Jay-Z 1, Racism 0


Recommended Posts

Dig. Dig. Dig.

It's a long way down in that hole, eh C-Squarez? :laugh:

You could have posted that article as it was, with the title as "Jay-z plays at Glastonbury". However instead you put your own title in, and describe what I can only assume is Noel, or the fans at Glastonbury, because your thoughtless comments were wooly and vague. You describe 'them' as "little racist bastards". You can't blame people for filling in the gaps that your poor comments left.

I've been following this thread, and was suprised it made it to 2 pages. It's C-Squarez vs. the rest of the world here, so why not just close the damned thread.

True, the title could have been different but it wasn't. And you are right about the comments being vague but at the same time instead of asking for clarification, the thread was attacked. Now IF I was calling anyone racist, it would be Noel for the fact that my first post pointed out how well Jay-Z was welcomed.

And nah, I want the thread to stay open so we can discuss the topic of racial bias in music. :D

The only thing that Noel said was that he disproves of hip-hop at Glastonbury, and you describe his comments as fishy, i.e. suspicious.

:no:

The second comment you quoted was not mine but monkey13's. Now we are arguing semantics, Fishy, suspicious, eh... The reason I said that was because I posted a link in which Glastonbury?s co-organizer Emily Eavis hinted at something more sinister lurking beneath Noel?s words, but stopped short of blurting it out.

True, the title could have been different but it wasn't. And you are right about the comments being vague but at the same time instead of asking for clarification, the thread was attacked. Now IF I was calling anyone racist, it would be Noel for the fact that my first post pointed out how well Jay-Z was welcomed.

And nah, I want the thread to stay open so we can discuss the topic of racial bias in music.

Now if you'd have just said that in the beginning we could have cut out 3 pages :D

You'll have to put a disclaimer in your sig, like Gary7 :laugh:

Now if you'd have just said that in the beginning we could have cut out 3 pages :D

You'll have to put a disclaimer in your sig, like Gary7 :laugh:

I agree and it sucks that I have to do that though. It really does, but it is what it is.

Seriously dude this thread is stupid & you're seriously making yourself look stupid.

There you go. But if you aren't going to contribute at all, don't post. This is a large forum, go play somewhere. So instead of attacking me, why not give some insight on the topic at hand?

Unbelievable! Noel Gallager is very much entitled to his opinion which I consider to be a valid one. Glastonbury is historically a rock festival and has had visitors from around the world for many years - why a hip-hop artist is headlining is beyond me. There is plenty of new and established talent on tap on the rock and alternative scenes.

Unbelievable! Noel Gallager is very much entitled to his opinion which I consider to be a valid one. Glastonbury is historically a rock festival and has had visitors from around the world for many years - why a hip-hop artist is headlining is beyond me. There is plenty of new and established talent on tap on the rock and alternative scenes.

I love you.

You made a point about the topic and stuck to it. I love you.

Now again, is it a FACT that alot of people DO NOT like hip hop because of it's affiliation with african americans? Yes it is.

So I am calling YOU out Chicane-UK, and anyone else for that matter to find a post or thread of mine where I was being flat out racist or even had racist implications. All of my posts are still on this board, find something. If you do, I will apologize.

Hip hop has nothing to do with african americans, the FACT that a lot of people DO NOT like it is because its RUBBISH.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      581
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      73
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!