Please understand: I know that this is major boring shit. I'm just doing this to chronicle the art class, not to claim they're any good.
By the way, these are all 18x24, which is twice as large (meaning, four times as much area) as I am used to working in. It's weird.
The company I work for is having a security audit in about a month, and they may look at internet traffic. As a result, I will not be blogging (reading or writing) for the next month or so... at least, not at work. My time after work is seriously limited lately, too, so it's possible you won't hear from me at all for quite some time.
I will still be active on email (via https).
Enjoy the silence!
After about six months sitting in queue, my latest album, called Black Mesa Winds, has been released on Kahvi.
It's cc-by, so feel free to download it for free and pass it around.
An attractive, older woman, an exasperated look on her face, sitting at a table, resting her face in one hand. She's looking down at a plate. On the plate is a planet, cut in half and with a piece torn off. "Crumbs" on the plate, evidence of the bit on the fork to the right (which is askew). On the left, an elegant wine glass, filled with stars and an inky black.
Showing how bad my scanner is. ...Alas, what does one expect for $50?
This is not really meant to be a movie, but Blogger doesn't allow MP3s, so I whipped something up this morning in about an hour. It's not meant to be at all "good". ...Well, the music is. Screw the video. ; )
This is one of four songs I've started for my next album. The pictures and movies are just shots of my "studio" and of New Mexico: I took them all. Feel free to ignore them; this is really about the music. : ) Sadly, Blogger did a wonderful job of butchering the sound quality in its "processing". Oh, well. At least you get the idea.
These are actually quite old, but I finally got around to shooting and uploading them. I figured I would want a "before and after" for this Drawing class I'm taking.
(There's a nipple on one of them, so be mindful of who's around.)
In order to be effective, mnemonics need to be vivid, active stories.
For example, sonA is Hindi for 'gold'. Ostensibly, that should be easy to remember: just picture a sonar operator with, say, a gold tooth.
Nope, didn't work. At least, not on the first try. ...Might have worked with repetition. Instead, I re-pictured my stalwart sonar operator, this time with a gold bar on the table next to him. He hears something rude about India, picks up the bar of gold, and smashes the console in front of him. Little bits of audio gear go flying everywhere.
Works like a charm.
A new X-Files movie is en route. [via]
X-Files has come up in multiple conversations lately, so this is good, timely news. ...Most of the conversations were along the lines of "Scully was so hot."
It's supposed to be a "stand-alone movie", departing from the "mythology" of the shark-jumping episodes.
It will be good to see them on the screen again. ...Cause, clearly, she is so hot.
I've known about mnemonics since college, but I haven't really used them much (at all) until reading Derren Brown's book.
I am using them extensively in learning Hindi. I am also using them to remember names at parties.
I was describing my method to some co-workers this week. I said:
"Since it's easy to remember faces and other visual things, basically what you do is visualize the other person interacting in some remarkable way with someone else with the same name. So, like, if I met someone named Jeremy, I might remember Jeremy Irons giving the new guy a head lock."Caveats: I am not a politician. I am not a lawyer (I ANAL). I'm not a mathematician, statistician, or economist. Hell, my IQ is only around 125, far below all of the readers of this blog. Despite these shortcomings, I am opinionated. And one thing I dislike is the American voting system.
So, Sun bought MySQL. And for a jagillion dollars.
I prefer MySQL to the alternatives, and this move means management has improved.
However, I prefer distribution--not centralization--of Open Source projects. Google is great, as is Wikipedia. I use both of them daily and extensively. But is it positive in the long-term that so many of my resources come from those two places?
The green in me says "hell no."
Open Source is gaining power in the business world. ...And you know what power does.
My second drawing class was last night; we worked on our "entrance drawing".
It was a still life: bottles and trinkets around a long table. We were allowed only charcoal, a few erasers, and a chamois. She refused to comment on our progress. She said we could stop when we had a "full, complete drawing".
I found my self incredibly nervous when starting out, and did a miserable job blocking in, so things were out of proportion... I completely screwed up the angle of the edge of the table. I focused on a small grouping of items, but--since this was 18x24, larger than I have ever attempted--I started way too small, and decided to incorporate as much of the scene as possible, including another cluster to the left and over the edge of the table to the right and above. The overall drawing ended up low-key as a result. My favourite part of the resulting drawing was the knee of another student across the table. ; ) Anyway, the cluster to the left was disproportionate. I attempted to fix it slightly, but it was too far gone, so I just tried to relate things as naturally as I could, even if it was wrong. The feather fucked me up entirely: it just looks like a big long, odd-shaped and out-of-place shadow. I finished in about 90 minutes.
I'm not fond of charcoal, and know none of the techniques. If the damn drawing were in graphite, I'm sure it would have been fine (though it would have taken twice as long). That said, I was able to intuit some of the advantages of smudging, and I have to say the tone in my drawing wasn't horrible. My line sucked: I am simply not used to drawing on that scale. All in all, I would have thrown it out when I was done. Sorry, I didn't bring my camera, so I can't show it to you. But I can tell you that charcoal is not my friend.
On the positive side, when I walked around the room after finishing, I noticed that everyone else's drawings were just outlines of forms. No one really used tone at all. There was one nice drawing, but it was nice only because she had abstracted everything (again: just line, but with nice gradients of tone coming from select edges). ...Unfortunately, this is something the professor has already said wouldn't fly: this class is about accurate rendering, not interpretation. I foresee arguments with this student on the subject. And, in her defense, it was a nice drawing. A keeper, in fact, where mine (best rendering in the class) was trash.
Two final comments: 1) after loosening up (about 30 minutes in), the rest of the class flew by. Drawing is very relaxing, once you're in the zone; and 2)
my hand is cramped today.
...Just look at all those scars! This is an image [larger version] from the Mercury mission [via], taken just yesterday or so. This is the "unseen" side of the sun's innermost planet (not entirely accurate). Lore more pictures will be arriving from the mission in the near future.
I learned from TED... a few interesting things about gangs.
Gang members have a 7% annual mortality rate. Death row has a 2% mortality rate. American soldiers in Iraq have a 0.5% mortality rate.
"Foot Soldiers" in a gang average $3.50/hr. Twice as much when there's a "war" going on.
Most of these people moonlight at McDonalds and the like.
The "success" rate in a gang is about the same as in the corporate world... very, very few rise to positions of power. ...If they make it, they can earn $100-$300k per year. ...But those people tend to hold power. So you're almost completely barred from "promotion".
The "bling" you see isn't gold; it's gold-plated. The Bentleys are rented. The flashes of lots of money was borrowed.
Go watch the video. It's very entertaining: good information and a few laughs.
Julie is traveling in France on summer vacation from college with her brother Mark. One night they decide that it would be interesting and fun if they tried making love. Julie was already taking birth-control pills, but Mark uses a condom, too, just to be safe. They both enjoy the sex but decide not to do it again. They keep the night as a special secret, which makes them feel closer to each other. What do you think about that — was it O.K. for them to make love?
Most people immediately declare that these acts are wrong and then grope to justify why they are wrong. It's not so easy. In the case of Julie and Mark, people raise the possibility of children with birth defects, but they are reminded that the couple were diligent about contraception . They suggest that the siblings will be emotionally hurt, but the story makes it clear that they weren't. They submit that the act would offend the community, but then recall that it was kept a secret. Eventually many people admit, "I don't know, I can't explain it, I just know it's wrong." People don't generally engage in moral reasoning, Haidt argues, but moral rationalization: they begin with the conclusion, coughed up by an unconscious emotion, and then work backward to a plausible justification.I am currently in the market for a good "Science Blog". I've looked at these, and while there were a few good ones, the really popular blogs seem to be at most 20% science, and 80% "creationism can suck it". I don't need to hear about the whackadoos. I am also passing over the big magazines (Science, Nature, etc) because they don't post full articles, only soundbytes with links. (Honestly, I am thinking of nixing Scott Adams' blog because he switched to this format. It's sad.) If I can read the whole thing in Google Reader, I am unlikely to bother.
And no, Rolfe, Repeated Explitives doesn't count as science. And, yes, you can object all you want. : )
Sometimes a player character is interesting enough to make the game (Farvin in our Friday night game, Kelly in our Continuum game), and sometimes the cast of characters interacting make the game (as in our Amber game, where infighting was what kept it most amusing). But when those fail (and they are rare and precious), for my money at least, NPCs make the game.
This is, for obvious reasons, especially true for computer role-playing games. And of the games I have played, there is not a single NPC that comes as close to being perfect as HK-47. Ostensibly, HK-47 was simply comic relief. ...But, shy of the Jedi if you roll that way, he was the single best character to bring into combat, since you were an infighter, and he was a very skilled ranged fighter.
I also have a weak spot for droids.
I will often tell people, with great conviction, that you should play KOTOR for no other reason than to experience HK-47. Yes. He's just that good. ...Really, what isn't there to love about a psychotic, sarcastic assassin droid?
[while dealing with Jawa:]
Role-playing games, given a modest amount of time, will develop a main character.
This goes counter to one of the implicit objectives of running a game: namely, the idea that every player should be included equally. However, in my experience, it is unavoidable: there will be one character from who's perspective the story is most compelling, and without whom the overall story suffers.
Sometimes, this is the most vocal player, for obvious reasons: they contribute most to the storyline, by directly affecting it. The game I'm running right now features a character named Jokamo, and he does most of the talking, and thus the game seems to be from his perspective. Each character he's with is a strong one: a snarky wood-elf, a mage with the ability to take down tall buildings with a single evocation, and... uhhh... a quirky half-height mystic who likes to wear cups for hats and keeps a magical talking skull on her shoulder.
It is not always the most vocal player. However, I also played in a game of Amber where my character, Freeman, was based on the video game. He didn't say much of anything. And yet that game seemed to largely revolve around him, once the action started. Most of the other players (a strong-man, a monk, and an displaced steampunk IRA member) were out to kill him. When he took action, the universe changed, and the game with it.
It is not always the most interesting character. In a game of Cyberpunk that I played, the story was clearly from the point of view of Rolfe's character (who's name I've forgotten). Interestingly, the character himself was somewhat... drab. Certainly compared to the rest of the motley crew that accompanied him, which included a spunky mechanic, a Russian biochemist, and a cigar-smoking, wheeling-dealing fence. Rolfe's character has less social skills than the fence, no real combat skills to speak of, and didn't otherwise stand out in the crowd. He was, however, the leader of the group, and thus the story was clearly from his perspective.
It is not always the clear "leader" of the group. In a game of Continuum that I played, the main character was very clearly Liam's character Kelly... who was certainly the most interesting, but definitely not the leader of the group. Heh. No, he was as far from the voice of reason as is possible. : )
It is, however, the character most central to the plot. But to say so is somewhat redundant, since that's pretty much what defines a main character. : )
This theory does not universally apply. I ran a very large game (eight players at any given time), which (interestingly) ended up more as an ensemble, where a few of the players stayed on the fringe, but the others each had their moments in the limelight. No one player contributed enough to be considered central to the plot or to the gaming. ...It was a relatively unstable group, however, (heavy on the "drama") which may well have affected things.
I wanted this to be more of an exposition of an idea than a commentary about its effects. Yet I feel compelled to say one thing that I've learned because of this: it is more important for the players to be forewarned about this tendency than it is for the GM.
So, I've been reading more "zen stuff", and taking it to heart more than I ever had in the past. When the student is ready, and all that...
It's gotten me thinking about the goals that I set for myself at the beginning of the year. I decided to do the Anthony Robbins "rocking chair" test, and think about what I would say about my life in my old age. ...I had trouble doing that: it didn't feel right. Instead, I thought back to my life-thus-far. I've largely enjoyed it. I am largely proud of it. If my life ended here, I would be content to say, "yup, I done good."
I asked myself why. The answer surprised me. So I've decided to re-write my goals to reflect what I've learned. Here are my new-New Year's resolutions:
I am going to make some generalizations about what I'm reading at the Edge Question of 2008 site. Please keep in mind two things:
I have started to carry around index cards, cut in half, with Hindi words on one side (in Devanagari script), and their pronunciation and meaning (and, when applicable, gender), on the other side. When I have a moment, I quiz myself on them.
I hated flash cards when I was a kid. Despised 'em. Coupled with simple mnemonics, however, I now find them absurdly powerful learning devices.
Actually, there were bits of plane at the Pentagon.
(Image taken from Snopes without permission.)
(Done in rough cartoon-style. Silent, or with minimal ambient background.)
The "Question of 2008" over at Edge, which I keep posting in reference to, is "What have you changed your mind about?". Here's my answer: opinions.
I used to believe opinions were dangerous. At best, sharing opinions would gain nothing as we pat one another on the backs for sharing the same beliefs. At worst, I might avoid the person altogether because I was shocked by their profound ignorance.
Recently, I've realized two things about opinions. First, they are never Truth. People usually have reasons for believing what they do, and finding out why can be interesting (if difficult). Second, when you approach these subjects with a lighter heart, they are actually very approachable subjects.
Synthesizing the two, the result is that you learn from talking about people's opinions. There are points to be made on either side of any argument, and by accepting both sides' existence, I think you walk away with a better understanding. It becomes almost a Zen thing.
uced by ten percent.From a post on Edge.org (an ugly, ugly site, but some cool writing if you can bear it):
Karim Nader did an experiment that convinced me, and many others, that our usual way of thinking [about memory] was wrong. In a nutshell, ...each time a memory is used, it has to be restored as a new memory in order to be accessible later. The old memory is either not there or is inaccessible. In short, your memory about something is only as good as your last memory about it. This is why people who witness crimes testify about what they read in the paper rather than what they witnessed. Research on this topic, called reconsolidation, has become the basis of a possible treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder, drug addiction, and any other disorder that is based on learning.Did you know Ben Stein is releasing a movie this February about Intelligent Design?
Paraphrasing:
The problem with authoritarian systems (like our government, or the military, or corporations) is that information cannot properly move "uphill". More accurately, only information that suits your superior's view of reality will be accepted, and the penalty for reporting things that do not suit this point of view can result in negative action (pink slip/court marshal/reassignment). This effect is compounded the further up the hierarchy one looks, until, at the top, the leadership has very little idea of what is truly happening within the system.
(I'm listening to RAW on politics this morning. He's a pretty whacked guy, but does occasionally say some brilliant things, so I try to overlook the whacked stuff.)
Before the 2004 elections, I took an informal survey at my place of work. I asked people which political party they thought controlled the media, then asked them which political party they most closely identified with.
Without a single exception, the people who identified with the right thought the media was controlled by the left. People who identified with the left unanimously thought it was controlled by the right. There was one centrist, and he believed that both sides were well represented.
I did a little research on the subject (on the 'net), but couldn't find strong arguments in either direction.
