I have to admit it, I’m not the most devoted person to the cause. But you had better believe I support it. Plant a tree, maybe, or recycle that bottle of Coca- Cola you just drank instead of simply throwing it out into the trash like it can’t ever be anything again. It’s the simple things that make our lives worth living, and I think it’s the simple things we can do as people to keep our planet, well, livable. Gandhi once said, “Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's needs, but not every man's greed.” So how do we go about fixing that? Being less greedy, maybe? I’m no genius, but I think that would be a pretty good guess.
There are eight white pawns, eight white pieces, eight black pawns, and eight black pieces. That makes sixteen pawns plus sixteen pieces, or thirty two chessmen (Queens count as chessmen, as do all the other pieces and the pawns).
Thirty two chessmen on a sixty-four-square board, each chessman can only occupy one square at a time, and each square can contain only one chessman at a time. Thus, half the board is occupied, and half is not.
To occupy a space, a chessman must move from his/her/its/hir/zie's space to to space to be occupied. For example, if a pawn is to occupy the square in front of it, it must un-occupy the square it is currently on. This unoccupied space can now be occupied by another chessman, such as a knight, so long as that chessman de-occupies its current space and moves to the once-occupied-then-deoccupied-and-now-reoccupied space.
Now, the pawn's starting square is occupied by the knight, the pawn has moved one square forward, and the Knight's starting square is de-occupied. Instead of trading the pawn's starting space for the space in front of the pawn, you have traded the Knight's starting space for the space in front of the pawn.
Why would you trade one square for another? Some squares and positions offer more possible moves, and give you more squares to which you can move your chessman. However, these "highway squares" can be used by your opponent, and the ability to retreat quickly means the ability to be chased quickly. If you can make a clean getaway across the board, your enemy can chase you just as fast and far.
The point of the game is to leave the enemy king piece with no options, nowhere to move, so you win; because in that situation, any move that does not rescue the king is illegal. When no move can rescue the king, no move can be made by your opponent, and the game ends. You win, because the logic bomb happened on your opponent's turn, and you are still able to move.
At the starting position, your king is protected and all of your other chessmen are safe from attack. You occupy a fourth of the board. But you must move, and pawns cannot move backwards, and to move any non-knight piece you must move a pawn first, so once you move a pawn you can never get back to starting position. Without losing the ability to go back to the starting position, the only piece you can move is the Knight. You have two knights. It is a proven law of chess that two knights alone cannot force a king into checkmate. Even if your two knights take out all the enemy chessmen except the king, you cannot win without getting out another of your chessmen, which requires moving your pawns, which requires losing the ability to go back to starting position.
You cannot win in Chess without sacrificing your most secure position. To win, you must open yourself to the possibility of losing. You must do things that cannot be undone.
The path to victory begins with a single step, but you cannot go back from there, and the path to victory can lead to defeat.
Unless you're Paul Morphy, in which case your opponent should just give up now and say that you won and save both of you some time.
it's a shitty preschooler cartoon you fundamentally broken twit
just because it is a preschooler cartoon doesnt mean it cant have interesting aspects to it
buuuuuut this i think is trying way too hard though 'hes a fox and foxes get called sly and cunning' isnt interesting, no matter how much you dress it up in history and random Jimi Hendrix quotes (?!). and '"swiper, no swiping" uses the same syntax as a protection from demons' would be kind of interesting if it was literally the same syntax but its actually just 'knowing someones name gives you power over them'... which is again such a typically well-known and ancient thing that you could quote it from hundreds and hundreds of modern-day things for children. Skulduggery Pleasant. there i have just named one where it is actually a major plot point.
its pretending to have unearthed something weird and cool but hasnt really beyond shit that anyone knows. its in no way shocking that you can find this shit in kids shows. i wouldve been more interested if swiper was, like, a kitten instead. what a boring ass article
Things that annoy me: Using resource hacker I can change the itunes icon, but if I pin it to the taskbar it reverts back to the old one (*which doesn't go with how I have Windows 7 skinned*) as long as it's pinned and I can't figure out how to stop it from doing that.
starting with some vinyl noises and bitcrushed something or other and some kinda boring trance-y plucks, ok so far...
a build...
now got a sidechained saw bass that would be cool but it's too low in the mix, which is dominated by the vocals for some reason
hey a dubstep-y bit that reminds me of Skrillex or Porter Robinson with glitchy samples and a nice beat, but no bass and back to her saying warrior over and over and now the track is over
Next track has a weaker bassline but she's shut up mostly so you can actually hear it, the guitar is incredibly boring, same riff over and over with some filter sweeping going on.
oooh, I like the intro here with some skipping vocal sample and this beat, but now she keeps half rapping half singing and there's that too-low in the mix bass again that is playing the same note over and over. There are some cool portamento-y FX during the prechorus though.
Another cool intro with what sounds like a modem, and some cool rockin' drums and more subtle Skrillex-ish growly FM synth bits, there is yet another boring guitar riff repeating over and over, and she's still intensely boring lyrically and she is too damn high in the mix
There's a bit of a duality as to why. I mean, she's got this one side that's like "F#!K YEAH PARTIES AND SHIT", and I guess I enjoy the whole aspect there, but what I really think I latched onto more was the side of her that's more laid back and personal, and when she actually, y'know, sings, because I really enjoy her legit vocals.
She shows this a little more on songs like "Animal" and "The Harold Song" from her older releases. As for Warrior, I think it panders a little more to the party crowd than I'd like, but then again, we're talking about Ms. Spell My Name With A Dollar Sign, so that $hould be expected.
Don't get me wrong, there were definitely a few great bits and ideas in there, especually in the intros and prechoruses, but to me they all seemed kinda smoothed out by the bland anthemic dance pop choruses.
So iTunes finally added a Play Next/music queue feature.
This excites me. One of the main reasons I disliked iTunes after Spotify came on the scene was its lack of a queue, so I either had to use one with ads or remember what I wanted to listen to one song at a time.
Damn. If only someone could make a Google Music client that felt like iTunes does now. I'd be in love.
Comments
satan
Yeah, sounds anti-communistic.
But what do I know?
define "earned"
:>
also wanting to take someone else's money - specifically someone else's - is called 'jealousy'. which is also bad fyi, no matter who it is
first revealed track name from the new Nick Cave album: "We No Who U R"
im not sure how to feel about this
I have to admit it, I’m not the most devoted person to the cause. But you had better believe I support it. Plant a tree, maybe, or recycle that bottle of Coca- Cola you just drank instead of simply throwing it out into the trash like it can’t ever be anything again. It’s the simple things that make our lives worth living, and I think it’s the simple things we can do as people to keep our planet, well, livable. Gandhi once said, “Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's needs, but not every man's greed.” So how do we go about fixing that? Being less greedy, maybe? I’m no genius, but I think that would be a pretty good guess.
Thirty two chessmen on a sixty-four-square board, each chessman can only occupy one square at a time, and each square can contain only one chessman at a time. Thus, half the board is occupied, and half is not.
To occupy a space, a chessman must move from his/her/its/hir/zie's space to to space to be occupied. For example, if a pawn is to occupy the square in front of it, it must un-occupy the square it is currently on. This unoccupied space can now be occupied by another chessman, such as a knight, so long as that chessman de-occupies its current space and moves to the once-occupied-then-deoccupied-and-now-reoccupied space.
Now, the pawn's starting square is occupied by the knight, the pawn has moved one square forward, and the Knight's starting square is de-occupied. Instead of trading the pawn's starting space for the space in front of the pawn, you have traded the Knight's starting space for the space in front of the pawn.
Why would you trade one square for another? Some squares and positions offer more possible moves, and give you more squares to which you can move your chessman. However, these "highway squares" can be used by your opponent, and the ability to retreat quickly means the ability to be chased quickly. If you can make a clean getaway across the board, your enemy can chase you just as fast and far.
The point of the game is to leave the enemy king piece with no options, nowhere to move, so you win; because in that situation, any move that does not rescue the king is illegal. When no move can rescue the king, no move can be made by your opponent, and the game ends. You win, because the logic bomb happened on your opponent's turn, and you are still able to move.
At the starting position, your king is protected and all of your other chessmen are safe from attack. You occupy a fourth of the board. But you must move, and pawns cannot move backwards, and to move any non-knight piece you must move a pawn first, so once you move a pawn you can never get back to starting position. Without losing the ability to go back to the starting position, the only piece you can move is the Knight. You have two knights. It is a proven law of chess that two knights alone cannot force a king into checkmate. Even if your two knights take out all the enemy chessmen except the king, you cannot win without getting out another of your chessmen, which requires moving your pawns, which requires losing the ability to go back to starting position.
You cannot win in Chess without sacrificing your most secure position. To win, you must open yourself to the possibility of losing. You must do things that cannot be undone.
The path to victory begins with a single step, but you cannot go back from there, and the path to victory can lead to defeat.
Unless you're Paul Morphy, in which case your opponent should just give up now and say that you won and save both of you some time.
hey! I wear those kinds of glasses. >:|
of course I actually have serious eyesight problems, but yeah.
just because it is a preschooler cartoon doesnt mean it cant have interesting aspects to it
buuuuuut this i think is trying way too hard though 'hes a fox and foxes get called sly and cunning' isnt interesting, no matter how much you dress it up in history and random Jimi Hendrix quotes (?!). and '"swiper, no swiping" uses the same syntax as a protection from demons' would be kind of interesting if it was literally the same syntax but its actually just 'knowing someones name gives you power over them'... which is again such a typically well-known and ancient thing that you could quote it from hundreds and hundreds of modern-day things for children. Skulduggery Pleasant. there i have just named one where it is actually a major plot point.
its pretending to have unearthed something weird and cool but hasnt really beyond shit that anyone knows. its in no way shocking that you can find this shit in kids shows. i wouldve been more interested if swiper was, like, a kitten instead. what a boring ass article
http://www.skrillexquest.com/
huh
Nintendo hasn't really brought their A-game to the 3DS, it seems
what's new about itHonestly significantly more enthused about the 3DS than the Wii U, if only for the fact that I really need a new DS.
Satelleview
is
a thing.
bacon salad