things, or rather we accept things for granted without any thoroughly investigated evidence. We assume that we exist, because that's needed for us to assume it. We assume we have free will, because it feels like we have free will.
I also live as if there is no God, because of the "path of least resistance" - it is easier to assume there is no god, than to assume there is, and since it has no difference to me, the easiest solution is fine. I think for many theists, it least resistance to assume that there is a god, and live as if he exists, be it because of social pressure, mindset or what have you - in any case, their path of least resistance is to assume he exists. If you think about all the shit an outed atheist go through in some states, I can't really blame them for that too much.
It is a different deal when you get into the science of it, because in science we deal with what is real and what is not. The good thing about science is that it doesn't care. It doesn't care about your feelings, it doesn't care that lots of people like a thing, it only exist to show the truth and to show nature for what it really is.
Materialism is absolute in that it's really there, like Feynman says so excellent in his video about the electro-magnetic spectrum. It may not have much of an effect in your everyday life how light moves in waves and how it's similar to how water makes waves, but that doesn't make it any less true. You can assume that they are unrelated if you want, and if that makes you sleep better at night, but it's just not how nature works.
If you take the issue of God under the microscope, you find that there's not much evidence backing it up when you really look. The social pressure is there, and the cultural ramifications are there, but there's no evidence backing up the actual existence. The hypothesis "it was all made up" has equal merit, because you can find just as many traces of this than you can of it actually being real.