THE CLINTON BLAME GAME IS GOP HORSESHIT!!!
LoneRanger...@AOL
complaints (mostly) from
gene cowan
Blame it on Clinton - still.
Dubya has now begun blaming Bush Recession II on Bill Clinton.
"Two-and-a-half years ago, we inherited an economy in recession,"
he told donors at a Bush-Cheney '04 reception yesterday in Miami. He
has raised the same accusation in fundraising appearances since
mid-June in Washington, Georgia, New York, Los Angeles and San
Francisco.
It's a good applause line for a crowd of red-meat political
supporters. The trouble is it's a case of what the president has
called, in another context, revisionist history. The recession
officially began in March of 2001 - two months after Bush was sworn
in - according to the universally acknowledged arbiter of such
things, the National Bureau of Economic Research. And the president, at
other times, has said so himself.
The bad news came on Nov. 26, 2001. The NBER, led by an informal
economic adviser to Bush, Martin Feldstein, pronounced that economic
activity peaked in March 2001, "a determination that the expansion
that began in March 1991 ended in March 2001 and a recession began."
I will admit that Bill Clinton presided over a massive economic upswing
that was - in my opinion - almost entirely false, based as it was on
.coms that never made a profit nor produced a real product. I'm not
entirely sure how much one could blame the President for that sort of
thing - nor for the collapse of it. What you can blame a President for
is not taking sufficient nor correct steps to get out of it.
Mr. Bush, who ran in part against Mr. Clinton, a non-candidate, has
decided to run against him again! Guys, one more time: Bill Clinton is
no longer President. He is not running for President. Get a new
strategy. And Karl Rove, stop manipulating facts.
author Gene Cowan
category Right = Wrong | comments (0) | trackbacks (0) | permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
podcast
base commerceYou've got a credit card, why not use it?
The Just as I Thought Shop
The g-world Emporium
take a lookwebcamone
the view from my home office
city cam
downtown san jose
ham cam
mt. hamilton overlooking san jose
back home
the view of dc from arlington
www.flickr.com
This is a Flickr badge showing public photos from Gene Cowan. Make your
own badge here.
get reelThe latest movie from COWAN|creative and Gann Films
It's All In Your Head [Requires QuickTime]
This film was originally presented in 3D. You can view the 3D effect by
putting a sunglass lens over your right eye.
- Other films at Cowan Creative
peepsSara
Jeff
Nicole
Kirk
iTunesAlbums by my friend Sara are now available on the iTunes Music
Store.
most recent commentsIn No, I'm not pitiful at all, T. Kevin said: Yeah
this time of year is killer for UPS delivery guys,...
In Mom: don't read this entry, Gene Cowan said: Hahahahahahaaaaa!!!!!!
In Mom: don't read this entry, The Amazing Kirk A Go-Go said: "Mom,
don't read this entry?" Gene, you're mother's a smart woman....
In No, I'm not pitiful at all, Tim Who said: Time for some on-line
shopping! I say order one small item everyday...
In Know your neighbors, Tim Who said: The Blue zone, no wonder I'm so
comfortable here. http://aurorastudios.typepa  Percent from...
In Mom: don't read this entry, T. Kevin said: That's just hilarious!
In Lightbulbs for Christmas, T. Kevin said: I've never been to AK, but
several years ago I was...
In Know your neighbors, Jeff said: Cool site. Let's see... for our
Arlington zip code (22204), Democrats...
In Lightbulbs for Christmas, Jeff said: You're heading back to the east
coast this week? I sent...
In I'll have a grey Christmas, Tim Who said: Well at least you got 39
gray free years! I already...
In Lightbulbs for Christmas, Tim Who said: I spent ten years in Barrow.
At one point I stepped out...
In Balance your cosmos (or at least, your car), The Amazing Kirk A
Go-Go said: The interesting thing about my huge, gas-guzzling, monster
of a truck...
In Balance your cosmos (or at least, your car), Peter said: Ouch!
Sounds like a parent talking about his kid! (The...
In We have confirmation, Gene Cowan said: I think that "sour grapes" is
appropriate when one can't get...
In Balance your cosmos (or at least, your car), Gene Cowan said: Okay,
well... first off, I don't think that the batteries (except...
translationsView this page in other languages
- en Espanol
- Deutsch
- Francais
- Japanese
- Italiano
- Shizzle
tivo suggestionsProgram your series 2 TiVo to record some of my faves!
- Record Futurama
- Record Lost
- Record The West Wing
blast from the past2004 Trip to London
Magic Tales of Mexico
Star Trek Experience
Trip to Las Vegas
archivesall by date | all by category
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- August 2004
- July 2004
- June 2004
- May 2004
- April 2004
- March 2004
- February 2004
- January 2004
- December 2003
- November 2003
- October 2003
- September 2003
- August 2003
- July 2003
- June 2003
- May 2003
- April 2003
- March 2003
- February 2003
- January 2003
- December 2002
- November 2002
blogroll
5ives
Achenblog
angry asian man
Boing Boing[updated]
Claim vs Fact - a database of conservative lies
Daily Kos: State of the Nation[updated]
Democratic Underground
Dennis T Cheung
Do Buddhists Watch Telly?
elf-reflection
FactCheck.org - Annenberg Political Fact Check
FARK.com
George W. Bush, Evangelist
Julia Sweeney
kottke.org
Margaret Cho BLOG
Mark Morford
McSweeney's Reasons to Dispatch Bush
Molly Ivins
News Hounds
pesky'apostrophe[updated]
Queer Day
Rebel Prince[updated]
scott mindeaux
SF Bay Bloggers
T.Kevin's Synaptic Discharge[updated]
The American People
The Hunger Site
The ITT List
The Top Ten Conservative Idiots
Theocracy Watch
Theoretica
why.i.hate.dc
Zen La La: Sara Hickman's Web Log
Powered by
BlogRolling
geek outthis page has been viewed 1000923 times since Jan.1
it was rendered in 11.6330 seconds
there are 3699 total entries and 2044 comments
current logged-in members:
Sara Hickman
members
log in
register
member list
Copyright © 2002-2005 Gene Cowan. What few rights I've got, I try to
reserve. Just in case, you understand.
googlegroups2sucks
> 5ives
> Achenblog
> angry asian man
> Boing Boing[updated]
> Claim vs Fact - a database of conservative lies
> Daily Kos: State of the Nation[updated]
from kos:
"The irony is that in the political realm, conservatives have never
feared change. They have embraced it. Progressives, on the other hand,
cling to the past beyond all reason."
we're faced with a situation where most people dislike politics, so
right there the available talent pool is fairly narrow; the ones
willing to serve are also willing to sell their souls to lobbyists
which narrows the pool even further; and the media plays along because
they themselves don't know how to hire or retain the right kind of
talent and a big chunk of all that dirty money ends up paying their
salaries during election time (you'd think that'd make them hell-bent
on being fair, but the shallow gossip-loving press loved making fun of
teresa behind her back in '04, among other things). it all makes for a
severe ceiling on talented political leadership. the kind of
leadership that knows enough to avoid unnecessary wars, for example, or
know when to embrace change or reject it.
nevertheless, the political realm is ironic, because change is
naturally liberal.
i don't think america was built by people who stayed put. they didn't
stick it out in the old country like a true-blue conservative would --
they got up, and they cut, and they ran for something better. they ran
toward the promise of the new world. pioneers or immigrants are not
people who feared change, they're people who hated the status quo, if
anything. they weren't necessarily certain that change would bring a
better tomorrow, but they certainly knew they weren't satisfied with
yesterday. for crying out loud the national holiday isn't called
Conservative Day or Stick to Tradition Day or Old Fashioned Day or
Change is Bad Day, it's called INDEPENDENCE DAY.
yes, this strong independent streak that has been part of the american
dna from day one, can manifest itself as strong anti-establishment or
misinterpreted by conservatives (and they're constantly misreading
people) as anti-americanism, or it can manifest itself as an
anti-family sentiment. i'm not saying it's the main sentiment or that
it's the only accurate description, but there's an element of truth in
there.
someone who has divorced parents isn't going to be singing the praises
of the traditional family everyday. they're going to have a helluva
skeptical attitude towards conventional wisdom, and understandably so.
when the holidays are over, will the majority of americans be sorry
it's over, or will they be thankful they can get away from certain
family members who seem to enjoy pushing their buttons, and getting on
their nerves?
thing is, we can't pick our family members. those of us fortunate to
have family members we adore because they aren't patently insane or
excessively cruel or insufferably petty, should be mindful of those who
aren't so lucky. i fully understand if they want to keep the kumbaya
family sentiment bullshit to a minimum. i understand if they don't
want to be reminded of how much they may hate their
mom/dad/sister/brother/uncle/aunt/grandma/grandpa/etc. as far as i'm
concerned, they are core members of the liberal family, and i will not
accept, nor reject their anti-establishment sentiment with knee-jerk
disdain. in fact, i tend to like them for it.
googlegroups2sucks
Moving On
Sometimes (read: pretty much always) I get really obsessed with one
song and for like 3 days I listen to it on repeat around-the-clock,
over and over and over. I don't even bother rotating it with anything
else. I'm obsessive, remember? Right after the series finale of "Six
Feet Under," it was that "Breathe Me" song by Sia. I downloaded it on
itunes and played it constantly for days. Nothing else! I don't know,
there's something about a repeated rhythm that I find soothing, the way
it sets a tone (tune?) for a few days of my life, the way the lyrics
become so meaningful. Hello? Ouch, I have lost myself again/Lost
myself and I am nowhere to be found/Yeah, I think I might break/Lost
myself again and I feel unsafe. I mean, that's some deep stuff right
there.
I used to be sort of embarrassed what my neighbors might think about my
habit of replay, and so after maybe an hour of listening to the same
song really loudly, I'd turn it down, and then sit at my computer with
the speaker up close to my head and I'd kind of hum along under my
breath. I'd even go out in the hall and make sure the song couldn't be
heard. And if it was below 78 degrees, I'd close my windows, too. All
this to seem normal. What's the fucking point? Now, I just turn it up
and dance.
After about 3 or 4 days of listening to the same song and nothing else,
though, I get really over it and I find something else to obsess about.
I don't necessarily hold any bad feelings towards the song or anything
-- I've just, well, moved on. No one did anything wrong -- we had our
time together and it was good, but it had to end. I mean, I can't just
listen to the same song and nothing else forever and ever -- it isn't
natural!
And then one day, months after our fling, I'll hear it playing on the
radio in a friend's car, while driving to a party or out to dinner, and
I'll say, "I love this song!" and I'll turn it up and I'll sing along
and I'll remember exactly the time of year it was when we were
together, and what I was working on, and how I wore my hair.
There used to be a time, drunk on nostalgia, I'd rush home and pull out
that song and try to re-create what we once had. But, now I know
better. Now, when I hear an old favorite again, I just smile and turn
it up and sing along and leave it at that. "I love that song!" I'll
say. And I do. But, then I remember: usually it's better to just
leave the song in the library for random shuffle than to get serious
with it again.
After all, there's a reason I moved on.
November 08, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (7)
btw, my warmest congratulations to bono, bill and melinda. very well
deserved, and excellent picks by time. not that they need any more
glory personally, but their journeys surely deserves all the attention
it can get. a gracious tip of the hat to all three, and so many behind
the scenes like geldof, gates senior, the people at gates' foundation
...and i'd like to think bill's mother too. actually, whenever i see
people doing charitable work, i swear, i can almost feel their mothers'
presence sometimes. i'm sure all their mothers -- present and not
present -- are so very proud of everyone involved.
anyway. since wendy seems to be doing her actung baby thing in
germany, and what with bono et al. doing the person of the year thing,
i think this song is appropriate:
One
U2
Is it getting better
Or do you feel the same
Will it make it easier on you
Now you got someone to blame
You say
One love
One life
When it`s one need
In the night
It's one love
We get to share it
It leaves you baby
If you don`t care for it
Did I disappoint you?
Or leave a bad taste in your mouth?
You act like you never had love
And you want me to go without
Well it`s too late
Tonight
To drag the past out
Into the light
We`re one
But we`re not the same
We get to carry each other
Carry each other
One
Have you come here for forgiveness
Have you come to raise the dead
Have you come here to play Jesus
To the lepers in your head
Did I ask too much
More than a lot
You gave me nothing
Now it`s all I got
We`re one
But we`re not the same
We hurt each other
Then we do it again
You say
Love is a temple
Love a higher love
Love is a temple
Love the higher law
You ask me to enter
But then you make me crawl
And I can`t be holding on
To what you got
When all you got is hurt
One love
One blood
One life
You got to do what you should
One life
With each other
Sisters
Brothers
One life
But we`re not the same
We get to carry each other
Carry each other
One
One
googlegroups2sucks
too much, and it's so much easier to stop now, than later (trust me,
that's how it works).
i'm gonna miss her liberal vibe...
Monday, July 12th 2004
i'll always be a freak | 9:21 AM
On my next birthday I'll turn twenty-eight, which in my family is
about three years past the official age of old maid-hood if you're
still single, which I am. On one hand, now that I've bought a brand new
bed and have health insurance, I'm sort of an adult and can handle
thinking about adult things like keeping dental appointments and making
lifetime commitments. But on the other hand, I still like jumping up
and down on that brand new bed and in most senses I feel too much like
a child to even contemplate what brand of toothpaste I want to commit
to, let alone decide on a life partner.
Frankly, the idea of settling down with one person and signing an
agreement and making a legal commitment and all that is a little weird.
In the end, it's not really the inevitable boredom, or the way spouses
start calling each other 'honey' in long drawn-out whines, or even
never sleeping with anyone else again -- it's the mistake factor that
scares the hell out of me. What happens if you go ahead and get hitched
and everything is going along just swimmingly and you pop out a couple
of cute kids name Sasha and Ava and on Sundays the whole family goes to
the farmers market to buy fruit for the week and then one day a few
years down the line, you just wake up and think, "I hate this life."
You look around at all the kids' crap everywhere and the husband's toys
and the mess in the kitchen and you think if you could just be alone
for five fucking minutes you might feel okay, but every time you try to
get a minute of peace, one of the kids needs a Kleenex, the other just
fell down the stairs and the husband wants to plan a weekend trip to
visit the in-laws right this minute. And all you want is an afternoon
to stare off into space, maybe do some yoga, e-mail a couple friends,
and have coffee and a danish at the cute little shop on the corner all
by yourself, for christ's sake.
That's the best-case mistake scenario, too. That's all assuming that
you pick the right mate. What happens if you screw that up? What
happens if you think you got yourself a real catch, but two years after
you're married, he develops an annoying habit of watching Nick at Night
in his bathrobe while drinking warm cans of PBR and eating bags of
stale Cheetohs. See, men aren't the only ones who worry about their
spouses letting themselves go. Women are every bit as anxious. When
people are in their 20's and early 30's and looking for a partner,
they're at their best. They're fit and charming and lovely and witty
and fun, but once they trick someone into marrying them, all that goes
to pot. Before you know it, they've eaten one too many fudge brownies,
they've switched from $60 haircuts to $6 haircuts, and the last time
they bought new clothes was when they put on ten pounds last winter and
ran out for a pair of elastic-waist pants.
But...this is what we do, isn't it? We have a few kids, add a few
inches, buy a house in the burbs with a two-car garage and a fenced-in
backyard and start shopping at places like Kohls and Crate and Barrel.
And we do it all in the name of happiness....or social convention.
I'm just as guilty as everyone else. I bought myself a fucking apron
two weeks ago. It's green with little blue flowers and when I wear it
while making spinach casserole, I feel just like Donna Reed. I didn't
buy it because I particularly need an apron, but because I thought a
woman my age ought to have one. Also, it looks cute on me. The other
day, I practically had an orgasm checking out stainless steel trash
cans at Bed Bath and Beyond and I made a mental note to include one on
a wedding registration one day. It's like biological or something -- I
can't help it. Despite my fantasy of being Dorothy Parker and living in
a hip Manhattan apartment with two cats, no husband, and a flourishing
career as a writer, teacher, and sometime movie starlet, I feel an
undeniable pull towards a more mundane existence as a wife, mother, and
a sometime mini-van driver.
I don't even waste my time anymore with men who don't want kids.
Sometime between my 24th birthday and now, convention bit me in the ass
and I started wondering what kind of father the guy I'm sleeping with
would be. When my ex-boyfriend said 2 1/2 years into our relationship
that he never wanted children, I knew it was the beginning of the
end...but not before I tried to convince myself that maybe I didn't
want them either.
"Well, you know," I told my best guy friend, "I'm just not sure yet. I
mean, I'm still young. Maybe I really don't want them. I probably won't
even know for another ten years or so."
"Babe," he said, "let me save you the ten years and just tell you how
it is. I've known you since you were 18 and if there's one thing that's
always been clear, it's that you want kids."
"Really?" I asked.
"Yes, really." he replied.
I had hoped that after so many years of friendship the one thing that
might be clear about me would be my destiny to live an enchanted life,
or the way I somehow always endear the strangest of characters to me,
or my uncanny ability to correctly predict every winner of every awards
show ever shown on national television, and NOT how I will inevitably
end up like every other middle-class white girl who ever owned an
Easy-Bake oven or Cabbage Patch kid.
Common Christmas presents aside, if my childhood experiences and
character were any predictor, it would seem that I was headed for
anything but 'ordinary.' My eagerness to find the center of drama
revealed itself as early as my birth in Okinawa, when, during one of
the biggest typhoons to rock the South Pacific in decades, as 130 knot
wind gusts shattered the windows in my mother's hospital room,
flooding the small space with rain and ocean water and countless bits
of glass, I - much to my doctor's and parents' chagrin - forced
myself into the world, a howling mess of red hair and wrinkly pink
skin, unwilling to wait another second to be part of all the commotion.
The excitement continued as I grew up in Asia where the locals would
rub my red hair for good luck and I was as much an anomaly as my
six-feet-plus parents. At the age of nine, I scaled Mt . Fuji, and when
I was ten, posters of me wearing children's couture and my gap-tooth
smile were plastered in subway cars all over Tokyo. At 12, I used to
slip into the leopard-print stiletto heels that one of the biggest
Korean soap opera stars would leave at our front door as she studied
English with my mother in our high-rise apartment in Seoul. In front of
a full-length mirror in our hallway, I would practice sashaying in
shoes way out of my league, throwing a faux-fur stole over my
shoulders, pretending to be the main attraction at the most glamorous
of movie premiers in Hollywood.
I was cunning too. In grade school I managed to burn down a playground
fooling around with matches and convinced a classmate to take the blame
for me. While he received the harshest scolding and a grounding that
would last through the school year, I was plotting how I would persuade
the administrators to let me attend a school ski trip the following
weekend intended for students two years older than I. When my parents
saddled me with the decidedly unglamorous task of washing dishes, I'd
smash a plate against the floor and declare myself far too clumsy for
such a delicate job, joyfully reclaiming my spot in front of the tv,
just in time for another episode of 'Fame.'
"You want fame?" I'd voice along with Debbie Allen, "Well fame
costs, and right here's where you start paying with sweat."
I wanted to grow up and be just like the kids I watched on my favorite
tv show, a triple threat skipping between voice lessons, ballet class,
and rehearsals for my lead role in a off-Broadway production, which the
critics would claim made me an "overnight success." That I lacked
much talent in any of these areas or had the work ethic of a queen bee
was of little matter to me. I was so capable of dreaming big dreams,
imagining myself on the cover of one of my mother's People magazines
under the headline "America's New Sweetheart," that I was
convinced it was all in the bag. Surely it was just a matter of time
before some hotshot agent plucked me from the streets of Itaewon,
Seoul's popular shopping district, and made me a star.
But now almost twenty years later, in the wake of the realization that
I will never achieve fame, never become a movie starlet, or a singer or
a dancer or an acrobat or any of the other things I thought I was
certainly fated to become, I am struck with the guilt of letting down
my younger self who once showed so much unbridled passion, if not
promise. And as I ponder just how ordinary I will end up being, and my
stomach knots at the claustrophobic idea of family life and I suddenly
crave hard liquor, I remember what my friend said after revealing my
totally unhip destiny as a wife and mother. In a way that only a close
friend could, he eased my anxiety in one simple statement and assured
me that even in ordinariness, I would never lose the qualities that
make me who I am.
"Wendy," he said, "If there's one thing I'm sure of, it's that no
matter what happens, you will always be a freak."
googlegroups2sucks
certain things and worse at other things, compared to your average joe.
as a general rule, i don't think truly arrogant people post publicly.
they would think it's a waste of time, or the public isn't worth
posting to. it's not that i think i'm so damn smart... it's just that
so many media types seem so dumb. that's why i get angry at media
idiocy, because i expect better. an arrogant person who disagreed with
the war would not fume about
more later.
googlegroups2sucks
coverage, it would merely confirm his conclusions. you wouldn't know
he has contempt for the media, because there's not much upside in
venting, but plenty of downside because of the media's double-edged
sword. the truly arrogant, like billionaire republicans, would not
respond to media requests. you won't hear their criticisms, but nor
will you hear a single freaking word of any kind. you can call them
for interviews 10 times or 1000 times and the answer will always be the
same: no, we don't respond to the media except with meaningless
blather. <-- that's true arrogance, because they don't think you're
worth conversing with. liberal bloggers aren't in that category. you
know exactly where you stand. note the difference. who do you think
is more arrogant: the billionaire who never says a discouraging word
but also never replies, or the blogger that bitches but does reply? i
think it's obvious.
googlegroups2sucks
the second one is for those not into xmas. i recommend nat king cole's
cover for both...
The Christmas Song
(Torme-Wells)
Chestnuts roasting on an open fire
Jack Frost nipping at your nose
Yuletide carols being sung by a choir
And folks dressed up like eskimos
Everybody knows a turkey and some mistletoe
Help to make the season bright
Tiny tots with eyes all aglow
Will find it hard to sleep tonight
They know that Santa's on his way
He's loaded lots of toys
And goodies on his sleigh
And every mother's child is gonna spy
To see if reindeers really know how to fly
And so, I'm offering this simple phrase
To kids from one to ninety-two
Although it's been said
Many times, many ways
Merry Christmas, Merry Christmas, Merry Christmas to you...
Stardust
(Words by Mitchell Parish and Music by Hoagy Carmichael, 1929.)
And now the purple dusk of twilight time
Steals across the meadows of my heart
High up in the sky the little stars climb
Always reminding me that we're apart
You wander down the lane and far away
Leaving me a song that will not die
Love is now the stardust of yesterday
The music of the years gone by
Sometimes I wonder why I spend
The lonely night dreaming of a song
The melody haunts my reverie
And I am once again with you
When our love was new
And each kiss an inspiration
But that was long ago
Now my consolation
Is in the stardust of a song
Beside a garden wall
When stars are bright
You are in my arms
The nightingale tells his fairy tale
A paradise where roses bloom
Though I dream in vain
In my heart it will remain
My stardust melody
The memory of love's refrain
googlegroups2sucks
> Bruce Springsteen
>
> In the day we sweat it out on the streets of a runaway American dream
> At night we ride through mansions of glory in suicide machines
> Sprung from cages out on highway 9
> Chrome-wheeled, fuel-injected
> And steppin' out over the line
> Baby this town rips the bones from your back
> It's a death trap, it's a suicide rap
> We gotta get out while we're young
> 'Cause tramps like us, baby we were born to run
>
> Wendy let me in, I wanna be your friend
> I want to guard your dreams and visions
> Just wrap your legs 'round these velvet rims
> And strap your hands across my engines
> Together we could break this trap
> We'll run till we drop, baby we'll never go back
> Will you walk with me out on the wire
> 'Cause baby I'm just a scared and lonely rider
> But I gotta know how it feels
> I want to know if love is wild
> Babe I want to know if love is real
>
> Beyond the Palace hemipowered drones scream down the boulevard
> The girls comb their hair in rearview mirrors
> And the boys try to look so hard
> The amusement park rises bold and stark
> Kids are huddled on the beach in a mist
> I wanna die with you Wendy on the streets tonight
> In an everlasting kiss
>
> The highway's jammed with broken heroes
> On a last chance power drive
> Everybody's out on the run tonight
> But there's no place left to hide
> Together, Wendy, we can live with the sadness
> I'll love you with all the madness in my soul
> Someday girl, I don't know when,
> we're gonna get to that place
> Where we really want to go
> And we'll walk in the sun
> But till then tramps like us
> Baby we were born to run
>
> Ah honey, tramps like us
> Baby we were born to run
>
> C'mon, we'll be tramps like us
> Baby we were born to run
[ first, the boss. ]
Wings for Wheels
The Making of Born to Run
Produced, Directed & Edited by Thom Zimny
2005
The Bruce, on making the Born to Run single, with various BTR tracks
playing in the backround:
"Now this is classic Mike Appel, incredibly -- and Louis Lahav --
incredibly compressed acoustic guitars, and I don't know, 2, 3 of them,
4, I'm not sure how many.
Once again, the composed nature -- a 12 string enters here, playing a
single note.
Every note is, like I said composed, it's a very, you know, and then
what's on top is also very simple, but DENSE. There's not 1 guitar,
there's 3 or 4, you know, doing the same thing. There's something
about the density we stacked up, along with the tautness of the rhythm
section, ended up creating a certain sort of dark tension in the music.
This record, this particular single took us a long time, I mean, I
recollect us spending almost 6 months at intervals, at intervals making
it."
[ now, f. scott fitzgerald. ]
Amazon.com re: The Great Gatsby
In 1922, F. Scott Fitzgerald announced his decision to write "something
new--something extraordinary and beautiful and simple + intricately
patterned." That extraordinary, beautiful, intricately patterned, and
above all, simple novel became The Great Gatsby, arguably Fitzgerald's
finest work and certainly the book for which he is best known.
[ the methods i use are not original. i learned from what i consider
to be the masters and shamelessly stole everything i thought worth
stealing.
for instance, if you take something simple and good, then you keep
adding more simplicity -- different or similar or the same instruments
but playing the same riff -- you may end up creating something simple,
yet extraordinary and intricately patterned that appeals to a vast
audience. ]
googlegroups2sucks
Seasonal Affective Disorder and Watered Down Dawns
My favorite time of the day is dawn -- right as the sun is rising and
the streets are quiet and the cats are hungry and I'm thirsty for my
first cup of coffee.
In the summer, dawn is happy piano songs and strawberries and the
promise of color all day, all day. But this time of year, dawn is
melancholy, the sun doesn't really rise, but just sort of subtly,
dimly, lights the sky a greyish-white.
I woke up at 5:45 this morning and debated going back to sleep for a
couple of hours. It was still pitch black, I woke up.
I fed the cats, put some coffee on, sliced some sharp cheddar, and
listened to Lucinda Williams because she gets it.
I downloaded a live concert from NPR.org and immediately found
Lucinda's new song "Where is My Love?" She played it at her show here
in October, and it kind of destroyed me a little:
Is my love in Birmingham,
making honey from the bees?
Overjoyed to be my man,
and rolling up his flannel sleeves?
I lay on my couch in the dark, as coffee brewed, and Lucinda sang about
her unfound love, a man who might drink whiskey til he's had his fill.
I listened to her, and I wished I smoked, so I could suck long drags
off a Camel Light and watch the ash flicker in the dark, and exhale
long and exhausted, watch the smoke drift and scatter.
The "sun rose" shortly after 7 this morning. The sky is a
greyish-white. I feel like it's been this way for weeks. Winter
mornings are an antidote to summer's charms, and watered-down dawns are
the saddest kind.
I'm ready for May.
January 03, 2006
googlegroups2sucks
i'm not arguing that we should be _more_ emotional. actually, the
world could do with a lot less of it. i'm saying it's there -- always
-- and you can sing or hope or pray it will go away and it won't. for
most people, it guides and drives almost every single thought and
action, whether they realize it or not. i'm not saying it's a horrible
vice that should be stomped upon every time it rears its ugly head, i'm
saying it's the essence of what makes us human. it is both good and
bad, both useful and harmful.
so, really, the question is, is it better fighting against your
emotions for the rest of your life -- a fight that you can never win,
and just may distort your psyche beyond all recognition -- or is it
better to harness or channel your emotions into productive use? i'd
say it's the latter, and the first step towards that is to be _aware_
of yourself and your emotions. it shouldn't be heart vs. mind, it
should be heart & mind. combine the two, and you can accomplish almost
anything.
googlegroups2sucks
and a third master, talking of simplicity/complexity:
http://www.microsoft.com/billgates/speeches/2006/01-04ces.asp
Keynote Remarks by Bill Gates, Chairman and Chief Software Architect,
Microsoft Corporation
2006 International Consumer Electronics Show
Las Vegas, Nevada
January 4, 2006
Software: Make Things Simpler and More Effective
The PC sales growth with Windows PCs exceeding any expectation this
year was a great example of that, more relevance, more things that are
going on there. Broadband was a luxury only three or four years ago,
and now has actually overtaken dial-up, and we're getting over a
hundred million broadband users here in the United States and we'll
have 80 percent of all online households broadband by the end of the
decade. And the U.S. is not even the leading country in that respect,
all the developed countries moving very quickly.
So what does it mean? It means that software will come in and make
things both simpler and more effective. Picking the music that you
want, finding out other things by that artist or similar artists, not
having to think about disks and putting them in the case;
entertainment, finding the things that are great, seeing them when
you'd like to, having a digital jukebox so anywhere in the house you
can call up the movies that you own and see those exactly when you want
to; photos, organizing not just photos but all the memories of your
kids growing up, being able to search those, send them off to
relatives, have them appear on various nice screens around the house
like that one I had in my kitchen in that scenario I showed;
communications, not just with the voice but also with the screens
connecting people together, letting them annotate documents, work
together in a very rich way: These are scenarios that people can
understand, if we make them simple, we make them inexpensive and we
drive them through a single interface, everything you learn, the
concepts for one activity, whether it's gaming or office productivity
get applied across these different activities.
Software for the User
Likewise, these things need to work across all the different devices.
So it's not just software for the PC or software for the phone or
software for the videogame, it's software for the user. And my
preferences, my interests, like how I charge things or the news I care
about or who my buddies are, all of those things are reflected on those
devices. As I move between devices, the people I've chosen to share my
presence with becomes available to them. A friend can see, if I want,
what game I'm playing and say they might want to play with me, ask me
to join in and do something else; if I'm on my PC working, they can
notify me that there's a contest coming up, something that they'd like
to engage me in. Even watching TV, the ability to chat with your
friends while you're watching the same show or different shows should
be something that's very straightforward.
So this cross-device approach is a very, very important approach. In
fact, that's complemented by the fact that there will be what we call
Live services where a lot of your files, your information will actually
be stored out in the Internet, and even if you pick somebody else's
device up, once you authenticate, all that information becomes
available to you. So moving between different PCs can be a very, very
easy thing.
There's a lot of themes there, themes of personalization, themes of
empowerment, themes of everything moving to the Internet. What is
telephony moving to the Internet? That's voice. What is TV moving to
the Internet? That's Internet TV or IPTV. People have to have
confidence in these things, automatically backed up, security built-in,
very reliable systems that use the cloud storage for those kinds of
guarantees, and easy connections, connecting to people, connecting up
to devices, a very strong way of driving through all these different
scenarios and making them very simple.
[ and how do you achieve simplicity in a complex digitial age with
multiple devices? windows. YEAH, BABY! <-- my impersonation of steve
ballmer. dude needs to ease up on the caffeine. ]
googlegroups2sucks
[ from my perspective, gates is essentially trying to keeps windows as
the one-size-fits-all organic solution to increasing digital complexity
and specialization.
the benefits of analog or organic methods are simplicity (e.g. one
volume control knob vs. numerical key pad or plus/minus buttons) and
infinite variability that itself lends to infinite versatility.
versatility in turn, lends itself to our insatiable demands for higher
and higher levels of resolution. and why do we crave high resolution?
because we crave the clarified simplicity that high resolution can
provide.
it's important to note that though higher resolution can show greater
detail, that isn't what keeps us in a movie. we can see more detail,
and consequently we can make out more actors in an epic battle scene,
for example, but aren't we more interested by the facial expressions
(that seem more heightened by high definition) and the tone of voice
(that seem more vivid thanks to higher definition) of a _single_ analog
star? analog simplicity nested within digital complexity.
another example below from the masters at nikon... ]
http://nikonimaging.com/global/technology/scene/10/index.htm
Nikon D2X
The new Nikon digital camera flagship model on the market delivers
superior high-resolution images, thanks to a newly-developed image
processing engine with unprecedented capability for reproducing color.
Here, the designer who helped create this processing engine proudly
assesses the final result.
HOSHUYAMA, Hideo
Development Department, Imaging Company
Nikon Corporation
PROFILE:
Joined Nikon Corporation in 1989. First product development project:
35mm Color Film Scanner/Direct Transmitter NT-3000. Learned about
various image processing-related technologies, including film scanning,
image creation and masking for printing. Helped to develop film
scanners, flat bed scanners and Scan Touch models, then focused on
development of digital camera image processing systems starting with
those for the D1 and COOLPIX 900. Enjoys windsurfing and other
activities in the great outdoors on weekends.
<snip>
Interviewer: I heard that one of the technological advantages offered
by this new engine is its optimal distribution of analog and digital
signal processing. Does this advantage contribute to the good balance
that you talk about in the overall image?
H,H: I think so. Especially when a user wants an image that can be
handled easily, smoothness of the gradation can be very important.
Maximizing this smoothness required integration of acuteness of the
basic tone curve and analog signal processing. You can see gradation
characteristic results when you try retouching an image shot with the
D2X.
Interviewer: Please explain analog signal processing in this case more
specifically.
H,H: The acuteness of the tone curve is directly related to the
minuteness of signal partitioning. The more acute the gradation, the
more precise the luminosity measurement. With conventional digital
cameras, reproduction of gradation depends solely on the results of
digital measurement, eventually causing gaps in gradation. To minimize
such gaps in gradation, the D2X introduces our unconventional approach
of analog adjustment for white balance in the first stage of signal
processing. This approach helps to achieve smoother, more accurate
gradation than conventional digital cameras are capable of.
Interviewer: I see. So it applies a revolutionary new idea that has
never been realized in a conventional image processing system.
H,H: Exactly. This approach is fundamentally different from the usual
approaches to image processing. And, to tell you the truth, it was
quite difficult to introduce the analog white balance adjustment
system. Conventionally, white balance is conditioned digitally. Once an
image is taken with a digital camera, A/D conversion occurs first, then
this digital image is evaluated to determine the white balance value,
according to the conventional process. With the D2X, however, the white
balance adjustment is in analog, which means that white balance value
is determined for the image before A/D conversion. So we had to figure
out a new mechanism for this.
Interviewer: What kinds of results occur in using such an innovative
white balance adjustment?
H,H: The most distinguishable results appear in skin tones. Especially
in portrait shots, you can appreciate its effect at a glance. Overall,
the D2X image processing engine is superb at reproduction of gradation
and contrast. So, by applying its own white balance adjustment, the D2X
can provide beautiful, smooth gradation in images.
googlegroups2sucks
> world could do with a lot less of it. i'm saying it's there -- always
> -- and you can sing or hope or pray it will go away and it won't. for
> most people, it guides and drives almost every single thought and
> action, whether they realize it or not. i'm not saying it's a horrible
> vice that should be stomped upon every time it rears its ugly head, i'm
> saying it's the essence of what makes us human. it is both good and
> bad, both useful and harmful.
>
> so, really, the question is, is it better fighting against your
> emotions for the rest of your life -- a fight that you can never win,
> and just may distort your psyche beyond all recognition -- or is it
> better to harness or channel your emotions into productive use? i'd
> say it's the latter, and the first step towards that is to be _aware_
> of yourself and your emotions. it shouldn't be heart vs. mind, it
> should be heart & mind. combine the two, and you can accomplish almost
> anything.
on second thought, maybe not _anything_. how about a good blog post at
least? and ya know, it could lead to bigger things later on...
How to Really Raise a Writer
<snip>
Now, from someone who knows what she's talking about, if you really,
truly, for whatever screwed up reason want to raise your child to be a
writer, the following tips are surefire bets (and if, somehow, they
don't work, just say a Hail Mary and count your fucking blessings,
already):
1. Forget the encouragement bullshit -- writers feed off drama and
deep-seeded insecurity! Create a very volatile environment with lots
of screaming and yelling and maybe some emotional abuse thrown in for
good measure. Don't ever say that anything your kid does is good.
Good does not = exciting writing. Good = account manager at Fleet
Feet.
2. Move A LOT. Every year if possible. That way, your child will
never maintain a sense of stability or the chance to make lasting
friendships, which will leave her with nothing but books and her own
imagination for company and security. Also, she'll always feel like a
complete misfit and loner, which, guess what, = great writing!!
3. Just in case you child seems to make friends easily, buy him a
trombone. Make him take lessons. Right after school. That way he'll
have to carry his trombone on the bus, which will pretty much guarentee
his status as a social pariah. And 'social pariah,' as we've
established, = undeniable writing talent.
4. Introduce liquor into your kid's diet as early as possible.
Actually, you might as well just drink while you're pregnant. Any
brain damage it might cause will pale in comparison to the damage he'll
do to himself later in life, anyway. All writers are boozers -- it's
like the law.
5. When your child is still very young, routinely play like you're dead
around her. Then, "come back to life," only not as yourself -- as the
devil, naturally,and then tell her that her mother is gone forever and
she better just get used to it!! (Um, not that I would know about this
one personally or anything.)
6. Throw dinner parties where you invite pretentious people in tweed
coats to come over and mock celebrities and politicians and anyone who
doesn't know how to use the words "lie," "lay," and "laid" properly.
When one of your guests asks your middle-schooler whom he'd like to
have a threesome with, cackle loudly and say, "Yes! Whom, whom?"
7. Finally, get your little writer a lifetime presciption to Xanax.
After the shit you've put her through, she'll need it, poor thing.
(Special thanks to mom and dad! Kidding.)
January 06, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (0)
[ of course, i highly doubt she's kidding completely but... ]
googlegroups2sucks
The Citizen's extended Q&A with Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer
Andrew Mayeda, Ottawa Citizen
Published: Thursday, December 8, 2005
(An edited version of this Q&A appeared Wednesday in the Citizen.)
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/story.html?id=9025308d-8bf9-4f67-b472-920febe6ca5e&k=99239
Q: If you cast ahead 10 years, what do you see as the next big
innovation in technology that will affect the socioeconomic landscape?
A: First of all, the ubiquity of computing. We kind of think we're
there. We're not. Look, not one of you brought a computer to take notes
on today. The fact of the matter is, there are still reasons for this,
whether it be cost, complexity, tradition. There are plenty of places
where we don't use computers where we can. Ten years from now, I think
people will not do nearly as much reading on paper as they do today.
Number two has to do with interoperability. One of the great challenges
for individuals as well as corporations is getting things to work
together. There's a lot that will happen with so called XML as a lingua
franca for the Internet that will matter to individuals, as well as
mattering to big corporations. Number three is the evolution of the
user interface to what I might call the natural user interface. People
usually think this means voice, but voice isn't nearly as important as
natural language. That is, that the computer understand my intent, not
just my voice.
[ if microsoft manages to make windows' interface "natural" or organic,
they will have achieved the holy grail. a seamless organic integration
between humans & windows, to the point it understands your "intent"
(!!!) will be the ultimate selling point. who can resist to not pay
for merely software, but for an extension of _yourself_?
the tradeoffs of traditional inputs is thrown away. a mouse is easy to
use for simple tasks (e.g. selecting files, opening/closing apps), but
hard to write with. a keyboard allows for complex tasks such as
writing emails but also has a steep learning curve. with an organic
interface, you get the broadest possible audience because of its utter
simplicity (e.g. less need to learn to type or fiddle around with
mice), and yet it still allows powerful or complex tasking.
so the "ease of use, yet powerful" part appeals to one's mind, but the
mind isn't the prize here. the mind is merely the gatekeeper to the
ultimate prize. the appeal of the best music, movies, books, blogs
isn't about winning over your mind, but winning over the affections of
your heart. they rarely say quite that explicitly (because no likes to
be manipulated. ha.) but the best companies or leaders or
organizations understand it implicitly.
btw...
...wanna know who will be the next president in 2008? the candidate
who can best connect to the electorate in an organic & emotional way.
issues are important, but they're dry and just a means of bypassing the
gatekeeper. find the person who can make and/or deliver speeches that
make you laugh and cry, and you've found a contender. however, a word
of caution: it's extremely difficult to pull off. it's very easy to
fall flat and come across as calculated, pandering or manipulative...
but can you pull it off? if so, the presidency is yours. ]
googlegroups2sucks
talking will sound like a ploy.
i take particular amusement from those who were gullible about neocon
arguments for the iraq war yet cynical about charity concerts like live
8 to consider themselves masters at uncovering the ulterior motives of
people like myself.
look, if you were surpised that the iraq war has remained an ongoing
horror show with no easy solution in sight, then i've got a newsflash
for you: you're lousy at the ulterior motive business. give it up.
stick to your day job.
googlegroups2sucks
what's driven me is the same satisfaction i used to get so many years
ago, when i used to code computer games for my friends to play. what i
loved to see was them playing the game as it was intended, learning on
their own the tradeoffs i had so carefully built-in. what i hated was
when they discovered an imperfection in game play, and leveraged it to
gain 256 lives. lol. i didn't necessarily hate them for doing it, it
just made me more determined to slam shut the loophole. that was a
wonderful summer...
the problems in washington is more than just loopholes. it's the whole
freaking culture, and as we all know by now, culture doesn't change
overnight. i believe it's broad mix of opinions:
1) washington has always been corrupt, so why stop now? to which i
say: because it's illegal you fucking moron. all these pro-corruption
sleazebags need to stand behind their convictions, go in front of the
tv and demand that the gop adopt the legalization of corruption in its
platform. do that, and you won't be viewed as pro-corruption
cockroaches that scurry away when the light is turned on.
2) everyone is as sleazy as i am, and if i didn't do it, another guy
will. response: how the fuck do you know? if you couldn't figure out
the fbi would eventually come down on your ass, you won't be able to
figure out the general population's views on corruption. all you know
is your friends' and colleagues' pro-corruption views in the sleazy
little bubble known as washington.
more later...
googlegroups2sucks
one more thing before i go bang the corruption drum again...
if microsoft, bill gates or any of their people were paying me to shill
for their company, image, products, whatever, i'd tell you straight up
and immediately. same goes for the nixon (funny how they were bought
up by billabong soon after, but i don't know what to make of it), or
any other product/company/service i like. i don't think there's
anything inherently illegal in endorsements, like michael jordan
selling batteries, nor with conservative think tank whores explaining
how up is down on cnn. if a company was paying me thousands behind the
scenes while i claim no one is paying me (and no one is, fortunately or
unfortunately), then there's legitimate cause for whining.
it seems some people, being the cynical type (btw, being cynical isn't
a vice, but if you regard everyone cynically, then everyone isn't the
problem. the problem is you.), doubt bill gates' ulterior motives.
maybe there's good reason. personally, i deduce ulterior motives
through track record.
given the sheer amount he's given away, 30 billion or so, bill gates
isn't doing this just for show, and i don't think there's anything
inherently evil even if he was doing it for PR reasons. when you're
giving such vast amounts, and your fellow billionaires are giving
relatively little of their total wealth, the conclusion i reach is that
bill gates means it.
all the cheapskate rich who give in the single digits as a percentage
of wealth, they're the ones who are giving just to get do-gooders off
their backs. they couldn't give a flying damn whether another 6,000
people died of sickness or hunger today. not their problem. in fact,
they may very well view they already give too much to the giant charity
case known as the US federal government and hell will freeze over
before they pay a single dime more than they need to, be it taxes or
charitable donations.
as far as i'm concerned, bill gates stands alone, and he stands alone
in a good way.
http://www.forbes.com/2004/09/23/cz_dw_0923philan_rl04.html
America's Richest
Charity And The Forbes 400
David Whelan, 09.24.04, 7:00 AM ET
<snip>
Donated Wealth Net Worth Philanthropy-Adjusted % Wealth Given Away
Bill Gates
$28,291,699,101 $48,000,000,000 $76,291,699,101 37%
Warren Buffett
$321,189,039 $41,000,000,000 $41,321,189,039 1%
Paul Allen
$798,183,920 $20,000,000,000 $20,798,183,920 4%
Michael Dell
$1,255,224,204 $14,200,000,000 $15,455,224,204 8%
Larry Ellison
$151,092,103 $13,700,000,000 $13,851,092,103 1%
Steve Ballmer
$23,449,783 $12,600,000,000 $12,623,449,783 0%
John Kluge
$503,869,800 $11,000,000,000 $11,503,869,800 4%
Pierre Omidyar
$357,715,858 $10,400,000,000 $10,757,715,858 3%
Sumner Redstone
$78,367,127 $8,100,000,000 $8,178,367,127 1%
Phil Knight
$64,771,782 $7,400,000,000 $7,464,771,782 1%
George Soros
$5,437,283,942 $7,200,000,000 $12,637,283,942 43%
Eli Broad
$1,613,074,469 $6,000,000,000 $7,613,074,469 21%
Michael Bloomberg
$132,045,031 $4,900,000,000 $5,032,045,031 3%
David Geffen
$182,921,433 $4,400,000,000 $4,582,921,433 4%
Gordon Moore
$6,760,929,624 $3,800,000,000 $10,560,929,624 64%
Steven Spielberg
$96,970,456 $2,600,000,000 $2,696,970,456 4%
Jon Huntsman
$497,034,993 $2,300,000,000 $2,797,034,993 18%
Bernard Marcus
$263,095,612 $2,000,000,000 $2,263,095,612 12%
Ted Turner
$798,701,861 $1,900,000,000 $2,698,701,861 30%
Alfred Mann
$607,649,613 $1,400,000,000 $2,007,649,613 30%
googlegroups2sucks
another take on simple complexity or complex simplicity. i think
drinking wine is a fairly simple organic process and experience. you
don't need training to enjoy it, like someone needs to learn how to
drive, for instance. or do you? is wine itself simple, complex or
both? and why do wine lovers feel the need to complicate such simple
acts such as drinking by writing 3,000 word essays on the subject, for
pete's sake?
EXPERT TASTING METHODOLOGY
http://www.winespectatorschool.com/wineschool/files/pdfs/tastingtutorial/Method&Mat.pdf
1) SEE
Tilt glass at 45 degree angle against a
white background.
EVALUATION
Clarity, Color, Intensity
Is the wine brilliant, clear or hazy?
What color is the wine?
Is the color pale or intense?
Legs
Are they pronounced, indicating a bigger body?
DESCRIPTORS
White Colors green tinge, straw, gold, amber
Red Colors purple, ruby red, garnet/brick, amber
Intensity pale, dark, inky, opaque
Legs pronounced and persistent or faint
2) SNIFF
Swirl, then put your nose inside rim of glass and take
2-3 sharp sniffs to smell aromas.
EVALUATION
Aroma Intensity and Identification
Are the aromas faint or intense?
What are the aromas?
DESCRIPTORS
White Aromas white-, yellow-, orange-fleshed fruits
Red Aromas red and purple fruits
White and Red Aromas floral, herbal, mineral, spice
Oak Aromas vanilla, spice, smoky, cedar, oak
3) SIP
Take a small amount of wine into your mouth. Then
swish the wine around, bringing it into contact with
every part of your mouth.
Olfactory epithelium in retronasal passages picks
up flavors.
Tongue senses tastes sweet, tart, bitter, umami.
Mouthfeel for tactile sensations.
Back of throat feels heat from alcohol.
EVALUATION
Temperature
Is the serving temperature affecting perception?
Body
Does the wine fill your mouth?
Flavor
Are the flavors intense, or just barely there?
What are the flavors? Are they the same as the aromas?
Taste and Mouthfeel
What are the tastes and tactile sensations?
Balance and Structure
Are the fruit, acidity, tannins and alcohol in balance?
Is the wine age-worthy?
DESCRIPTORS
Too cold makes it seem tart with muted fruit flavors
Too warm makes it seem alcoholic and flabby
Body light, medium or full (Think skim milk vs. cream)
Thin, lean, delicate, rich, big, heavy, ponderous
Taste and Mouthfeel
Sweetness rich, thick, sweet
Umami rich, thick, savory
Acidity bright, crisp, refreshing, racy, steely, tart
Tannins silky, smooth, velvety, firm, astringent
Balance and Structure
Harmonious, integrated, well-knit, disjointed
Concentrated, austere, firm, elegant round, powerful
Drink now or will improve for X years
4) SUMMARIZE
Spit or swallow wine and record impressions.
EVALUATION
Finish
Do the flavors linger or do they stop immediately?
Quality
What is the wine's quality
Preference
Value
Considering its price, how good is the wine?
Overall Impression (also formed during sniff)
How would you describe the wine in one sentence?
What stands out or makes the wine distinct, memorable?
DESCRIPTORS
Finish short, moderate, long, lingering
Quality poor, good, excellent
Flawed, vinous, simple, complex, layered
Preference don't like, like, love
Value good, moderate or overpriced
Everyday, weekend, or special occasion wine
googlegroups2sucks
http://blurbomat.com/archives/2004/08/24/its_all_a_blur
It's all a Blur
08.24.2004 | Link to this blurb
The first time I heard about Heather was at a weekly soccer game in the
mid-1990s. I had married and graduated from BYU. I stayed in Provo,
Utah to support my first wife through school and to make an attempt to
be a rock star. Towards the end of my time in Provo on Saturdays, I
played soccer with a bunch of guys that I had become friends with
through my music and publishing interests. One of whom was Sam. Sam was
a gateway person who had a significant role in my life. We had worked
together making ads and t-shirts for a CD store that Sam co-managed. Of
that era, the crowning glory was a t-shirt that read "provo rocks
topless" with logo of the store on the back. The beauty of that shirt
was timeless. Provo, doesn't in any way rock. It was not ever, nor
currently is topless. At least as far as BYU's PR team will admit. It
was in this environment that the soccer games took place.
The men (women seldom played) would talk about their lives in snippets
between plays and who their roommates were seeing and not seeing
anymore and it was only in brief, guy geek/jock talk that I heard about
various women my friends knew or didn't know or wanted to know. Heather
came up briefly, and only in a funny story where one of the women just
called her "Tiger" because she couldn't remember Heather's name. I
believe this is the first time I had heard of Heather B. Hamilton.
These soccer outings were in 1994 and later that year, Sam and I gave
birth to grid magazine. We existed on the freelancers that wrote for
nothing and did it because they loved music. Heather became one of them
towards the end of the magazine.
I had read her writing when I would proof the layouts for any typos,
usage errors or text mangling that often happened during the layout of
the magazine. There were a few writers on the masthead who had a
distinctive style and Heather was in that group. Her writing, even
then, was excellent; full of personality and charm.
I didn't meet Heather until the summer of 1997. The magazine was part
of a radio station festival featuring a ton of bands, and the magazine
was sponsoring a Chill Out room (wasn't the electronic trend of the
mid-90s awesome?) featuring several DJs and offering an alternative to
standing in the sun. We purchased a bunch of thrift store couches so
people could sit down and listen to the DJs. What we didn't bargain for
was that the environment would enable young women to take off their
shirts and dance in their bras.
Towards the mid-afternoon, as word spread and it got hotter outside,
more and more people came in to check out the underwear. I think there
were several strippers in the room as they were pulling moves this shy
of a lapdance. I watched in bemused silence. Heather showed up at the
table we had set up to distribute the magazine and offer water (which
ran out after about two hours).
Heather was supposed to interview members of Blur that day, and we were
supposed to take some pictures to accompany the interview. Most bands
of Blur's stature insisted we take no photos and use approved images
that every other media outlet used. It was always tricky negotiating
pictures, particularly the day of the show. Sometimes bands would allow
us a few minutes to shoot them (Beck, Blur) and sometimes they would
not (Luscious Jackson). I always preferred using images that we made,
so that we looked different than our competition. I wanted non-live
images, as compelling live shots usually take several shows to get a
great image and we didn't have the budget to send a photographer to go
on the road and send us back the great stuff.
On a show day, you never knew what could happen. Sometimes interviews
would fall through due to scheduling or band issues and one had to
adopt a kind of hyperaware laid back approach. If the interview didn't
happen, could we at least take a few shots and do a phoner later?
Such was the day that Heather and I met. Typically, Sam would contact
the road manager, publicist or label person at the show and make the
final arrangements. Sometimes, the road manager would find us and have
band members in tow. That day, Sam had airport shuttle duties with the
DJs and also had our table to staff so it was left to me. Heather and I
went backstage to get the process started. It was highly unusual for me
to follow-up on the interview side of things, because Sam was always on
top of it. I approached Alex James and introduced myself and Heather.
He directed us to their road manager. Heather couldn't believe that I
just walked up to him and started talking. I knew Blur was hot shit in
England, but at this point in the history of the magazine, I had met so
many bands, one more didn't seem like that big of a deal. I'm not sure,
but I think Heather said, "Fucking A, Armstrong. You just went up to
him and started talking..."
I noticed Mr. James was reading a book on mathematics, and I instantly
saw that as pretentious, however had to give him credit for trying to
appeal to the ladies in a more cerebral way. I believe I shared this
observation with Heather, but I can't remember.
Heather was very blown away by how nice I was being to her. In
retrospect, there were a lot of unusual things about the day, but
because I wasn't looking for those things, or trying to necessarily
impress her, I just did stuff to make the interview happen. Looking
back, there was never another time in the history of the magazine where
I did more to make an interview happen. That Blur was one of Heather's
favorite bands made it all the more special for her, and I got to be a
hero.
I remember feeling a distinct sense of being an older brother to
Heather that day. There was something oddly familiar about her but I
felt, even then, that she would be like the other characters
surrounding the magazine. She would be someone I would watch over the
years like Maugham's narrator in Razor's Edge. I had no idea then that
five years later we'd be married and almost seven years later we'd have
a child. Life is strange and wonderful, and I can't imagine being with
anybody else, or starting a family with anybody else. I've found my
best friend and someone who loves me for all of my geekery and the
attendant Medusa's head of cables and detritus that comes with it.
Heather, I love you. Thank God for Blur. Thank God for grid magazine.
Thank God for you.
[ now heather, giving her analog version: ]
http://www.dooce.com/archives/daily/08_24_2004.html
Tender is the touch of someone that you love too much
Tuesday, 24 August 2004
During my sophomore year in college on a walk from one general
education class to another I rounded a stairwell and noticed a flyer
for an underground student newspaper hanging on a wall. The paper was
called The Student Review, and they were holding an open call for
writers. I was so eager to be a part of something underground at that
point that I would have committed actual sins involving caffeine to be
accepted as a writer. That flyer changed the course of my life.
I met a group of people at The Student Review who were considered The
Coolest Kids on Campus, and I have to be very careful when I write
about these people because I know for a fact that some of them read
this site and they may take issue with my description of their Kingdom
of Coolness. They were a group made up mostly of men who were all nerds
and geeks and dorks in high school who went on to become brilliant and
funny and irresistible in college. Some of them played in bands, some
were writers, some of them were infamous for how many women they could
make out with in a 24-hr period. And they were all roommates.
On the fringe of this group was a man named Jon Armstrong. He was older
than most of the other kids, and he didn't actually live in their
House of Fun. He was married and lived with his wife elsewhere. Have I
not ever mentioned that part?
I knew about Jon Armstrong because I dated one of the Disciples of Cool
in the Kingdom of Coolness, if you could call what he and I did dating;
it was more of a constant non-committal make-out session (NCMO,
pronounced "nic-mo") with our clothes on. Let's call this
particular disciple "Matt" because that's his real name and I
have no interest in protecting the innocent. Hi, Matt!
Disciple Matt talked a lot about Jon Armstrong and how awesome and cool
and talented and funny he was, but I had never met Jon Armstrong. So in
my head I had this picture of an awesome and cool and talented and
funny man whose name was Jon Armstrong. I really liked the fact that he
spelled his name without the H. John Armstrong just wouldn't have
been as cool.
The first time I ever saw Jon Armstrong was at a CD release party for
the band Swimpigs, an acid jazz group for which he played keyboard.
Disciple Matt and I were still heavily involved in Project NCMO With
Our Clothes On, and he invited me to the party. Once I got to the
party, however, Disciple Matt promptly ignored me in what would become
a characteristic Kingdom of Coolness form of exclusion: I just wasn't
cool enough. That was a bad night, and one of the only things I
remember from it was finally getting a glimpse at the legendary Jon
Armstrong. He was very tall and was wearing fruity pants. I will always
remember those fruity pants.
I didn't see Jon Armstrong after that night for another two years.
By the time I was a senior in college I had made amends with some of
the other Disciples of Cool in the Kingdom of Coolness. One of them
whose real name is Sam (hi, Sam!) had started a music magazine in Salt
Lake City for which Jon Armstrong was the Art Director. As part of an
assignment for one of my senior English classes, I begged Sam to let me
be a contributing writer. Sam redeemed the whole Kingdom of Coolness
when he set me up with CD reviews and interviews with bands. In the
summer of 1997 he scheduled me an interview with Blur, my favorite band
of all time in the whole universe, amen.
I had been a fan of Blur for years, and when I found out that I was
going to get to interview them I went home and kissed all of their
pictures that I had hanging over my bed. And then I danced around in my
pajamas and fainted on my pillow. This was a big deal, a bigger deal
than it should have been for someone who was going to be conducting a
serious interview and then writing up a serious article, but I
couldn't help daydreaming about one of them autographing my
non-existent cleavage.
The interview was going to be held at an outdoor festival featuring
Blur as the headliner, and when I showed up to the festival I found Sam
in a building set up for DJs, a chill-out room for festival-goers to
cool off from the oppressive summer heat. He was standing behind a
make-shift table next to a tall, lanky, angular alien life form, a
man-being wearing geek glasses who instantly personified every physical
trait I found attractive in the opposite sex: skinny, check!
dark-haired, check! tall, CHECK CHECK CHECK! I remember thinking, This
is Jon Armstrong, and he is everything I thought he would be.
Sam tried to introduce us but I couldn't even let him say, "This is
Jon Armstrong" before stammering, "I KNOW WHO THIS IS." I was
swooning, literally shaking in my shoes, because I was instantly
attracted to him and I KNEW that he was married. How gross could I be?
How wrong and sinful and terrible and worthy of being cast out of
Heaven! I knew he was off limits, but that didn't stop my heart from
trembling and my mouth from garbling every single word I tried to
speak. It was like having a crush on Brad Pitt where you know he is
married and that his wife is an awesome woman, but that doesn't stop
you from thinking about how cute your babies would look with Brad
Pitt's butt. Thank God my name was Heather Hamilton and I couldn't
mix up the first two letters when introducing myself. The part where I
tried to say, "I love you and I want to have your babies," came
out, "I like your stuff with the design and it's pretty cool."
And then I think I snorted. I wanted TO DIE so that he wouldn't have
to stand near my unworthy, snorty soul.
While I was busy trying to put together two coherent words Sam was busy
making it so that I would never be able to interview Blur. He was just
too preoccupied with other things at the festival, and Blur's
publicist didn't want to bother the band with an interview from such
a small publication. Publicists are horrible people that way. Jon
Armstrong, however, was not horrible, and when he realized that Sam was
about to destroy my life-long dream to wash Damon Albarn's feet with
my salty tears, he made it his mission to get me that interview.
Jon Armstrong and I spent most of that afternoon together chasing after
Blur's publicist, standing outside Blur's tour bus, sniffing
Damon's sweaty bare chest as he walked by the food table behind the
stage. And I got the interview, twenty whole minutes with Blur's
guitarist and drummer and a tupperware bowl full of peanut M&M's. In
the basement somewhere I have a cassette tape with a recording of
Graham Coxon saying, "This one goes to eleven."
Jon Armstrong made my day, my year, and that afternoon we forged a
friendship that would eventually make my life. He made me feel accepted
that day, accepted and cool enough. Everything everyone had ever said
about him being awesome and cool and talented and funny came to life in
a six-foot-three blaze of geek glory.
Jon Armstrong and I wouldn't spend that much time together again for
another four years when we met under very different circumstances. And
three years after that fateful meeting we have a child. And that is
pretty cool.
Happy Second Anniversary, Jon Armstrong wihtout the H.
googlegroups2sucks
> I didn't meet Heather until the summer of 1997. The magazine was part
> of a radio station festival featuring a ton of bands, and the magazine
> was sponsoring a Chill Out room (wasn't the electronic trend of the
> mid-90s awesome?) featuring several DJs and offering an alternative to
> standing in the sun. We purchased a bunch of thrift store couches so
> people could sit down and listen to the DJs. What we didn't bargain for
> was that the environment would enable young women to take off their
> shirts and dance in their bras.
>
> Towards the mid-afternoon, as word spread and it got hotter outside,
> more and more people came in to check out the underwear. I think there
> were several strippers in the room as they were pulling moves this shy
> of a lapdance. I watched in bemused silence. Heather showed up at the
> table we had set up to distribute the magazine and offer water (which
> ran out after about two hours).
and this:
> I remember feeling a distinct sense of being an older brother to
> Heather that day.
to heather's reaction:
> The interview was going to be held at an outdoor festival featuring
> Blur as the headliner, and when I showed up to the festival I found Sam
> in a building set up for DJs, a chill-out room for festival-goers to
> cool off from the oppressive summer heat. He was standing behind a
> make-shift table next to a tall, lanky, angular alien life form, a
> man-being wearing geek glasses who instantly personified every physical
> trait I found attractive in the opposite sex: skinny, check!
> dark-haired, check! tall, CHECK CHECK CHECK! I remember thinking, This
> is Jon Armstrong, and he is everything I thought he would be.
i don't think jon was all that attracted physically to heather, or as
much as heather was physically attracted to jon. jon was attracted to
the strippers and/or lapdances, which made more of an impression to him
than it did for heather, who didn't mention it at all.
heather doesn't mind jon's geekiness, and proclaims it as an attribute
but it's important to note jon "personified every physical trait i
found attractive in the opposite sex". i.e. if jon wasn't sexy, i
highly doubt the "geek" thing would work for heather. it would be a
liability.
nevertheless, i think this marriage is and will work out long term
because jon wisely didn't put such a premium on looks, and heather
realized there's more to jon than just his physical attractiveness.
the mental vibes of the two posts mesh very well together, imho.
as for emotional vibe, jon seems rock solid. heather... i dunno.
something about her seems a tad off, but y'know, it apparently works
for jon and maybe that's why he loves her.
overall, they are one cool couple.
googlegroups2sucks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess
Origins of chess
Main article: Origins of chess
Persian youth playing chess with two suitors Illustration to the "Haft
Awrang" of Jami, in the story A Father Advises his Son About Love Freer
and Sackler Galleries, The Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.Many
countries claim to have invented the chess game in some incipient form.
The most commonly held belief is that chess originated in India, where
it was called Chaturanga, which appears to have been invented in the
6th century AD. Although this is commonly believed, it is thought that
Persians created a more modern version of the game after the Indians.
In fact, the oldest known chess pieces have been found in excavations
of ancient Persian territories.
Another theory exists that chess arose from the similar game of Chinese
chess, or at least a predecessor thereof, existing in China since the
2nd century BC. Joseph Needham and David Li are two of many scholars
who have favored this theory.
Chess eventually spread westward to Europe and eastward as far as
Japan, spawning variants as it went. One theory suggests that it
migrated from India to Persia, where its terminology was translated
into Persian, and its name changed to chatrang. The entrance of chess
into Europe, notably, is marked by a massive improvement in the powers
of the queen. The oldest known texts describing chess seem to indicate
a bi-directional spread from the Persian empire. In fact, the oldest
known reference points to Shah Ardashir as being a master of the game,
his rule was from 224 - 241 AD. This would indicate that chess was
invented some time before his rule.
>From Persia it entered the Islamic world, where the names of its pieces
largely remained in their Persian forms in early Islamic times. Its
name became shatranj, which continued in Spanish as ajedrez and in
Greek as zatrikion, but in most of Europe was replaced by versions of
the Persian word shāh = "king".
There is a theory that this name replacement happened because, before
the game of chess came to Europe, merchants coming to Europe brought
ornamental chess kings as curiosities and with them their name shāh,
which Europeans mispronounced in various ways.
checkmate: This is the English rendition of shāh māt, which is
Persian for "the king is finished".
rook: From the Persian rukh, which means "chariot", but also means
"cheek" (part of the face). The piece resembles a siege tower. It is
also believed that it was named after the mythical Persian bird of
great power called the roc.
bishop. From the Persian pīl means "the elephant", but in Europe and
the western part of the Islamic world people knew little or nothing
about elephants, and the name of the chessman entered Western Europe as
Latin alfinus and similar, a word with no other meaning (in Spanish,
for example, it evolved to the name "alfil"). This word "alfil" is
actually the Arabic for "elephant" hence the Spanish word would most
certainly have been taken from the Islamic provinces of Spain. The
English name "bishop" is a rename inspired by the conventional shape of
the piece. In Russia, the piece is, however, known as слон =
"elephant".
queen. Persian farzīn = "vizier" became Arabic firzān, which entered
western European languages as forms such as alfferza, fers, etc but was
later replaced by "queen".
The game spread throughout the Islamic world after the Muslim conquest
of Persia. Chess eventually reached Russia via Mongolia, where it was
played at the beginning of the 7th century. It was introduced into
Spain by the Moors in the 10th century, and described in a famous 13th
century manuscript covering chess, backgammon, and dice named the Libro
de los juegos. Chess also found its way across Siberia into Alaska.
[ very few games have this kind of history and popularity, to the point
it becomes culturally iconic. what does it have in common with other
hugely popular games, such as poker? it's easy to learn. almost
anyone can learn its simple rules in one sitting. however, simplicity
isn't enough to have enduring mass appeal -- it also has to be
difficult to master. there's got to be a challenge, and the gameplay
depth of chess is virtually limitless, compared to say another simple
game like tic-tac-toe.
there's another aspect to chess that's rarely mentioned but i think is
critical. chess is an organic game. you're not playing against
yourself nor against random dice, you're playing against a human
opponent. the board and rules itself are digital (e.g. black and white
squares, black and white pieces) and the gameplay is played out
digitally (e.g. pawn to king's 4) but what makes chess compelling is
your organic opponent.
the goal of chess is not really checkmate. the ideal victory is to
crush your opponent's will to win and make him give up. that's how
chess has been played for thousands of years, and that's why it's
lasted thousands of years. it's a near perfect blend of analog &
digital, of simplicity & complexity. ]
googlegroups2sucks
knowing it. ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_system
Complex system
>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Many natural phenomena can be considered to be complex systems, and
their study (complexity science) is highly interdisciplinary. Examples
of complex systems include ant-hills, ants themselves, human economies,
nervous systems, cells and living things - especially human beings.
Beyond the fact that these things are all networks of some kind, and
that they are complex, it may appear that they have little in common,
and hence that the term "complex system" is vacuous. However, all
complex systems are held to have behavioural and structural features in
common, which at least to some degree unites them as phenomena. They
are also united theoretically, because all these systems may in
principle be modelled with varying degrees of success by a certain kind
of mathematics, and so it is possible to state clearly what it is that
these systems are supposed to have in common with each other in
relatively formal terms.
[edit]
Formal Definition
The term complex system formally refers to a system of many parts which
are coupled in a nonlinear fashion. Such a system may be discrete (such
as a cellular automata system or set of difference equations), or it
may be continuous as in a system of differential equations. Because
they are nonlinear, complex systems are more than the sum of their
parts because a linear system is subject to the principle of
superposition, and hence is literally the sum of its parts, while a
nonlinear system is not. Put another way: a linear relationship is
simply one whose graph is a straight line, so a linear connection
between two things is one in which change on one side of the connection
induces proportional change in the other. A nonlinear connection means
that change on one side is not proportional to change on the other.
When there are many non-linearities in a system (many components),
behaviour can be as unpredictable as it is interesting. Complex systems
research studies such behaviour.
Most biological systems are complex systems in the sense outlined
above, while most engineered systems are not. Complex systems research
overlaps substantially with nonlinear dynamics research, but complex
systems specifically consist of a large number of mutually interacting
dynamical parts. Many research disciplines are becoming interested in
this branch of mathematical analysis because the digital computer has
made theoretical exploration of such systems possible. A little
mathematical knowledge is required to see why that is so. See for
example numerical integration.
[edit]
Behavior of Complex Systems
Variables in complex systems may of course exhibit very complex,
discoordinated behaviours, in which it is very hard to predict what an
element will do over time. However, Complex Systems may also exhibit
relatively simple (or, more formally, low dimensional, or coordinated)
patterns of behaviour just as simpler, linear systems do. But, unlike
linear systems (however complicated), complex non-linear systems are
usually very flexible in terms of exhibiting qualitatively different
behaviours at different times. In dynamical systems terminology, such a
qualitative change is known as a bifurcation and non-linearity is
required for a system to exhibit it. Part of complex systems research
is to determine whether any simple rules exist which may be used to
describe the low dimensional behaviour of complex systems. See for
example coordination dynamics. Because of the presence of low
dimensional behaviours and putative rules governing global behaviour,
many refer to the properties of complex systems as emergent. It is
important to realise though, that the use of this term is contentious
within the complex systems research community, since in principle
knowledge of the properties of the components and coupling between them
is sufficient to determine all aspects of the system's behaviour. In
practice though, this is often not possible (or desirable) and it is
not wholly misleading to see complex systems research as the study of
"emergent" properties.
[edit]
Applications of Complex Systems Theory
The study of complex systems is bringing new vitality to many areas of
science where a more typical reductionist strategy has fallen short.
Complex systems is therefore often used as a broad term encompassing a
research approach to problems in many diverse disciplines including
neuroscience, meteorology, physics, computer science, artificial life,
evolutionary computation, economics, earthquake prediction, heart cell
synchronisation, immune systems, reaction-diffusion systems, molecular
biology, epilepsy and enquiries into the nature of living cells
themselves. In these endeavours, scientists often seek simple
non-linear coupling rules which lead to complex phenomena (rather than
describe - see above), but this need not be the case. Human societies
(and probably human brains) are complex systems in which neither the
components nor the couplings are simple. Nevertheless, they exhibit
many of the hallmarks of complex systems.
Traditionally, engineering has striven to keep its systems linear,
because that makes them simpler to build and to predict. However, many
physical systems (for example lasers) are inherently "complex systems"
in terms of the definition above, and engineering practice must now
include elements of complex systems research.
[edit]
Informal Descriptions of Complex Systems
Various informal descriptions of complex systems have been put forward,
and these may give some insight into their properties. A special
edition of Science about complex systems Science Vol. 284. No. 5411
(1999). highlighted several of these:
A complex system is a highly structured system, which shows structure
with variations (Goldenfeld and Kadanoff)
A complex system is one whose evolution is very sensitive to initial
conditions or to small perturbations, one in which the number of
independent interacting components is large, or one in which there are
multiple pathways by which the system can evolve (Whitesides and
Ismagilov)
A complex system is one that by design or function or both is difficult
to understand and verify (Weng, Bhalla and Iyengar)
A complex system is one in which there are multiple interactions
between many different components (D. Rind)
Complex systems are systems in process that constantly evolve and
unfold over time (W. Brian Arthur).
[edit]
Features of natural complex systems
[edit]
Relationships are non-linear
In practical terms, this means a small perturbation may cause a large
effect (see butterfly effect), a proportional effect, or even no effect
at all. In linear systems, effect is always directly proportional to
cause. See nonlinearity.
[edit]
Relationships contain feedback loops
Both negative (damping) and positive (amplifying) feedback are often
found in complex systems. The effects of an element's behaviour are fed
back to in such a way that the element itself is altered.
[edit]
Complex systems are open
Complex systems in nature are usually open systems - that is, they
exist in a thermodynamic gradient and dissipate energy. In other words,
complex systems are usually far from energetic equilibrium: but despite
this flux, there may be pattern stability. see synergetics
[edit]
Complex systems have a history
The history of a complex system may be important. Because complex
systems are dynamical systems they change over time, and prior states
may have an influence on present states. More formally, complex systems
often exhibit hysteresis.
[edit]
Complex systems may be nested
The components of a complex system may themselves be complex systems.
For example, an economy is made up of organisations, which are made up
of people, which are made up of cells - all of which are complex
systems.
[edit]
Boundaries are difficult to determine
It can be difficult to determine the boundaries of a complex system.
The decision is ultimately made by the observer.
[edit]
Dynamic Network of Multiplicity
As well as coupling rules, the dynamic network of a complex system is
important. small-world or scale-free networks which have many local
interactions and a smaller number of inter-area connections are often
employed. Natural complex systems often exhibit such topologies. In the
human cortex for example, we see dense local connectivity and a few
very long axon projections between regions inside the cortex and to
other brain regions.
googlegroups2sucks
fire, etc. ]
Michael Flatley Discusses "Lord of the Dance"
Larry King Live Show Aired June 3, 1997 - 9:00 p.m. ET
http://bbs.annex.com/zamm/mfinterv.htm
<snip>
LK: The fun of it is what when you've got it down?
MF: You're out on stage, the music is blaring, the crowd is screaming,
the lights are flashing, your heart is pumping, the sweat is flying and
it's the greatest feeling in the whole world.
LK: Is it tough to teach it in combination, when you have as many
dancers as you have on stage there?
MF: It's the hardest part, but it's the most magical part, you know? If
you think about it for a second, you've got 40 dancers that are out on
stage dancing, touching the floor at exactly the same time, through the
entire number, exactly at the same time. So --
LK: It's like a precision drill team of the Marines Color Guard?
MF: Absolutely right, absolutely right, and It's come so far, even in
the last two years. The work that they are doing right now is so
intricate, compared even to what I did in "Riverdance." It has gone so
far because it's moving at such a pace right now. It just keeps on
evolving constantly.
[ the simplicity comes from 40 dancers doing the same thing at the same
time, and playing the same riff. it's not 40 dancers doing everything
differently. the complexity arises from the fact that, of course,
they're NOT doing it exactly. everyone is off a millisecond here, half
a second there, so they're _almost_ doing the exact same thing -- it's
not 40 robots literally doing the exact same thing. it's these
fractional variations, and how everyone looks slightly different, moves
slightly different, etc., that gives it a shimmering and intricate
effect, that is balanced against the simplicity of everyone doing the
same dance routine. flatley amps up the intricacy by making the
routine itself complicated, but i think he could've easily gone the
other way as well. whatever. nothing is written in stone. as long as
there's a fusion of simple & complexity, the overall proportions isn't
as critical as the integration itself. it doesn't have to be exactly a
50-50 balance -- 60/40 or 70/30 can be just as effective. i usually
talk in 50-50 dichotomies for clarity's sake. ]
CNN LARRY KING LIVE
Michael Flatley Discusses How He Became 'Lord of the Dance'
Aired June 18, 2001 - 21:00 ET
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0106/18/lkl.00.html
<snip>
KING: A lot of testosterone in what you do, too, right?
FLATLEY: Sure, yeah.
KING: I mean, this is a very sensual in a way?
FLATLEY: Yeah. Your whole body is in it, and you have to have that
masculine energy with what I do. It's what lights up the entire stage,
and what brings energy to the show as a whole is that
masculine-feminine energy that constantly comes together and creates
something special.
KING: Is this equally appreciated, male and female?
FLATLEY: Yes, it is.
KING: Young and old?
FLATLEY: Yes. Every race, every nationality, every religion. We have no
boundaries.
<snip>
KING: What's the enjoyment of doing it? A young person who wants to be
a dancer, he's got a lot of alternatives, he's got good movement.
What's the enjoyment he or she gets out of this kind of dancing?
FLATLEY: Well, it's a feeling of accomplishment. I believe it's
probably one of, if not the most, difficult dance form in the world.
And to be able to execute something properly that was done hundreds of
years ago, but a new version of that, in front of all those people --
it doesn't get any better than that. I've got -- I mean, our new set
has three levels, hydraulic levels, so you have a wall of dancers
dancing as fast as they can, hitting the floor maybe 15 times a second
at exactly the same time. And it sounds like the Concorde taking off.
googlegroups2sucks
> time, and playing the same riff. it's not 40 dancers doing everything
> differently. the complexity arises from the fact that, of course,
> they're NOT doing it exactly. everyone is off a millisecond here, half
> a second there, so they're _almost_ doing the exact same thing -- it's
> not 40 robots literally doing the exact same thing. it's these
> fractional variations, and how everyone looks slightly different, moves
> slightly different, etc., that gives it a shimmering and intricate
> effect, that is balanced against the simplicity of everyone doing the
> same dance routine. flatley amps up the intricacy by making the
> routine itself complicated, but i think he could've easily gone the
> other way as well. whatever. nothing is written in stone. as long as
> there's a fusion of simple & complexity, the overall proportions isn't
> as critical as the integration itself. it doesn't have to be exactly a
> 50-50 balance -- 60/40 or 70/30 can be just as effective. i usually
> talk in 50-50 dichotomies for clarity's sake. ]
to clarify more, organic isn't tied with simplicity, nor mechanical
with complexity. that is true with the organic actor/star within a
digital context (i.e. high def), but flatley here, flipped it around.
he took 40 analog dancers (with a natural-born tendency of doing their
own thing) then injected a strong current of precision and created a
single digital routine.
the other thing to note is he stacked up the simplicity -- just as
springsteen did on the born to run track -- by scaling it upwards to 40
dancers. you know, before this whole riverdance thing, all i knew of
irish dancing was about 4 teenaged girls bouncing up and down with
their arms strapped to their bodies. flatley stacked it up 10 fold,
loosened up their arms, injected 1000% more passion, and the whole
freaking enterprise took off like a rocket during the 90s.
googlegroups2sucks
subject of simplicity/complexity: ]
SURVEY: INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Now you see it, now you don't
Oct 28th 2004
>From The Economist print edition
To be truly successful, a complex technology needs to "disappear"
THERE has never been anything quite like information technology before,
but there have certainly been other complex technologies that needed
simplifying. Joe Corn, a history professor at Stanford University,
believes that the first example of a complex consumer technology was
clocks, which arrived in the 1820s. Clocks were sold with user manuals,
which featured entries such as "How to erect and regulate your
device". When sewing machines appeared in the 1840s, they came with
40-page manuals full of detailed instructions. Discouragingly, it took
two generations until a trade publication was able to declare in the
1880s that "every woman now knows how to use one."
At about the same time, the increase in technological complexity
gathered pace. With electricity came new appliances, such as the
phonograph, invented in 1877 by Thomas Alva Edison. According to Mr
Norman, the computer-design guru, despite Mr Edison's genius for
engineering he was a marketing moron, and his first phonograph was all
but unusable (in fact, initially he had no particular uses in mind for
it). For decades, Mr Edison fiddled with his technology, always going
for the most impressive engineering solution. For instance, he chose
cylinders over discs as the recording medium. It took a generation and
the entry of a new rival, Emile Berliner, to prepare the phonograph for
the mass market by making it easier to use (introducing discs instead
of cylinders) and giving it a purpose (playing music). Mr Edison's
companies foundered whereas Mr Berliner's thrived, and phonographs
became ubiquitous, first as "gramophones" or "Victrolas", the
name of Mr Berliner's model, and ultimately as "record players".
Another complex technology, with an even bigger impact, was the car.
The first cars, in the early 1900s, were "mostly a burden and a
challenge", says Mr Corn. Driving one required skill in lubricating
various moving parts, sending oil manually to the transmission,
adjusting the spark plug, setting the choke, opening the throttle,
wielding the crank and knowing what to do when the car broke down,
which it invariably did. People at the time hired chauffeurs, says Mr
Corn, mostly because they needed to have a mechanic at hand to fix the
car, just as firms today need IT staff and households need teenagers to
sort out their computers.
By the 1930s, however, the car had become more user-friendly and ready
for the mass market. Two things in particular had made this possible.
The first was the rise, spread and eventual ubiquity of a support
infrastructure for cars. This included a network of decent roads and
motorways, and of petrol stations and garages for repair. The second
was the makers' increasing skill at hiding the technology from drivers.
Ford proved particularly good at this. Ironically, it meant that cars
got hugely more complex on the inside, because most of the tasks that
had previously been carried out by drivers now had to be done
automatically. This presented drivers with a radically simplified
surface, or "interface" in today's jargon, so that all they had to
do was turn the ignition key, put their foot on the accelerator, brake,
steer and change gear-and after 1940, when automatic transmissions
were introduced, even gear-shifting became optional.
Another instructive technology is electricity. In its early days, those
firms and households that could afford it had their own generators.
Keeping these going soon became a full-time job. In the early 20th
century, writes Nick Carr, the author of a book entitled "Does IT
Matter?", most companies had a senior management position called
"vice-president of electricity", a rough equivalent of today's
"chief information officer" (CIO) and "chief technology
officer" (CTO). Within a generation, however, the generators and
vice-presidents disappeared as electricity became available through the
grid, leaving users to deal only with the simplest of interfaces, the
power socket.
Out with the nerds
The evolution of these technologies holds some lessons for the IT
industry today. The first observation, according to Mr Norman, "is
that in the early days of any technological revolution the engineers
are in charge, and their customers are the early adopters. But the mass
market is the late adopters. This is why Thomas Alva Edison, an
engineering genius, failed miserably in business." Similarly, in IT
today, says Mr Papadopoulos of Sun Microsystems, "the biggest problem
is that most of the people who create these artefacts are nerds. I want
to see more artists create these things."
[ first, america is falling behind in science & technology because
america in general, detests nerds & geeks. how many young kids are
going to major in professions that are subject to so much ridicule?
i've had it with stupid girls who loathe geeks and geeks with
self-loathing complexes. enough. no more. either that, or we might
as well just hand over the future to asia right now. second, it's not
geekiness that cause complexity, it's the whole fucking world. the
world is complicated and creates a demand for tools that can handle
complexity and it's very tough to create simple tools that's also
powerful. are we clear on this, people? ]
The geekiness that predominates in the early stages of any new
technology leads to a nasty affliction that Paul Saffo, a technology
visionary at California's Institute for the Future, calls
"featuritis". For example, Microsoft in a recent survey found that
most consumers use only 10% of the features on offer in Microsoft Word.
In other words, some 90% of this software is clutter that obscures the
few features people actually want. This violates a crucial principle of
design. As Soetsu Yanagi wrote in "The Unknown Craftsman", his
classic 1972 book on folk art, "man is most free when his tools are
proportionate to his needs." The most immediate problem with IT
today, as with other technologies at comparable stages, says Mr Saffo,
is that "our gadgets are so disproportionate".
A second lesson from history, however, is that a brute cull of features
would be futile. As technologies, the sewing machine, the phonograph,
the car and the electricity grid have only ever grown more complex over
time. Today's cars, in fact, are mobile computers, containing dozens of
microchips and sensors and other electronic sub-systems that Henry Ford
would not recognise. Electricity grids today are as complex as they are
invisible in everyday life. Consumers notice them only when things go
wrong, as they did spectacularly during last year's power cuts in
north-eastern America and Canada.
"You have to push all the complexity to the back end in order to make
the front end very simple," says Marc Benioff, the boss of
Salesforce.com, a software firm that will be examined in a later
article in this survey. This migration of complexity, says Mr Benioff,
echoes the process of civilisation. Thus, every house initially has its
own well and later its own generator. Civilisation turns houses into
"nodes" on a public network that householders draw on. But the
"interface"-the water tap, the toilet flush, the power
switch-has to be "incredibly simple". All the management of
complexity now takes place within the network, so that consumers no
longer even know when their electricity or water company upgrades its
technology. Thus, from the user's point of view, says Mr Benioff,
"technology goes through a gradual disappearance process."
>From the point of view of the vendors, the opposite is true. "Our
experience is that for every mouse click we take out of the user
experience, 20 things have to happen in our software behind the
scenes," says Brad Treat, the chief executive of SightSpeed, a
company that wants to make video phone calls as easy for consumers as
e-mailing. The same applies to corporate datacentres. "So don't
expect some catharsis in eliminating layers of software," says Mr
Papadopoulos. "The way we get rid of complexity is by creating new
layers of abstraction and sedimenting what is below." This will take
different forms for firms and for consumers. First, consider the firms.
googlegroups2sucks
http://www.painterskeys.com/getquotes.asp?fname=ps&ID=278
Simplicity art quotations
Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit
simpler. (Albert Einstein)
Suddenly it was clear to me that all the beautiful complexity of life
had simplicity at its core. [on DNA] (Eric Lander)
The ability to simplify means to eliminate the unnecessary so that the
necessary may speak. (Hans Hofmann)
I always feel the need to achieve the maximum of intensity with the
minimum of means. This is what has led me to give my painting an ever
sparer character. (Joan Miro)
The painter who is so enamoured by the beauties of the parts of a
landscape, that he strives to represent all, cannot succeed. His
picture will be an arrangement of a series of portraits of things
without unity... There must be variety and contrast, but in measured
doses. (Walter J. Phillips)
The motif must always be set down in a simple way, easily grasped and
understood by the beholder. By the elimination of superfluous detail,
the spectator should be led along the road that the artist indicates to
him, and from the first be made to notice what the artist has felt.
(Alfred Sisley)
Simplicity can only be achieved by forethought, planning and insight.
It actually takes much more effort to create a bold simple painting,
than to endlessly worry and poke a picture to death. (Ron Ranson)
[ that last quote nails it. take it from someone who's spent
considerable time and effort trying to simplify things and ideas --
it's not easy. it's very easy to simplify inaccurately. there are
multitudes of avenues, most of them wrong or inefficient, when trying
to distill an issue or problem that is genuinely complex. ideally, one
has to grasp the complexity in totality -- which in itself is difficult
or damn near impossible -- before one can begin to reduce accurately or
the simple solutions will have gaps too fundamental to overcome. ]
googlegroups2sucks
> considerable time and effort trying to simplify things and ideas --
> it's not easy. it's very easy to simplify inaccurately. there are
> multitudes of avenues, most of them wrong or inefficient, when trying
> to distill an issue or problem that is genuinely complex. ideally, one
> has to grasp the complexity in totality -- which in itself is difficult
> or damn near impossible -- before one can begin to reduce accurately or
> the simple solutions will have gaps too fundamental to overcome. ]
if it's not apparent by now, i believe dems must spend considerable
effort at simplifying all these complex political issues and boil them
down to its essence. it's essential to winning because it's essential
to reaching the broadest possible audience. i don't care if we get
called "simplistic". who gives a damn if some well-spoken media moron
thinks the ipod is too simple for their music needs, or that it's only
a gadget for music simpletons? fuck 'em. people in iraq are dying
needlessly because of gop incompetence and we need to start getting
results here or more people will die needlessly.
more from the "survey" series at the economist:
"UBS's Mr Coburn adds a demographic observation. Today, he says, some
70% of the world's population are "analogues", who are "terrified
by technology", and for whom the pain of technology "is not just
the time it takes to figure out new gadgets but the pain of feeling
stupid at each moment along the way". Another 15% are "digital
immigrants", typically thirty-somethings who adopted technology as
young adults; and the other 15% are "digital natives", teenagers
and young adults who have never known and cannot imagine life without
IM (instant messaging, in case you are an analogue). But a decade from
now, Mr Coburn says, virtually the entire population will be digital
natives or immigrants, as the ageing analogues convert to avoid social
isolation. Once again, the needs of these converts point to a hugely
increased demand for simplicity."
[ politics and policy issues are about as complex as anything i've ever
come across and yet they must be understood by a critical mass of the
electorate that would rather go shopping and eat pizza at food court,
all things considered. ]
"LISA HOOK, an executive at AOL, one of the biggest providers of
traditional ("dial-up") internet access, has learned amazing things
by listening in on the calls to AOL's help desk. Usually, the problem
is that users cannot get online. The help desk's first question is:
"Do you have a computer?" Surprisingly often the answer is no, and
the customer was trying to shove the installation CD into the stereo or
TV set. The help desk's next question is: "Do you have a second
telephone line?" Again, surprisingly often the answer is no, which
means that the customer cannot get on to the internet because he is on
the line to the help desk. And so it goes on."
[ spare me the outrage that i'm implying _you_ tried to install aol
onto your stereo, or that you find offensive that there may be a
segment of the population which finds they don't have the time or the
aptitude to understand the complexities of social security issues.
you'll get plenty of airtime on cnn to do that and i'm not trying to
reach you. to everyone else that have a bit more common sense and a
realistic view of things, consider spending more time in simplifying
issues. hone it down as much as you can. test it, then hone it more.
rinse, repeat. ]
"Mom, however, is invoked most-if not necessarily heeded. According
to an industry legend, Steve Ballmer, now the boss of Microsoft,
conducted a mom test before the launch of Windows 95, using his own
mother as the guinea pig. When she had finished trying it out, Ms
Ballmer asked, "How do I turn it off?" Her son, somewhat irked,
pointed to the start button. "You go to the start button to stop?"
asked his mother, quite perplexed. But today, several versions of
Windows later, that is still how it is done."
[ anyway, are we all that much smarter than the rest of the population?
i think ballmer's mom made quite an astute point. :) ]
googlegroups2sucks
THE two biggest consumer-technology successes of recent times are a
white page and a wheel. The white page belongs to Google, the world's
most popular search engine; the wheel to Apple's iPod, the world's most
popular portable music player with a hard disk. Both form part of
so-called "interfaces"-metaphorical gateways through which humans
enter and navigate around a technology. Both are also picture-book
examples of simplicity concealing complexity underneath.
The white page is said to have come about as follows. In its early
days, Google kept receiving strange anonymous e-mails containing only
the number 53. Sometimes they stopped coming, then they started again.
Eventually, one of Google's geniuses figured out that the e-mails
arrived whenever Google had made changes to its web home page that
expanded its word count beyond 53. The anonymous adviser was telling
Google to keep down the clutter (although why he picked 53 as the
cut-off point remains a mystery). In August this year, Google made the
biggest stockmarket debut of any technology firm in history. The
current word count on google.com is 27.
As for the iPod, "It is successful because it's simple," says Paul
Mercer, the brainfather of its interface and the founder of Iventor, a
technology-design firm. "It does few things, but some subtle things,
and it is fluid." The simplicity comes from the wheel itself; the
subtlety comes from features such as the acceleration built into the
wheel, so that it seems to sense whether the user wants to scroll
through songs slowly or fast. The genius lies in what is absent-there
is no "fast-scroll" button. Instead, says Mr Mercer, the
"technology materialises only when needed", and thus "seems to
intuit" the user's intention.
Google and the iPod are successful because each rescues consumers from
a particular black hole of complexity. Google does it by putting a
white page on top of the googol (the number 1, followed by 100 zeros)
of potential web pages. The iPod does it by letting music lovers, in
effect, carry all of their CDs with them in their pocket. Both
solutions require an enormous technological apparatus behind the
scenes. Google is said to operate some 100,000 servers. And Apple had
to configure the iPod so that it automatically and fluently talks to
iTunes, the music application that runs on users' PCs. Transferring
songs from the PC to the iPod now requires nothing more than plugging
in a single cable. (Both companies, incidentally, are notoriously
secretive and refused to be interviewed for this survey.)
<snip>
He concludes that the only way to achieve simplicity is to have gadgets
that explicitly and proudly do less (he calls these "information
appliances"). Arguably, the iPod proves him right. Its success so far
stems from its relative modesty of ambition: it plays songs but does
little else.
[ hear the echo i'm hearing? he's talking about stacking simplicity on
top of each other. perhaps we need political ipods for every issue
voters care about, yet still manages to fit within a broader underlying
dem philosophy. btw, that's how i've tried to create my posts in this
thread -- short, simple usenet ipods stacked upon each other yet still
conforming to 2 or 3 major themes. ]
googlegroups2sucks
an organic philosophy. of course, i'd consider it only half complete
without the mechanical side. :) ]
http://www.hermitary.com/house/aesthetics.html
The design principles of wabi-sabi fall into several categories; of
course fine arts like poetry, drama, and literature, have not physical
objects, embody these principles in a different way:
TYPE
The materials used are organic, not synthetic. They are further not to
be polished or cleaned or adulterated to appear new or contrived. Hence
wood, metal, paper, textiles, stone, and clay comprise acceptable
materials which will express the passage of time and whose devolution
is expressive and attractive.
FORM
The object is shaped naturally or organically, showing natural or
intentional asymmetry or irregularity. Form is not imposed by human
contrivance but subtly intervenes to make the object follow the
capabilities and relevant physical characteristics, properties, and
propensities of its own nature. This naturalness of form is probably
the first and most striking characteristic of the object. Above all,
the work is itself, not a symbol of anything.
TEXTURE
In keeping with the material used, the texture remains rough, uneven,
variegated, and random, with every appearance of pursuing an unimpeded
natural process.
BEAUTY
The Western standard of beauty referred to above does not find a place
in wabi-sabi. Not even conventional standards of beauty in the popular
mind unfamiliar with theory are necessarily wabi-sabi. Wabi-sabi
presses the absolute nature of permeability in the visual and sensual,
so that the fragility and poignancy of conventional beauty lost in the
passage of time is made real in the present space. The object reveals
this different sense of beauty in subtle and even barely perceptible
detail, but it is a holistic experience that is difficult for the
viewer to abstract given details that convey the given sensibility.
Indeed, the wabi-sabi artist does not intend the viewer to "abstract"
anything. Wabi-sabi is a holistic experience, and objects derive their
beauty from the emotion conveyed, not from any particular detail of the
work. In this latter sense, beauty is more easily conveyed in the
experience of literature, theater, or ceremony than are some of the
other principles.
COLOR
The object conveys nothing harsh or unnatural, hence colors are muted.
Light is diffused or subdued. Colors are derived from natural sources,
lacking uniformity or harshness. Nor is color exclusively conveyed by
visual art objects, as a poem by Jakuren (12th century) cited by
Juniper shows:
To be alone
It is a color that
cannot be named:
This mountain where cedars rise
Into the autumn dusk
SIMPLICITY
Simplicity conveys the spontaneity of natural materials that are not or
cannot be embellished. Lack of adulteration and ostentation confirms
the authenticity of the work and its conformity to the wabi-sabi
spirit.
SPACE
While sabi works are the objectification of wabi in space, here space
refers to proportion and perspective. Nothing is wasted yet there is
ample space around the object, conveying a holistic philosophy wherein
all elements intertwine and are essential to the whole. Scale becomes
an economy of space (the tea hut, bonsai), but empty space conveys the
nature of the universe (the bowl or cup, archery, the Zen garden).
BALANCE
The work reflects the physical balances found in the natural world.
Hence no preconceived formula for symmetry is tenable because nature
defines itself by circumstances: a tree grows tall or short, thin or
thick, leafy, crooked, etc., in the context of other trees, rocks,
water, soil, hummus, etc. in the forest. This balance as circumstance
is a design principle for the artist to infuse into a work. The work,
like the tree, is unique. The regularity, uniformity, and prescriptions
contrived by the artist are secondary to the requirement to reflect a
natural and unforced appearance to the object and its context.
SOBRIETY
Sobriety is the simple principle that art is sometimes better defined
by what is left out than by what is put in. Sobriety adds a sense of
perspective to the experience of impermanence. The artist approaches
creative work with humility, sincerity, and a clarification of motives.
Bad motives poison art and inevitably reveal themselves in the work.
The artist must proceed to create freely and intimately a personal and
vulnerable work that is naturally infused with the spirit of wabi-sabi.
Sobriety provides the element of ambiguity because the artist
recognizes his/her limitations, and refrains from making bold or
emphatic statements.
Koren finds it especially useful to distinguish wabi-sabi principles
from principles of modernist art, the minimalism of the latter being
often confused with wabi-sabi. He comes to his subject from the
discouraging experience of witnessing wabi-sabi increasingly abandoned
in Japan for the headlong embrace of Western pop art and technology.
Koren's chart (here edited) makes useful distinctions between the
minimalism of contemporary modernism and the principles of wabi-sabi
that further elucidate the design principles of wabi-sabi.
MODERNISM [aka digital], WABI-SABI [aka analog]
public, private
logical/rational, intuitive
absolute, relative
prototypical, idiosyncratic
modular, variable
progressive, cyclical
control of nature, harmony with nature
technology, nature
adaptation to machines, adaptation to nature
symmetrical, organic
rectangular, curved
man-made, natural
slick, polished, smooth -- crude, rough, tactile
maintenance, degradability
reduction/subjugation of senses -- expansion of senses
clarity, ambiguity
functionality/utility, naturalness
materiality, non-materiality
all-weather, seasonal
light, bright -- dark, dim
cool, warm
googlegroups2sucks
earnestly written about in this thread, but what the heck. i love the
images. ...and it does stack up simplicity.
googlegroups2sucks
time for mozart:
http://www.writing.ucsb.edu/faculty/donelan/Mozart.html
Mozart and Enlightenment Thought
James Donelan
Karpeles Library
September 26, 1999
<snip>
I realize this is a very abstract thesis, but let me tell you what I
mean in very concrete terms. As a composer and performer, Mozart wanted
to take Vienna by storm, and between 1781 and 1785 he performed more
and more, and wrote more and more complex, dramatic, and powerful piano
concertos to demonstrate his talent. To give you just a couple of
examples, I'll play just a brief excerpt from the Adagio movement of
Piano Concerto No. 23, Köchel 488, one of six concertos he wrote in
1786: [Play Track 2 of Horowitz]. I'm sure you noticed the remarkable
delicacy and depth of emotion in this movement-Mozart isn't trying
to be flashy here; he's demonstrating the expressive power of a
carefully written, yet simple theme. Rather than burden you with my
analysis, I'll just quote Charles Rosen on this movement:
"The structure of the melody may be two regular parallels, but its
beauty and its passionate melancholy lie in the irregularity of rhythm
and variety of phrasing which reveal every possible expressive facet of
the two simple descending lines." (244)
[ simplicity of two lines, and the complexity brought about by the
"irregularity of rhythm and variety of phrasing". ...perhaps a
shimmering, intricate effect brought about by stacking up simplicity?
i report, you decide. ]
Rosen goes on to describe exactly how Mozart accomplishes this in
technical terms, and here I'll summarize. What Mozart is doing is
making more with less: he takes a relatively simple theme and does more
complex, less predictable, and more reflective variations on the theme
than his predecessors, or even his contemporaries would have done. In
this, he is setting a precedent for Beethoven, for whom this became a
central compositional principle. He is also stating by example that
music, above all, is important and significant, in particular with
regard to the display of the individual mind in relation to society.
All good concertos, to some extent, have this dialectic between
individual virtuosity and social ensemble at their center, but in
Mozart's case, it's especially important to notice the restraint he
shows toward flashy playing in favor of the integrity and complexity of
the work as a whole. He is also taking full advantage of the technical
possibilities of the pianoforte, a relatively recent invention, which
enabled the player to use loud and soft notes, unlike its predecessor,
the harpsichord. You should also notice the use of clarinets in the
orchestra; writing for this instrument is also fairly new, and the
instrument became one of Mozart's favorites; his clarinet concerto
is, as I'm sure you know, one of the standards in the repertoire. As
for this concerto and others of this period, the remarkable thing about
them is the degree to which Mozart's clear intent is not necessarily
to dazzle the audience with virtuoso playing, but to elevate the art
form, and that these concertos were written for a subscription series
of concerts, not for an individual patron.
googlegroups2sucks
another point worth noting: i firmly believe in matching simple
melodies with complex harmonies in order to maximize impact, where both
feeds and reinforces the other. some people call it parallel harmony:
http://cnx.rice.edu/content/m11878/latest/
Parallel harmony is harmony that generally follows the melody, going up
when the melody goes up and down when the melody goes down. Because
parallel harmonies are not independent of the melody, they do not
follow the rules of well-written counterpoint and are generally not
considered to be as interesting as independent harmony parts. However,
parallel harmonies are easier to play for many instruments (keyboard
instruments, guitar, dobro guitar, violin, and cello, to name just a
few). Parallel harmonies are also very easy for even the "untrained
ear" to grasp, and are very common in popular and folk musics. In
Western classical music, they are most common in Impressionist music
and in some types of medieval chant.
googlegroups2sucks
[ with the grain or against the grain? ]
http://dactyl.som.ohio-state.edu/Music829B/fusion.html
Ohio State University
School of Music
Consonance and Dissonance - Tonal Fusion Theory
Carl Stumpf carried out a seminal experiment investigating the tendency
for some sound combinations to cohere into a single sound image through
a process of Tonverschmelzung or tonal fusion. Listeners heard two
concurrent tones and were asked to judge whether they heard a single
tone or two tones. Stumpf found that the pitch interval that most
encourages tonal fusion is the aptly named unison. The second most
fused interval is the octave, whereas the third most fused interval is
the perfect fifth (Stumpf, 1890). (There is no general agreement in the
literature concerning the rank order for subsequent intervals. Some
commentators consider the perfect fourth (3:4) to be the next most
fused interval, whereas others have suggested the double octave (1:4).
Experimental data collected by DeWitt and Crowder (pp.77-78)
paradoxically suggests that major sevenths are more prone to tonal
fusion than perfect fourths.)
Stumpf was struck by the similarity of these judgments to judgments of
the degree of consonance. In his Tonpsychologie of 1890 Stumpf proposed
that consonance is caused by tonal fusion. That is, the greater the
tendency for sounds to cohere, the greater the consonance. At first
glance, this theory seems to hold considerable merit. For example,
since harmonically-related partials are more likely to fuse and sound
like a single complex tone, the resulting tone should be relatively
free from dissonance.
Stumpf later abandonded his own theory as unsatisfactory. There are a
number of good reasons supporting Stumpf's decision to abandon the
theory. Here we will note three sample problems.
Consider first, a complex harmonic series consisting of the first ten
partials: 100 Hz, 200 Hz, 300 Hz, 400 Hz, 500 Hz, 600 Hz, 700 Hz, 800
Hz, 900 Hz, 1,000 Hz. This spectrum will produce a highly fused complex
tone with a pitch corresponding to roughly a 100 Hz fundamental. Now
compare this with the subset consisting of just the 2nd and 3rd
partials: 200 Hz and 300 Hz. Most listeners will tend to judge this
dyad as less fused than the complex tone, yet most listeners will also
judge the dyad to sound more "pleasant", "euphonious" or "consonant"
than the full-spectrum tone.
Another simple demonstration involves taking any complex sonority and
passing it through a commercial "phaser" or "chorus" device. Phasing
involves making a duplicate copy of a signal, phase-shifting it, and
adding the shifted copy to the original signal. In addition, the amount
of phase shifting is constantly varied. A "phase shifter" has two
immediate perceptual effects. The first effect is to make the sound
more "pleasant" or "euphonious". The second effect is to make the
sonority sound like there are more instruments. That is, a process that
increases the apparent numerosity in the sound field, also causes an
increase in perceived consonance. Said another way, the Tonal Fusion
theory of consonance fails to explain by a "string section" often
sounds more pleasant that a single violin.
[ nails it. stacking up simplicity is somewhat similar to a phaser or
chorus effect in a synthesizer. note above the phase-shifting is
"constantly varied", contributing to an increase in "perceived
consonance". ]
A third problem for the Tonal Fusion theory comes from a multiple
regression analysis of the interval distributions in the polyphonic
writing of J.S. Bach. In a review of the published experimental data,
Huron (1991) noted that the distributions for judgments of
consonance/dissonance differ significantly from the judgments for tonal
fusion. Huron (1991) went on to compare these published distributions
against the interval distributions for intervals in the music of J.S.
Bach. For a large sample of music, there is a positive correlation
between the consonance distributions and Bach's interval prevalence.
However, there is a negative correlation between Bach's interval use
and the tonal fusion distributions. Moreover, the best correlations
were found using a multiple regression combining tonal fusion and
consonance. In short, there is strong evidence that in his polyphonic
writings, Bach was endeavoring to promote sensory consonance while
simultaneously avoiding tonal fusion. For example, unisons, octaves,
and perfect fifths occur less frequently in Bach's polyphonic music
than would occur in a purely random juxtaposition of parts. Moreover,
unisons occur less frequently than octaves, which occur less frequently
than perfect fifths, which occur less frequently than other intervals.
Note that this observation is independent of the avoidance of parallel
unisons, fifths, or octaves. As simple static intervals, these
intervals are actively avoided in Bach's polyphonic works.
Bregman (1990) has pointed out that it is important not to conflating
two different auditory experiences: "smooth sounding" versus "sounding
as one." Huron (1991) showed that Bach's polyphonic music is organized
so as to minimize "sounding as one" while maximizing "sounding smooth".
Bach's musical organization is inconsistent with the theory that
consonance is caused by tonal fusion.
googlegroups2sucks
might be worthwhile to step back... ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_theory
Music Theory
Music theory is a field of study that describes the elements of music
and includes the development and application of methods for analyzing
and composing music, and the interrelationship between the notation of
music and performance practice. Broadly, theory may include any
statement, belief, or conception of music (Boretz, 1995). A person who
studies or practices music theory is a music theorist.
Music theory generally attempts to reduce the practice of composing and
playing into rules and ideas. In the Western tradition, the study of
music theory stems from a belief that the acts of composing,
performing, and listening to music are all based on traditions that may
be explicated to a high degree of detail (this, as opposed to a
conception of musical expression as fundamentally ineffable except in
musical sounds). Generally, music theory works are both descriptive and
prescriptive, that is they both attempt to define practice and to
influence later practice. Thus, music theory generally lags behind
practice in important ways, but also points towards future exploration
and performance. Musicians study music theory in order to be able to
understand the relationships that a composer or songwriter expects to
be understood in the notation, and composers study music theory in
order to be able to understand how to produce effects and to structure
their own works. Composers may study music theory in order to guide
their precompositional and compositional decisions. Broadly speaking
music theory in the Western tradition focuses on harmony and
counterpoint, and then uses these to explain large scale structure and
the creation of melody.
Sound
Music theory describes how sounds, which travel in waves, are notated,
and how what is sounded, or played, is perceived by listeners. The
study of how humans interpret sound is called psychoacoustics, while
the cognitive aspects of how perceived sounds are interpreted into
musical structures is studied in music cognition. In music, sound waves
are usually measured not by length (or wavelength) or period, but by
frequency.
Every object has a resonant frequency which is determined by the
object's composition. The different frequencies at which the sound
producers of many instruments vibrate are given by the harmonic series.
The resonators of musical instruments are designed to exploit these
frequencies. Different instruments have different timbres because of
variation in the size and shape of the instrument.
Often the fundamental aspects of sound and music are described as
pitch, duration, intensity, and timbre.
[edit]
Pitch
Sounds can be classified into pitches, according to their frequencies
or their relative distance from a reference pitch. Tuning is the
process of assigning pitches to notes. The distance in pitch between
two notes is called an interval. Notes, in turn, can be arranged into
different scales and modes. The most common scales are the major and
minor scales.
[edit]
Rhythm
Rhythm is the arrangement of sounds in time. Meter animates time in
regular pulse groupings, called measures (or bars in British English).
The time signature specifies how many beats are in a measure, and which
kind of written note is counted and felt as a single beat. Through
increased stress and attack (and subtle variations in duration),
particular tones may be accented. There are conventions in most musical
traditions for a regular and hierarchical accentuation of beats to
reinforce the meter. Syncopated rhythms are rhythms that accent parts
of the beat not already stressed by counting. Playing simultaneous
rhythms in more than one time signature is called polyrhythm.
[edit]
Melody
Melody is the unfolding in musical time of a principle single line.
This line can be sounded alone, unaccompanied; or it can be the top (or
sometimes an inner) note of a squence of chords, or sounded against
chords as a background by accompanying instruments or voices. Melodic
rhythm is usually rooted in the accent patterns of language, and/or the
animating rhythms of dance steps and forms.
In much of Western music, melody is often the most identifiable theme.
Melodies will often imply certain scales or modes. Counterpoint is the
study of combining and layering more or less independent melodies.
[edit]
Harmony, consonance, & dissonance
Harmony can generally be thought of as occurring when two or more
pitches are sounded simultaneously, although harmony can be implied
when pitches are sounded successively rather than simultaneously (as in
arpeggiation). Harmonies involving three or more pitches sounded
simultaneously are referred to as chords, though the term is generally
used to indicate an organized selection of pitches rather than just any
three or more pitches.
Consonance can be roughly defined as harmonies whose tones complement
and augment each others' resonance, dissonance as those which create
more complex acoustical interactions (called 'beats'). Another manner
of thinking about the relationship regards stability; dissonant
harmonies are sometimes considered to be unstable and to "want to move"
or "resolve" toward consonance. However, this is not to say that
dissonance is undesirable. A composition made entirely of consonant
harmonies may be pleasing to the ear and yet boring because there are
no instabilities to be resolved.
Brief audio (MIDI) musical examples of the interaction and effect of
consonance and dissonance upon each other can be found here: "The
effect of context on dissonance'" and here: "The role of harmony in
music"
Melody is often organized so as to interact with changing harmonies
(sometimes called a chord progression) that accompany it, setting up
consonance and dissonance.
<snip>
googlegroups2sucks
Check It Out: WordLock
Protect your gym gear with a new kind of lock
by Lindsey Unterberger
http://diet.ivillage.com/gear/gadvice/0,,83qgq0q9,00.html
Calling all you math geeks: Your reign is coming to an end! We've
stolen your digits and don't plan on giving them back. You've had your
chance to rule the universe with your numbers, and now it's our turn.
Say goodbye to your personal identification numbers, social security
numbers and telephone numbers. We're taking over the world with
palindromes, onomatopoeias and quirky catch phrases.
Don't believe us? Here's a preview of what's to come:
In a number-ruled world, you've just finished up your newest class at
the gym. Some kind of Pilates meets yoga meets Gyrotonic meets
kickboxing aerobic hip-hop session. Drenched in sweat, you suck down
your bottled water on your way to the locker room, and that's when it
happens. You panic. You can't remember, to save your life, or your dry
clothes stuck inside, what the million-digit combination is to open
your gym locker.
But thanks to office supply chain Staples, when we word people take
over the world, you can forget about forgetting that gazillion-digit
combo. The new WordLock from Staples uses letters instead of numbers to
guard your workout gear. So all you need to remember is the four- or
five-letter word of your choice, and with more than 100,000
combinations, anything goes. As for you number nerds, this one's for
you: M-A-T-H.
We know. The idea is so simple that you're scratching your head and
wondering why no one thought of it before. We're scratching ours, too,
and kicking ourselves for not coming up with it first!
We might not be able to rid the world of numbers, but for less than $6
a lock at Staples.com, you too can have your own sweet revenge (in six
different colors) on every combination you've ever forgotten.
[ first, lemme say this woman is the ultra-analog: very pro-word
people, very anti-math people.
what i love about this invention is its simplicity. you have to
remember just a single word. a combination is still required, now with
letters and not numbers, but the reason it _seems_ simpler is because
we already know how to spell the word.
trying to learn a new number combination is like trying to learn a new
word with no meaning behind it, and learn its spelling without any of
the usual spelling norms. it's a tedious sell and easy to forget.
if dems can build a set of ideas -- an ipod of ideas, values, emotions
stacked around a simple concept -- then add more modular ipods over
time, it'll eventually provide a palette of ipods that can be used in
combination for a variety of complex issues now and in the future.
the key benefit will be that the voter won't have to learn how to spell
a new word (i.e. learn a new set of talking points), and dems will
waste less time teaching voters a new interface, for every new
situation or issue that pops up. you can then handle complex issues
with simple means, quickly and efficiently. ]
googlegroups2sucks
holy grail of personal computing -- microsoft in particular -- which
would allow a simple yet powerful interface with a vast potential
market, and just as an important point, will allow microsoft to win
over the affections of the user.
here's another answer to the endlessly vexing organic interface issue:
http://www.police.cybercomm.nl/chat20000830.htm
Sting Internet Chat "AOL Live" - August 30th, 2000
[Updated: April 24, 2002]
Sting: Well, I am interested in culture, but I don't see myself as a
cultural pirate. In other words, I don't fly around the world looking
for stuff that I can steal. It has to be a part of my understanding. On
the other hand, I think that music is a common language that we all
share, and within that language there are various subgroups. And it's
nice when those subgroups can have a sort of interface. And I think
that's what my job is, to interface different cultures with my own,
rather than steal it wholesale.
Drew Marko: OK. Next question we have is from --
Sting: Very good typing going on here.
Drew Marko: Yes, what we have is something called National Captioning
Institute doing captioning for us. You know on television, if you have
captioning, it will scroll very quickly. That's definitely their
background, and they're very good at what they do. So we can speak at a
normal pace.
[ implication here: HIRE A SECRETARY TO WORK YOUR COMPUTER! lol. no
need to train yourself, fiddle around with a computer, and yet so much
smarter & flexible than the fastest supercomputer on the planet.
i think this is an important point: in a world where billions live on
$2/day or less, does it make economic sense (for the world, not for
tech companies), for us to invest billions or trillions making
computers that emulate human beings when so many supercomplex organic
computers are walking around looking for a job? you don't have to
invest in billion dollar research labs, just put people through
thousand dollar training seminars.
on the other hand the advantages of software are: you'll know they'll
show up for work. on time. not drunk. not high. they don't ask you
for more and more hours which you give at the expense of less hours for
someone else, then they don't turn around and announce they have to go
on vacation for 2 weeks. you don't have to explain to them that if you
want to get paid, you gotta work. this is an important concept i want
to convey: if you don't like working (a perfectly understandable
sentiment), you can't expect to get paid. outrageous, i know. the
whole thing about wanting to get paid just for showing up, or for
gossiping with your coworkers, or taking the day off when you're in the
mood just doesn't fly. you don't have to explain that yeah, stealing
office supplies is kinda funny, it's also wrong and very irritating and
grounds for dismissal. i could go on and on and on... ]