thegoodfellas/blogset-br huggingface dataset:
Ola gente bonita, estao todos bem?Vagando por este mundo YouTubistico, encontrei mais uma perola pra compartilhar com voces..Se liguem no Heavy Metal da garotinha, nao e assim um gutural perfeito, mas um screamo desse sossegado!Don't Brush My Hair in KnotsViram o irmao de baterista que coisa fofa? E nao pensem que eles sao o Sandy&Junior da vez, pq eles revezam, confere so:I Love My PuppyOk que o menininho canta algo mais "suave", e a menininha nao manda taaao bem assim na batera, mas ja ta valendo! *-*PS. E so nessas horas que me da vontade de ter filhos! Os dois fazem (ou pelo menos tentam) as coisas que eu mais queria fazer no mundo musical, fazer um vocal gutural e tocar batera... PAIS DOS MOLEQUES, SE QUISEREM ME ADOTAR, FIQUEM A VONTADE!! PS2. So pra lembrar DIA 07 COMECAM AS VENDAS DOS INGRESSOS PARA O ROCK IN RIO!Ate a proxima povo black! Tapa na bunda de todos! o/ Olaa, gente do bem! Tudo em paz? A convite do meu amigo Ursao, cai aqui para dar uma forca e compartilhar minha pouca sabedoria oriental a este ser peludo e a voces, e claro!! Primeiro, quero me apresentar: Eu sou a Tya, amante do Rock'n Roll e todas as suas vertentes (ou pelo menos maioria), ouco Folk, Blues, Metal *-*, um pouco de Country, enfim, minha playlist e uma mistureba boa! Tentarei estar sempre presente por aqui... Nao e que eu entenda muito sobre muitas coisas, mas com um copo de de cerveja, um pouco de sacanagem e sete notas musicais, agente se vira como pode... Quero agradecer ao Jair, pelo espaco e por contar comigo pra mais este lance. E espero tambem contar com voces ai, caros leitores e ouvintes!! Um aperto na tetinha, uma lambida e ate a proxima meu povo. Que os bons ventos musicais nos soprem e que a mare colorida seque! Ate. A banda mineira Skank gravou, dia 19/04, em Sao Paulo, a participacao de varios artistas para o projeto SkankPlay, especie de jam session virtual com fas. Os musicos registraram partes da cancao "De Repente", faixa que esta no CD e DVD "Multishow Ao Vivo - Skank no Mineirao". As participacoes estarao disponiveis no site www.skankplay.com. Entre os artistas que colaboraram com o SkankPlay estiveram Kiko Zambianchi, Simoninha, integrantes das bandas Cachorro Grande e Fresno e Ellen Jabour.SkankPlay O SkankPlay e uma plataforma que permite aos internautas tocarem junto com o Skank ou com outros musicos a cancao "De Repente" atraves de videos. Ao acessar a plataforma, cada integrante do Skank aparece em um video diferente tocando sua parte da musica --Samuel Rosa aparece em dois videos de voz e um de guitarra. Ao apertar o botao "play", o visitante assiste a todos os videos sincronizados, formando a musica. Qualquer pessoa pode gravar sua propria versao para "De Repente" (cantando, tocando um instrumento ou fazendo uma performance) e fazer o upload do clipe no site. O botao "videoclipe" faz com que os videos sejam mixados e fundidos em um so. A quarta edicao do evento de rock mais
falado no mundo esta pra chegar de volta no Brasil, o ROCK IN RIO, evento criado pelo empresario brasileiro Roberto Medina, que foi realizado pela primeira vez em 1985, no Rio de Janeiro, dando origem ao nome Rock In Rio.Ao longo da sua historia, o Rock in Rio teve nove edicoes, tres no Brasil, quatro em Portugal e duas na Espanha. Em 2008, foi realizado pela primeira vez em dois locais diferentes, Lisboa e Madri.A proxima edicao do festival sera realizada nos dias 23, 24, 25, 30 de Setembro e 01 e 2 de outubro de 2011, no Parque Olimpico Cidade do Rock, no Rio de Janeiro.Grandes bandas famosas ja sao preseca confirmadas no evento, tais como Metallica, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Coldplay, Guns N' Roses, e inumeras outras bandas conhecidas e pouco conhecidas tambem, mais essa parte sera feita numa proxima postagem mais datelhada, sendo assim caros leitores e amantes do rock, estamos todos anciosos para a chegada do grande dia, onde iremos ao delirio como nossas bandas prediletas, deixo voces com o video da musica tema do evento, abraco a todos, e logo estaremos fazendo novas postagens sobre esse evento tao esperado...
Trash ou Thrash? ;oUHEHUEHUEHUUHEHUEHUEHUE Bom, provavelmente a maioria do povo que ira ler este blog, e da turma do Rock'n Roll, porem, nao sei se a maioria ja se deu o trabalho de procurar sobre o comeco de tudo, caso ja saiba, aproveite para relembrar e caso nunca tenha pensado nisso, vem comigo...Mais ou menos em 1940/50, com a juncao do Rhythm Blues, Country e Folk surgiu o "Rock" que era um termo abrangente para a musica popular que se desenvolveu naquela epoca, nos suburbios dos EUA. No final dos anos sessenta e inicio dos setenta o Rock criou novos sub-generos, os mais conhecidos atualmente sao o Heavy Metal, Soft Rock, Hard Rock, Punk Rock, Rock Progressivo e o Glam Rock. Nos anos oitenta surgiram o Punk Hardcore, Rock Alternativo e o New Wave. Ja na decada de noventa veio o Grunge, Indie Rock, Britpop e o Nu Metal. Um grupo de rock mais ''classico" tem como principais bases uma ou duas Guitarras, Baixo, Bateria e teclado, ou ate mesmo um piano ou orgao... Nao esquecendo o Vocal. Junto com o teclado pode haver uma gaita ou saxofone, porem, estes fazem um estilo Blues e geralmente em solo.Sei que ainda tem mais coisas sobre o assunto o qual precisamos saber, mas isso ficara para os proximos posts, onde falaremos sobre generos especificos do Rock and Roll.- Entao e isso, povo bonito. Uma lambida, um aperto de mao e ate a proxima.#Lembrando sempre, que qualquer contribuicao e totalmente bem vinda! (: salve galerinha amantes de um bom ROCK, hoje resolvi abrilhantar os vossos olhos e ouvidos, com uma banda que curto " bagarai "!. O DragonForce e uma banda inglesa de extreme power metal que surgiu em 1999. No inicio a banda era composta pelo vocalista ZP Theart, os guitarristas Herman Li e Sam Totmam , ( que convenhamos cara, eles arrebentammmm ) e o batera Didier Almouzni, contando tambem com o tecladista Vadim Pruzhanov. Esaa banda sempre mandando bem em todos os teus albuns tem em destaque ( apontado por mim ), a musica Through the Fire and Flames, esse som recebeu em 2007 o premio de melhor solo, depois de ser votado pelos leitores da revista Total Guitar, send oque em 2006 essa musica foi lancada no jogo Guitar Hero, logo apos teu lancamento no jogo, em apenas uma semana , as vendas do album aumentaram mais d 126%, hehehe sera que a musica e boa ? rsrs bom, pra tirarmos a prova, deixo voces com o video dela ai, pra geral conferir, e tambem, para quem se interessar, entra no menu PLAY-DOWNLOAD e baixe ela, e isso ai galerinha, forte abraco a todos, logo logo estaremos com mais postagens, porque o lance e RONCKKKK ROLLL. Tocar bateria, qualquer um pode tocar... Agora quero ver nego tocar batera e fazer malabarismo ao mesmo tempo!Convenhamos, o mano ai e foda. Pior que se fosse um cara feio, agente ate entenderia porque tanto esforco :P# Saudacoes meus caros. Aguardem os proximos posts, cheeeio de cultura, haha. Aperto de mao, lambida e fiquem bem!
Three simple numbers that add up to global catastrophe - and that make clear who the real enemy isBy Bill McKibbenJuly 19, 2012 9:35 AM ET If the pictures of those towering wildfires in Colorado haven't convinced you, or the size of your AC bill this summer, here are some hard numbers about climate change: June broke or tied 3,215 high-temperature records across the United States. That followed the warmest May on record for the Northern Hemisphere the 327th consecutive month in which the temperature of the entire globe exceeded the 20th-century average, the odds of which occurring by simple chance were 3.7 x 10-99, a number considerably larger than the number of stars in the universe. Meteorologists reported that this spring was the warmest ever recorded for our nation in fact, it crushed the old record by so much that it represented the "largest temperature departure from average of any season on record." The same week, Saudi authorities reported that it had rained in Mecca despite a temperature of 109 degrees, the hottest downpour in the planet's history.Not that our leaders seemed to notice. Last month the world's nations, meeting in Rio for the 20th-anniversary reprise of a massive 1992 environmental summit, accomplished nothing. Unlike George H.W. Bush, who flew in for the first conclave, Barack Obama didn't even attend. It was "a ghost of the glad, confident meeting 20 years ago," the British journalist George Monbiot wrote; no one paid it much attention, footsteps echoing through the halls "once thronged by multitudes." Since I wrote one of the first books for a general audience about global warming way back in 1989, and since I've spent the intervening decades working ineffectively to slow that warming, I can say with some confidence that we're losing the fight, badly and quickly losing it because, most of all, we remain in denial about the peril that human civilization is in.When we think about global warming at all, the arguments tend to be ideological, theological and economic. But to grasp the seriousness of our predicament, you just need to do a little math. For the past year, an easy and powerful bit of arithmetical analysis first published by financial analysts in the U.K. has been making the rounds of environmental conferences and journals, but it hasn't yet broken through to the larger public. This analysis upends most of the conventional political thinking about climate change. And it allows us to understand our precarious our almost-but-not-quite-finally hopeless position with three simple numbers.The First Number: 2 CelsiusIf the movie had ended in Hollywood fashion, the Copenhagen climate conference in 2009 would have marked the culmination of the global fight to slow a changing climate. The world's nations had gathered in the December gloom of the Danish capital for what a leading climate economist, Sir Nicholas Stern of Britain, called the "most important gathering since the Second World War, given what is at stake." As Danish energy minister Connie Hedegaard, who presided over the conference, declared at the time: "This is our chance. If we miss it, it
scientific data, and the world settled on the two-degree target indeed, it's fair to say that it's the only thing about climate change the world has settled on. All told, 167 countries responsible for more than 87 percent of the world's carbon emissions have signed on to the Copenhagen Accord, endorsing the two-degree target. Only a few dozen countries have rejected it, including Kuwait, Nicaragua and Venezuela. Even the United Arab Emirates, which makes most of its money exporting oil and gas, signed on. The official position of planet Earth at the moment is that we can't raise the temperature more than two degrees Celsius it's become the bottomest of bottom lines. Two degrees.The Second Number: 565 GigatonsScientists estimate that humans can pour roughly 565 more gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by midcentury and still have some reasonable hope of staying below two degrees. ("Reasonable," in this case, means four chances in five, or somewhat worse odds than playing Russian roulette with a six-shooter.)This idea of a global "carbon budget" emerged about a decade ago, as scientists began to calculate how much oil, coal and gas could still safely be burned. Since we've increased the Earth's temperature by 0.8 degrees so far, we're currently less than halfway to the target. But, in fact, computer models calculate that even if we stopped increasing CO2 now, the temperature would likely still rise another 0.8 degrees, as previously released carbon continues to overheat the atmosphere. That means we're already three-quarters of the way to the two-degree target.How good are these numbers? No one is insisting that they're exact, but few dispute that they're generally right. The 565-gigaton figure was derived from one of the most sophisticated computer-simulation models that have been built by climate scientists around the world over the past few decades. And the number is being further confirmed by the latest climate-simulation models currently being finalized in advance of the next report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "Looking at them as they come in, they hardly differ at all," says Tom Wigley, an Australian climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. "There's maybe 40 models in the data set now, compared with 20 before. But so far the numbers are pretty much the same. We're just fine-tuning things. I don't think much has changed over the last decade." William Collins, a senior climate scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, agrees. "I think the results of this round of simulations will be quite similar," he says. "We're not getting any free lunch from additional understanding of the climate system."We're not getting any free lunch from the world's economies, either. With only a single year's lull in 2009 at the height of the financial crisis, we've continued to pour record amounts of carbon into the atmosphere, year after year. In late May, the International Energy Agency published its latest figures CO2 emissions last year rose to 31.6 gigatons, up 3.2 percent from the year before. America had a warm winter and converted more coal-fired power plants to natural gas,
so its emissions fell slightly; China kept booming, so its carbon output (which recently surpassed the U.S.) rose 9.3 percent; the Japanese shut down their fleet of nukes post-Fukushima, so their emissions edged up 2.4 percent. "There have been efforts to use more renewable energy and improve energy efficiency," said Corinne Le Quere, who runs England's Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. "But what this shows is that so far the effects have been marginal." In fact, study after study predicts that carbon emissions will keep growing by roughly three percent a year and at that rate, we'll blow through our 565-gigaton allowance in 16 years, around the time today's preschoolers will be graduating from high school. "The new data provide further evidence that the door to a two-degree trajectory is about to close," said Fatih Birol, the IEA's chief economist. In fact, he continued, "When I look at this data, the trend is perfectly in line with a temperature increase of about six degrees." That's almost 11 degrees Fahrenheit, which would create a planet straight out of science fiction.So, new data in hand, everyone at the Rio conference renewed their ritual calls for serious international action to move us back to a two-degree trajectory. The charade will continue in November, when the next Conference of the Parties (COP) of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change convenes in Qatar. This will be COP 18 COP 1 was held in Berlin in 1995, and since then the process has accomplished essentially nothing. Even scientists, who are notoriously reluctant to speak out, are slowly overcoming their natural preference to simply provide data. "The message has been consistent for close to 30 years now," Collins says with a wry laugh, "and we have the instrumentation and the computer power required to present the evidence in detail. If we choose to continue on our present course of action, it should be done with a full evaluation of the evidence the scientific community has presented." He pauses, suddenly conscious of being on the record. "I should say, a fuller evaluation of the evidence."So far, though, such calls have had little effect. We're in the same position we've been in for a quarter-century: scientific warning followed by political inaction. Among scientists speaking off the record, disgusted candor is the rule. One senior scientist told me, "You know those new cigarette packs, where governments make them put a picture of someone with a hole in their throats? Gas pumps should have something like that."The Third Number: 2,795 GigatonsThis number is the scariest of all one that, for the first time, meshes the political and scientific dimensions of our dilemma. It was highlighted last summer by the Carbon Tracker Initiative, a team of London financial analysts and environmentalists who published a report in an effort to educate investors about the possible risks that climate change poses to their stock portfolios. The number describes the amount of carbon already contained in the proven coal and oil and gas reserves of the fossil-fuel companies, and the countries (think Venezuela or Kuwait)
that act like fossil-fuel companies. In short, it's the fossil fuel we're currently planning to burn. And the key point is that this new number 2,795 is higher than 565. Five times higher.The Carbon Tracker Initiative led by James Leaton, an environmentalist who served as an adviser at the accounting giant PricewaterhouseCoopers combed through proprietary databases to figure out how much oil, gas and coal the world's major energy companies hold in reserve. The numbers aren't perfect they don't fully reflect the recent surge in unconventional energy sources like shale gas, and they don't accurately reflect coal reserves, which are subject to less stringent reporting requirements than oil and gas. But for the biggest companies, the figures are quite exact: If you burned everything in the inventories of Russia's Lukoil and America's ExxonMobil, for instance, which lead the list of oil and gas companies, each would release more than 40 gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.Which is exactly why this new number, 2,795 gigatons, is such a big deal. Think of two degrees Celsius as the legal drinking limit equivalent to the 0.08 blood-alcohol level below which you might get away with driving home. The 565 gigatons is how many drinks you could have and still stay below that limit the six beers, say, you might consume in an evening. And the 2,795 gigatons? That's the three 12-packs the fossil-fuel industry has on the table, already opened and ready to pour.We have five times as much oil and coal and gas on the books as climate scientists think is safe to burn. We'd have to keep 80 percent of those reserves locked away underground to avoid that fate. Before we knew those numbers, our fate had been likely. Now, barring some massive intervention, it seems certain.Yes, this coal and gas and oil is still technically in the soil. But it's already economically aboveground it's figured into share prices, companies are borrowing money against it, nations are basing their budgets on the presumed returns from their patrimony. It explains why the big fossil-fuel companies have fought so hard to prevent the regulation of carbon dioxide those reserves are their primary asset, the holding that gives their companies their value. It's why they've worked so hard these past years to figure out how to unlock the oil in Canada's tar sands, or how to drill miles beneath the sea, or how to frack the Appalachians.If you told Exxon or Lukoil that, in order to avoid wrecking the climate, they couldn't pump out their reserves, the value of their companies would plummet. John Fullerton, a former managing director at JP Morgan who now runs the Capital Institute, calculates that at today's market value, those 2,795 gigatons of carbon emissions are worth about $27 trillion. Which is to say, if you paid attention to the scientists and kept 80 percent of it underground, you'd be writing off $20 trillion in assets. The numbers aren't exact, of course, but that carbon bubble makes the housing bubble look small by comparison. It won't necessarily burst we might
well burn all that carbon, in which case investors will do fine. But if we do, the planet will crater. You can have a healthy fossil-fuel balance sheet, or a relatively healthy planet but now that we know the numbers, it looks like you can't have both. Do the math: 2,795 is five times 565. That's how the story ends.So far, as I said at the start, environmental efforts to tackle global warming have failed. The planet's emissions of carbon dioxide continue to soar, especially as developing countries emulate (and supplant) the industries of the West. Even in rich countries, small reductions in emissions offer no sign of the real break with the status quo we'd need to upend the iron logic of these three numbers. Germany is one of the only big countries that has actually tried hard to change its energy mix; on one sunny Saturday in late May, that northern-latitude nation generated nearly half its power from solar panels within its borders. That's a small miracle and it demonstrates that we have the technology to solve our problems. But we lack the will. So far, Germany's the exception; the rule is ever more carbon.This record of failure means we know a lot about what strategies don't work. Green groups, for instance, have spent a lot of time trying to change individual lifestyles: the iconic twisty light bulb has been installed by the millions, but so have a new generation of energy-sucking flatscreen TVs. Most of us are fundamentally ambivalent about going green: We like cheap flights to warm places, and we're certainly not going to give them up if everyone else is still taking them. Since all of us are in some way the beneficiaries of cheap fossil fuel, tackling climate change has been like trying to build a movement against yourself it's as if the gay-rights movement had to be constructed entirely from evangelical preachers, or the abolition movement from slaveholders.People perceive correctly that their individual actions will not make a decisive difference in the atmospheric concentration of CO2; by 2010, a poll found that "while recycling is widespread in America and 73 percent of those polled are paying bills online in order to save paper," only four percent had reduced their utility use and only three percent had purchased hybrid cars. Given a hundred years, you could conceivably change lifestyles enough to matter but time is precisely what we lack.A more efficient method, of course, would be to work through the political system, and environmentalists have tried that, too, with the same limited success. They've patiently lobbied leaders, trying to convince them of our peril and assuming that politicians would heed the warnings. Sometimes it has seemed to work. Barack Obama, for instance, campaigned more aggressively about climate change than any president before him the night he won the nomination, he told supporters that his election would mark the moment "the rise of the oceans began to slow and the planet began to heal." And he has achieved one significant change: a steady increase in the fuel