Join the best erotica focused adult social network now
Login
miketabcdefg
Over 90 days ago
Straight Male, 54
0 miles · Sydney

Forum

Advanced Wordsmith
Could care less about my birthday. In the past, the first time I've remembered it's actually my birthday is when my mum has rung me up to wish me a happy birthday. I don't tell people when it is because it means nothing and I feel fake having to pretend i care when someone gushes over it. There's one proviso, in workplaces in the habit of having a cake everytime it's someones birthday. I guess anything can be justified by cake, but even then I can buy my own cake.

What someone does on every day of the year is far far more important than that one, and i do have a habit of coming to work with sweets for no reason at all now.
Advanced Wordsmith
Quote by noll


Never knew Stevie Wonder was in Steppenwolf


He was a member of Steppenwolf but you just couldn't see him ... or was it the other way around.

Not sure what it is about that song but I've made that mistake before and not learnt from it it seems.
Advanced Wordsmith
Some covers are better but it's up to personal taste and often it simply depends on on which version you heard first. Also if the cover matches the style of music you're into at the time makes a big difference.

A few good ones mentioned above. And a couple more off the top of my head in vastly different styles...

Higher ground, Chilli peppers, originl steppenwolf.
Can't get used to loosing you, the Beat (or british beat or english beat) original popularised by Andy Williams - not sure who wrote it)
Voodoo People, Pendulum, original prodigy.

Queens of the Stone age did a decent version of Tom Waits Going out West though I still prefer the original and with all the other covers of his definitely. But Tom Waits is a good example of preference, his voice is very much an individual preference and lots of people prefer the covers.

Also lots of trip hop out there that grabs a kernel of a song and turns it into something totally new. Sometimes they almost lift the entire song and put some layers over it, change it around a bit, speed it up - whatever - to turn it into something totally new.
Chinese Man - I've Got That Tune - grabbed an old jazz number (Washboard Rhythm Kings Hummin' to Myself (1932)) and transformed it.
Kid koala on 12 bit blues sampled lots of old scratchy blues and gave them a modern feel but still keeping the old scratchy feel.

Advanced Wordsmith
A agree with seeker..

But I'm not sure it requires quantum computing for intelligence rivaling human intelligence, and to be honest I think we should be aiming higher than that. Much better to create an intelligence that isn't so swamped by so many cognitive bias's. The difficulty will be in identifying whether a truly 'intelligent' machine has been achieved. I put that in inverted commas because mostly people use the term to mean self aware intelligence. I only assume other people are self aware by their similarity to myself (and the negative of this informs bigotry in its many forms). Will we ever be able to assume self aware intelligence in any computer, or only in some sort of anthropomorphised form. Perhaps once we've worked out how to map the human neural networked brain structure into another substrate, perhaps growing a similar biological version with machine connections. A fair way off but certainly not out of the realms of possibility.

When it comes to it, on some measures computers are smarter than us, certainly on any intelligence that requires simple linear thinking. Once upon a time someone who could do calculations very quickly would have been considered very smart, simply because most of us can't. Computers have been great at doing simple sequential calculations very quickly and so we've diminished that in importance. Attempts to get computers to play the more complex games with too many permutations by using simple number crunching brute force showed their limitations. That is all changing now. Computers can now win these games using pattern matching and learning algorithms and are now proving to be better at diagnosing, say, x-rays by being presented with many x-rays with known diagnosis. However they are very limited in their breadth of knowledge and using that information to tie in a broader diagnosis. That will change.

But well before that happens, computers will be able to replace most of our jobs through advances not only in computer processing power but also material science and machine dexterity, they don't need to be that smart to do that. This has been happening for decades but is about to move into many more realms, not the least of which is self driving vehicles. Think of all those truck drivers, delivery drivers out of jobs. Cue serious, but ultimately unsuccessful, protests. Where will it lead? Who knows what the social and cultural impacts will be when so many more of us have leisure time/nothing constructive to do (take your pick). Perhaps we'll be like the Roman elite, and it'll all be gluttony and orgies. The bigger question is who will be in control, and decide on the distribution of wealth. Are we heading towards having a basic human income, many say it'll be the only sustainable way.... Cue, 'but that's socialism', by many, especially in the US.

Detailed pic of Cognitive Biases. In all our inglory.
Advanced Wordsmith
Quote by Lauradj
A delicious spiced German Christmas cookie my friend introduced me to, Lebkuchen.


Not sure the chocolate coated version is traditional but...

I love these and always make at least one big batch at chrissy to give away. Made them from a recipe not knowing what they were (described as 'cinnamon spice cookies - odd since it's just one of about 8 spices -including coriander and pepper) and when a dutch friend tried them he cried 'pfeffernuse' (a similar variant) as they took him back to his childhood.
Advanced Wordsmith
Quote by 1nympholes
I do not know why men hate to shave for a lady the just spent hours to look great when he takes her out. You guys are strange species.


You've just spent hours to look 'great' simply to go out somewhere and you think not wasting time shaving (if your partners happy with that) is strange. Now that's strange. Personally I reckon you probably looked better before you started getting ready. My wife wore lipstick and makeup once when she was trying to look 'good' for me before we were going out. Fortunately it was urged by a friend of hers because my thoughts were, oh no, please, bring back your natural skin.
Advanced Wordsmith
Quote by Magical_felix
I was seeing this girl once who could barely read. She would literally fuck up words she saw all the time. Like, Chanel No. 5 she would pronounce channel (like a TV channel) no (like the opposite of yes) and the 5 she would get right. She was the hottest fucking chick I had ever been with, insanely hot. She was so hot she didn't even have to learn how to read. That's a special power in itself.


And I was seeing a girl once who was also gorgeous. Mauritian girl with what seemed to be all the best bits of all the races that populated those isles. She was also very sweet, not an angry bone in her body. Unfortunately she was also dum as a post and conversations went nowhere. She named her kids after her favourite actors, bad ones. She was however smart enough to realise that I was only chasing sex from her, I'll give her that much.

But allthough she was stunning to look at and a nice person, I'll have much stronger feelings, including erotic ones, to someone with a brightness in their eyes from connected conversations and ideas.
Advanced Wordsmith
Quote by Verbal
Electrons both do and do not exist. They only occupy space and time once they have been observed, prior to that they only theoretically exist.

That's not philosophy, that is a major building block of quantum mechanics. Not exactly fact, but a theory that has withstood all attempts to disprove it, so pretty close to fact. Apply the same principle to sound (not a perfect analogy, I admit, though the substance sound waves pass through is partly made of electrons) and the sound only exists in theory until it is heard, and then it actually exists.

Thus, the sound both does and does not exist. Like Schrödinger's fucking cat.

This would be a lot more fun to talk about if we were in a dorm room doing bong hits.


Actually, the cat exists in Schrodinger's thought experiment, it's the state of the cat that's indeterminate, dead or alive.

Similarly with electrons (though not sure why we're focusing on them for sound waves) and other fundamental particles - well everything really, just that the bigger and more complex they get the less that quantum effects are measureable. With the 'particles' the indeterminacy is in it's spin state, it's position and momentum, not whether it exists or not. They exist but as a probability wave, they effectively exist everywhere with a superposition of states with greater or lesser probabilities until interacting with other particles collapses the wave..

Whether something really exists or not until measured isn't quantum mechanics but is fundamental philosophical question that relates to anything. And really even after measurement, does it exist. In observing the toaster here I'm actually seeing the photons hitting my eyes from something that are then interacting with the rods and cones in eyes causing chemical reactions that fire action potentials down my neurons which then go through multiple layers of processing before the image I've developed is observed by the minds eye that my experience tells me is a toaster. Similar occurs with all the senses, and with our readings of measuring devices.

I could take the solipsistic point of view and say nothing exists but my disembodied consciousness

I agree, as bizarre as quantum mechanics is, it's the best tested and most solid theory in science due to the ability to collect prodigious amounts of data rapidly while eliminating unwanted variables.
Advanced Wordsmith
Quote by TheAngryishLover


Well you can say that if you want, but you are scientifically incorrect. Sound only occurs when you have something that can transform audible waves into a sound. Otherwise it's just vibration.

Humans use the vibration from a falling tree and turn into sounds. Some creatures use the vibrations of air/matter to 'see'. In either instance, it's simply a cause of the perception of the brain to transform those waves into sound or sight.

Another perfect example of this would be radio waves. The question could equally ask 'as a radio wave passed your house, if you didn't have a radio antenna would it make a sound?'

Of course it wouldn't. At any given moment, you've got 100's (potentially more?) of radio waves passing through your house, and you never hear it until you turn on the radio (and you can even see it, with the static of your TV being the cause of radio waves too- some even being the radio waves created from the big bang!)

So the falling of a tree is only turned into a sound when you have a 'radio antenna' (or ear) that turns it into a sound (or noise, if it's particularly unpleasant)



No time here, got to get to work, but the vibrations are the sound. Once again though it's a daft semantic argument we're entering into. We both accept the fact that the vibrations are there, you simply choose not to call them sound. And it's not very scientific to say 'I KNOW'. Knowledge is never absolute. There are always uncertainties, even when they become vanishingly small.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/sound/soucon.html

under sound propagation, this...
"Sound propagates through air as a longitudinal wave. The speed of sound is determined by the properties of the air, and not by the frequency or amplitude of the sound. Sound waves, as well as most other types of waves, can be described in terms of the following basic wave phenomena. "

Radio waves are not sound, they're electromagnetic vibrations that exist regardless of whether we decide to detect them and then turn them into sound waves that our ears then covert into firing neurons abstracted from the sound itself. Though with electromagnetic waves we are more directly confronted with the world of quantum effects which complicate the matter somewhat. Some say they don't need a medium, others would say we don't understand the medium yet.
Advanced Wordsmith
Quote by Magical_felix


I understand that... That's why I said yes, technically, it makes it a sound. But that is not the point of the question. The question was first asked by a philosopher, not a scientist ;)


Philosophy not underpinned by science, not underpinned by what we actually know about the world is cod philosophy, and not worth bothering with. The best philosophers always worked with the best science of the time.
Advanced Wordsmith
Quote by TheAngryishLover


Just saw this

I'm a bit of a science geek and this stuff interests me, so I'm not trying to sound argumentative or arrogant here, but 'sound' doesn't travel in air or matter, but rather shock waves travel through air and matter.

So you are right in that the shock waves will travel regardless of a human presence or not, but only when an ear, or a mechanical instrument capable of doing the same thing, converts those waves to sound, does it actually become a sound

Hence, if a tree fell and no one was around, would it make a sound?
No.

But, you could argue that even if a human wasn't there, then there would be plenty of other creatures able to convert the waves into sounds!


I would say that sound doesn't need a measuring device (ear or otherwise) to exist, excepting that we needed to have such devices to know that sound exists in the first place. This also accepting that sound will always occur when anything moves through a gas or the gas moves relative to other masses (of whatever matter phase). Also accepting that there isn't some as yet unforeseen phenomena that can provide an exception, such as something causing a vacuum around a falling tree. Ridiculously unlikely, just highlighting that nothing is ever 100% certain.

However the question was whether a tree makes a noise (which is not how the question is usually couched in terms of sound). A noise is an unpleasant sound. Unpleasantness is an intentional state requiring a conscious entity and so therefore if there is no intentional being around to detect the tree falling, and that also doesn't like the sound of the tree falling (a logger might quite enjoy it) then it won't make a noise, just an unrecognised or recognised pleasant sound.

But as per always with these type of arguments, they get bogged down in semantics.
Advanced Wordsmith
One thing you can say about Lush forums. They cover the big issues.

But why isn't there a just tinsel and bauble option, a 'no lights' option or a nothing at all option. A young pine with its dignity still in tact.
Advanced Wordsmith
The human body has lovely form, lovely curves and edges that define. To me a tat should fit in with this, either accentuate these lines or be done in a minimalist way to not get in the way. With the vast majority of tats this isn't the case. The body is treated as a blank flat canvas, it isn't. They look like they're plonked on and they ruin the beauty of the human form.

Also ones that are meant to have meaning are so often ill thought through, and with a little more maturity/knowledge will look to the owner as trite or inappropriate or simply wrong. So many phrases look so simplistic to my eyes, not always, but often enough and I wonder how the owner will view them in 10years. Someone showed me a tat of a little bluebird the other day. They said it was for their mum who used to love the little blue birds. Trouble is it would have been a superb blue wren she loved since they lived in Sydney but this was plainly an American blue bird - a thrush. Entirely different genus, and continent, shape and markings - the only similarity being blueish and small. Seemed daft to me to get something so wrong.

Answering the question. Never really been into them to then get tired of them but don't mind them if done well.
Advanced Wordsmith
The human body has lovely form, lovely curves and edges that define. To me a tat should fit in with this, either accentuate these lines or be done in a minimalist way to not get in the way. With the vast majority of tats this isn't the case. The body is treated as a blank flat canvas, it isn't. They look like they're plonked on and they ruin the beauty of the human form.

Also ones that are meant to have meaning are so often ill thought through, and with a little more maturity/knowledge will look to the owner as trite or inappropriate or simply wrong. So many phrases look so simplistic to my eyes, not always, but often enough and I wonder how the owner will view them in 10years. Someone showed me a tat of a little bluebird the other day. They said it was for their mum who used to love the little blue birds. Trouble is it would have been a superb blue wren she loved since they lived in Sydney but this was plainly an American blue bird - a thrush. Entirely different genus, and continent, shape and markings - the only similarity being blueish and small. Seemed daft to me to get something so wrong.

Answering the question. Never really been into them to then get tired of them but don't mind them if done well.
Advanced Wordsmith
Do you want to come home to my place. I can show you my axe collection.


Excuse me, I have to go replace my incontinence pad.


I probably shouldn't be dating you know. I haven't finished the antibiotics course yet, but you're just too hot to resist. Still, a condom will always contain the discharge.

Me and my ex split because she thought I was too possessive. It's very sad, she died soon after, ended up having a mysterious accident.
Advanced Wordsmith
It wouldn't matter to me at all. In fact I'd want to know all the intricate details of what happened and how you felt. And then maybe plan some more if she wanted to, but that's my kick.

And now after checking out your gorgeous pics you have managed to get my blood pumping knowing it's a fantasy of yours.
Advanced Wordsmith
Most of these women are just posers. Give me a women that actually rides motorbikes any day...





Advanced Wordsmith
This is from a sanctioned biblical text - seems they weren't paying close enough attention.

Advanced Wordsmith
Oops, just realised it was placed in 'Ask the gals'. The problem with having the latest posts pop up in the scroll for the unobservant like me to flagrantly respond to.

Quietly slinks out of the room.
Advanced Wordsmith
My only problem with feminism is the word. I'd prefer egalitarian, with a focus on gender equality perhaps. But I'm a pedant like that. Should there also be masculinism for those few areas that are skewed the other way, or transgenderism or homosexualism. So again, for me gender equality in the midst of a wider focus on egalitarianism is enough but I can't deny there is empowerment in belonging to a cause and so perhaps the term feminism serves a purpose there, a purpose that for some has been met and they no longer need the word but certainly not for all, and, world wide, no where near a majority.

...Just looked up the terms. It seems masculinism does exist - for men's rights, sometimes masculism. Transgenderism exists for seeking rights for transgenders, but homosexualism simply describes the state of being homosexual (one website described it as the teachings and indoctrination of homosexuality - lol) It seems the terms aren't used enough to have solid meanings, but even so, the English language can be a daft thing sometimes.
Advanced Wordsmith
Quote by thesexynun
For lingerie..shhh my name is...

I love U2...sprite you are awesome!

Now excuse me I need to go put on my wings lol



But U2 were nothing compared to The Flying Nun (and the somewhat more accessible Gidget). A prepubescent boys wet dream (if that's not a contradiction in terms).

Advanced Wordsmith
Quote by Stephen_Q


Please be honest, I suspect we may not get any response to the first 3 but what if we did???




Your trust in us to be honest in the poll is somewhat endearing. Now, I'm trying to sell the Sydney Harbour Bridge. Legit. Wanna buy it?
Advanced Wordsmith
Quote by sprite
I'm in U2.


Oh, so you're that other voice in my head I hear.
Advanced Wordsmith
I don't wear it and can't stand the stuff. I don't like it when other people wear it either. This applies to women as well as blokes. Some people at least do it with a little subtlety so it doesn't overpower and you don't notice it unless you're real close (unless in a lift or the like). For those that lather it on I find it assaults the senses as much as passive smoke does. A full morning bus can be a nightmare. But I'm not into anything like that. Don't like makeup either but at least that stays on other peoples bodies, unless they expect me to kiss them.

I do wear antiperspirant but only if I'm likely to get sweaty during the day.
Advanced Wordsmith
And on the recipe front:

I've made up a chick pea salad I love. Roasting chickpeas mixed with olive oil, fennel, nigella, coriander, cumin, paprika. Mixing with char grilled pumpkin slices cubed, haloumi char grilled and cubed, raisons soaked in balsamic all poured over. Eaten with a salad of celery, baby spinach, rocket, steamed beetroot (cooled), capsicum, snow peas, coriander leaves - lots.

Often make a stir fry that is pretty fluid but generally has ... almonds, roasted in the pan first and put aside, hard tofu cubed and fried in sesame oil till crispy and put aside. Garlic, ginger, chilli - earlier - , coriander and teriyaki - later - making the flavours (added at the right times of course) and whatever vegies but always a good mix (eg capsicum, snow peas, broccoli, Spanish onion, bok choy, celery, carrots and a mushroom of sorts - shitake or wood mushrooms are my favourites. Right at the end squeeze half a lime through it and sprinkle the almonds and tofu over the top.

I make a nut wellington that a vego friend loves, tastes better than a meat version I reckon.

BTW, I'm not vego myself, been doing a lot of meat and three veg lately, though the meat is never simple. My wife is craving the meat, and not in the way this site may inspire - lol.
Advanced Wordsmith
Proteins: The most obvious tip which I'm sure everyone knows is to mix legumes with cereals to get your full compliment of amino acids (protein building blocks). The old furphy that you can't get enough protein from vegetarian sources is just that.

eg: Chickpeas/CousCous, peanut butter/toast, baked beans/toast, homous/pita, kidney beans/corn chips, lentils/pita, lentils/rice, etc etc

Iron:
(I've just been through all this with an iron deficient wife, hence I've written heaps on it, for most people it's not an issue)
Iron is very poorly absorbed by the body, from any source, but it is more poorly absorbed from vegetarian sources (non-heme iron) than animal products (heme iron). This poor absorption is generally good as the body doesn't get rid of iron and too much is toxic, but if getting iron from vegetarian sources there's a couple of things that can improve uptake (Note: Our biochemistry is geared more towards preventing iron uptake than enhancing it, I have a friend that doesn't prevent uptake and has dangerously high levels. Don't go overboard with iron uptake unless your doctor says there's a problem, obviously more of an issue with women, particularly if they have strong periods)
- Mix good iron sources with vitamin C sources to enhance uptake. Adding vinegar, lemon juice, basically anything acidic also helps as it changes the valency of the free iron to one more easily absorbed). Lots of tomatoes are always good.
- Avoid tannins with meals an hour before or after, unfortunately that means tea, some herbal teas, coffee and red wine.
- Other minerals (Calcium, Magnesium, Zinc) also hinder uptake so dairy products aren't a good mix.
- Some supposedly high iron sources are actually poor due to other chemicals hindering uptake (eg, spinach has oxalates, eggs aren't a good source either)
- Heme iron uptake is also reduced if you cook the meat too much and is enhanced by all of the above.

As with being an omnivore (no-one is really a carnivore), a mixed healthy diet is best. eg: As calcium and iron compete for uptake mixing things up means that sometimes you get the calcium you need, other times you get the iron, etc etc. Similar with amino acids.