And so I begin this post by listening through the Original section of the Famicompo Mini 6 entries with a song that starts with a sample going WTF. Oh well.
But yeah, the stuff I'm listening to is just an assortment of music composed for the Nintendo Entertainment System, with 2 pulse waves, 1 triangle wave @ full volume, 1 noise channel, and 1 DPCM sample channel (the quality from this isn't very good; it sounds incredibly filtered). There are extensions for it that can boost that (e.g. VRC6 adds 2 pulse waves + 1 saw wave, VRC7 adds 6(?) FM synth channels, Namco 106 adds 8 short PCM waveform channels), but a lot can be done w/o these extensions.
In short: these are chiptunes.
I really don't like the term "game music" or anything along those lines to describe a genre, as in "it sounds gamey" or "it sounds like it came from a video game". Video game music is not a genre. If I found some obscure jazz, prog-rock, or instrumental blues artist (prog rock is really obscure these days), did an electronic cover of it, people would probably call it "game music" (at least that's my theory).
Why do I say this? I was listening to the music from a few Sonic the Hedgehog games (Casino Night Zone was never a level, go play the real version, and I mean that really nasty game on the Master System that absolutely hates you (the Game Gear version also counts despite the fact that they made the boss music more cliché and less awesome)), and couldn't help but notice how blatantly jazz-like some of the melodies were (chromatics and weird timing galore).
This is probably one of the most blatant examples (if you actually need to watch bandwidth (read: you live in New Zealand) then just stick it on 240p). At about 0:24 you get some melody that if some McMusic industry player caught you sticking that in someone's song, you'd get fired, just because it's... well, too good to "sell".
If you are a girl, chances are you would probably prefer listening to the ending credits music instead (view this at 240p as there's no real gain in audio quality at 360p, plus the Sega Master System only outputs at 240p anyway). It's considerably more laid back, and almost sounds a bit like an older pop song actually. Seriously; just add lyrics, play it live, and you've got a radio hit that sounds better than most of the garbage on there. Just don't end it with the Game Over music.
Of course, there's this piece, too (sorry about the random pumping up of the audio; it's probably the recording screwing up - I have the original .mod file on my file space thing so if you've got a .mod player such as VLC, try that). As stolen by Timbaland. (That video is brilliant, btw, so even if you've done the story to death, watch it.) He was interviewed on a radio station and made a complete fool of himself, saying it's from a videogame.
What game is Timbaland referring to when he says "it's from a videogame"? NOTHING - it was composed for an international and somewhat underground music making competition and it won. It was so good that Timbaland had to steal it twice, and you may have heard the second theft of it ("Do It" by Nelly Furtado).
The example of Acidjazzed Evening is probably the least "gamelike" from what I've heard from the sorts of people who say that stuff "sounds like game music". Probably because some of it sounds a bit like a pop song. Which is probably why Timbaland stole it.
Anyways, enough ranting about Timbaland. You could make a whole album of songs he's stolen.
OK, that's really enough now.
Now I'm listening to the stuff from Alex Kidd in Miracle World. I'm not sure if it's appropriate to use the term "film music" as a genre now that I've said that the term "game music" is a silly term, but it's kinda like that. The main theme sounds like a ballad*, I guess. The underwater theme sounds like a ballad, too.
*I actually don't really know what a ballad is. Please just mentally substitute ballad for "song where you essentially have verse after verse after verse". It just seems easier to say "ballad", though.
The castle theme sounds a bit weird, and if you REALLY had to pin the term "game music" to something, this would be one of those very rare cases where you could. But seeing as we're trying to dispose of the notion of "game music", I'd probably go with "piano music with drums". Actually, no, as "piano music" is also a misnomer. Let's call it pop music on loop. In other words, a ballad.
The motorcycle theme sounds like a ballad. The helecopter theme sounds like a ballad to the point where I mentally wrote lyrics when I was young along the lines of "riding in my helicopter".
OK, enough ranting about it. The genre seems to be the same genre as fairly classic songs (and I am NOT referring to the "classical" era) fit, and I really can't pin a name to it (as you may have read from the, ahem, "footnote", they're probably not ballads).
Now listening to some music from a game I have never played: Afterburner (Master System version). This is blatantly rock, some older stuff, some of more of a "prog" nature (of which jazz is a major influence), some pop-rock (I think). Oh... I just found some more jazz. And some stuff I can't really identify.
Dare I say "piano music", Monty on the Run's (C64) theme seems to fit here. Of course, I'd probably call it "ragtime with drums".
Spy vs. Spy (Master System version) seems to take from... I KNOW THEY'RE ALL GENRES. Unfortunately, the playroutine seems to be crap. Come to think of it, it's probably blues.
Hopefully there are enough examples for you to understand a general idea. I cannot go onto a proof by example, nor can I successfully find that Far Side comic Geoff Whittle was talking about in a MATH161 lecture about a mathematician hell or something.
Oh, and this is actually a game. (It was based on a movie. Some language by the players on the video may be a bit coarse - you have been warned. It's also a rather long video, so wave goodbye to 20MB - and that's if you're watching it on 240p.)
What I've deduced is that a lot of game musicians (as in musicians who compose music for games) take influences mostly from jazz, blues, rock, and older instrumental music (disclaimer: most of this is 80s-90s - later stuff tends to be orchestral and/or rock and/or "real" songs you hear from albums, though there's probably a lot of stuff I haven't covered). Rock seems particularly prominent in "game music", though there's usually quite a bit of jazz influence, too.
What I've also deduced is that when people call your music "game music", it starts to get rather annoying. Please don't, it just gets tedious.
The impression I get is that all the people who make "real music" and not the trash you hear on the radio, and want to make a lot of money, make music for films and/or games - some of the stuff you hear in games is just brilliant.
But however you look at it, it's all still music, just in this case usually without lyrics. If you've got something that can play module music such as VLC, have a listen to some of the stuff I've got on my web space (for .vgm files you'll need a VGM player, in which case I'd recommend Audio Overload for Windoze and OSuX users and possibly Audacious (or vgmplay.py) for Unix users, and for .rad files you'll want adplug / adplay - just casually ignore the .a2m file). AFAIK most of this isn't game music, though one .mod was deliberately done for a particular game for someone.
others/ has stuff by people who aren't me, others/murder/ has stuff I've ruined in one way or another, collab/ has stuff by people who aren't me while doing it with people who are me, pax/ is just a bunch of sample packs, squaz/ is stuff from some competitions which usually aren't mine, and covers/ is stuff originally by people who aren't me but covered by people who are me. The rest are by me (I hope, although labfight.it is technically a cover of a Sonic 1 piece done in the style of another composer).
If you like that sort of stuff, there's modarchive for similar things, and if you want more chiptunes then there's 8bitcollective.
Anyways, that's my rant over.
23 January, 2011
01 September, 2010
A vent on arguments.
Here's some stuff to vent.
In general, if you're arguing against someone, you have to actually know what you're actually on about, otherwise you're effectively trolling.
If you're arguing against someone of a different worldview, you have to understand the other worldview. Remember that the assumptions are different. Even I do this. However, also remember that truth is objective, and that there's a possibility that you may both be wrong, let alone yourself.
Speaking of objective truth, if you see something contradictory to your experience, that's a good time to say "no, that's not the case."
You are not necessarily arguing on your grounds. Nor are you necessarily arguing on the opponent's grounds. You are arguing on the grounds of logic. Logic is a good thing, but as we're all human it's essentially guaranteed that you'll botch up your logic every once in a while; hence why the argument is not on your own grounds, as you can't change logic (it's a discovered thing, not an invented thing, but I guess some may have had it wrong in the process - this is purely a (calculated) guess, though).
Context is your friend unless you're a Youtube atheist. Why do I put it this way? Because Youtube is a "brilliant" place to whinge about anything and everything, and the average whinger, if religion is important, is probably an atheist. They're probably a "liberal", too, mostly because it just sounds good. This is an assumption, so if you're going to prove me wrong, I'd like some statistics. And the real thing, not just the inverse function analysis.
This is not an attack on all atheists on Youtube. Mostly just those who leave rather lame comments which have no citations whatsoever (and are in a similar key to this very sentence). A teacher told me in high school that "empty vessels make the most noise".
As Mark Twain allegedly said, there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. Well, someone said it before me, because I read it somewhere!
Remind yourself of this phrase, as is:
Seriously, if your opponent makes a "rather strong claim", ask where the evidence is. However, if you know what is talked about, and you know the evidence is contrary to what is spoken, you can point this out with the "no, that's not the case" manouver.
If you have to point out how rational you are, your motive for arguing is probably irrational.
Avoid "textbook liberal". Maybe you're right but it makes you sound like a bigot. This is what I would call "textbook liberal" (this is just an example, don't shoot me down for it):
I'm trying to remember this letter written in the paper by someone who I think is someone I know and it was embarrasingly "textbook liberal". Hint: the keywords are "anyone", "absolutely", and "you can't". (The letter was about that MP who was caught for spending a lot of taxpayer money on porn & stuff semi-recently in New Zealand, I forget his name but I believe he was a Labour MP.)
You might have quite a strong opinion. It's a good sign of your ability to stand for something, but it can also be quite dangerous. I look at Peter Hitchens' blog, and it's clear that there are opinions, although sometimes I shudder at some of the things which are said.
To look at his blog I've had to open up Lynx as for some weird reason the text doesn't appear to show up in Firefox (I've tried disabling adblockplus and I've got noscript in place, but to no avail). This is lynx, by the way (I accidentally took a screenshot without the window decorations, and no, this isn't on Linux, it's on FreeBSD):
This is probably a wording issue, but this is an example (and the only one I can see ATM):
I think I understand the thinking behind it, but that it was worded badly. A more appropriate way to put it would be that if you encourage people in their crime instead of trying to get them out, then you'll end up with more criminals, but this isn't what's written so I don't explicitly know what's meant.
However, I think that treating criminals with "tough love", I guess, would help cut down crime, contrary to what is explicitly written.
I suggest you read the blog overall, though, as yes, occasionally journalists get things wrong.
There seems to be an issue with people you don't really know and/or understand, the issue being that you don't know and/or understand them. I knocked homosexuals until I met at least one (well, bisexual anyway) on the internet. I was somewhat afraid of Muslims until I joined in a discussion with one about faith. It's at that point that you realise that there are wonderful people out there who are lost.
Having said that, I don't want to wait until tomorrow to go to bed, so good night and may God always be in reach.
In general, if you're arguing against someone, you have to actually know what you're actually on about, otherwise you're effectively trolling.
If you're arguing against someone of a different worldview, you have to understand the other worldview. Remember that the assumptions are different. Even I do this. However, also remember that truth is objective, and that there's a possibility that you may both be wrong, let alone yourself.
Speaking of objective truth, if you see something contradictory to your experience, that's a good time to say "no, that's not the case."
You are not necessarily arguing on your grounds. Nor are you necessarily arguing on the opponent's grounds. You are arguing on the grounds of logic. Logic is a good thing, but as we're all human it's essentially guaranteed that you'll botch up your logic every once in a while; hence why the argument is not on your own grounds, as you can't change logic (it's a discovered thing, not an invented thing, but I guess some may have had it wrong in the process - this is purely a (calculated) guess, though).
Context is your friend unless you're a Youtube atheist. Why do I put it this way? Because Youtube is a "brilliant" place to whinge about anything and everything, and the average whinger, if religion is important, is probably an atheist. They're probably a "liberal", too, mostly because it just sounds good. This is an assumption, so if you're going to prove me wrong, I'd like some statistics. And the real thing, not just the inverse function analysis.
This is not an attack on all atheists on Youtube. Mostly just those who leave rather lame comments which have no citations whatsoever (and are in a similar key to this very sentence). A teacher told me in high school that "empty vessels make the most noise".
As Mark Twain allegedly said, there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. Well, someone said it before me, because I read it somewhere!
Remind yourself of this phrase, as is:
Your opponent may make some rather strong claims [citation needed].
Seriously, if your opponent makes a "rather strong claim", ask where the evidence is. However, if you know what is talked about, and you know the evidence is contrary to what is spoken, you can point this out with the "no, that's not the case" manouver.
If you have to point out how rational you are, your motive for arguing is probably irrational.
Avoid "textbook liberal". Maybe you're right but it makes you sound like a bigot. This is what I would call "textbook liberal" (this is just an example, don't shoot me down for it):
Atheists are very arrogant. Anyone can see that they are in the wrong. You can't say that they play a necessary part in our society. There is absolutely no reason to listen to them.
I'm trying to remember this letter written in the paper by someone who I think is someone I know and it was embarrasingly "textbook liberal". Hint: the keywords are "anyone", "absolutely", and "you can't". (The letter was about that MP who was caught for spending a lot of taxpayer money on porn & stuff semi-recently in New Zealand, I forget his name but I believe he was a Labour MP.)
You might have quite a strong opinion. It's a good sign of your ability to stand for something, but it can also be quite dangerous. I look at Peter Hitchens' blog, and it's clear that there are opinions, although sometimes I shudder at some of the things which are said.
To look at his blog I've had to open up Lynx as for some weird reason the text doesn't appear to show up in Firefox (I've tried disabling adblockplus and I've got noscript in place, but to no avail). This is lynx, by the way (I accidentally took a screenshot without the window decorations, and no, this isn't on Linux, it's on FreeBSD):
This is probably a wording issue, but this is an example (and the only one I can see ATM):
The average squirrel could see that if you treat criminals of any kind with sympathy and kindness, you'll get more criminals.
I think I understand the thinking behind it, but that it was worded badly. A more appropriate way to put it would be that if you encourage people in their crime instead of trying to get them out, then you'll end up with more criminals, but this isn't what's written so I don't explicitly know what's meant.
However, I think that treating criminals with "tough love", I guess, would help cut down crime, contrary to what is explicitly written.
I suggest you read the blog overall, though, as yes, occasionally journalists get things wrong.
There seems to be an issue with people you don't really know and/or understand, the issue being that you don't know and/or understand them. I knocked homosexuals until I met at least one (well, bisexual anyway) on the internet. I was somewhat afraid of Muslims until I joined in a discussion with one about faith. It's at that point that you realise that there are wonderful people out there who are lost.
Having said that, I don't want to wait until tomorrow to go to bed, so good night and may God always be in reach.
04 June, 2010
$4 only gets you to Porirua if you're a kid
I'm posting this here as Facebrick is broken at the moment with respect to writing notes (read: they don't work... at all).
I've had it with drunkenness. As far as being on the receiving end of a drunk person, I haven't really had any issues. But twice I've encountered people from Porirua, at Wellington Station, needing a train ride home after getting smashed and losing their wallets. The last straw was walking home and seeing a girl crying her head off on the footpath, moving along and hearing a party at a house nearby.
It doesn't help that I go onto Facebrick and get an invite to some "Mardi Gras" in Oakune (I think there's supposed to be an "h" in there): "A night and morning of intense amounts of alcohol. Be there or be square." Pity Facebrick doesn't have a "No flippin' way" option. Or the most recent likes, like "Blame it on the a-a-a-a-a alcohol, LOL .. JK your just a slut. :)", "Being Too Honest When Your Drunk", and the not entirely related "Hey baby, wanna come over to myspace and twitter my yahoo til' i google all over your facebook? ;)".
Some time last year I was waiting at a bus stop and someone kinda begged me to use the money he was giving me to go to the bottle store over the road to buy some alcohol. I didn't, and I think the only way my butt was saved was that the boy was hungry and I had a bag, knowing it had an apple, and not knowing it had a couple of cookies in it, too.
There are several (IRL) groups called "Students Against Driving Drunk". I'd be keen to take it one further. We have this culture which says it's not OK to drink-drive, but perfectly fine if you get smashed in and you have someone who can take a hit for the team. That's kinda like walking on the handrail on a cliff: it may seem like you're OK, but if you slip wrong, you fall, and there's only two ways you can fall: back on, or way off.
Some of you may be saying that this is really only the extreme side of drinking. Y'know what? The line is drunk. Hit that line, and game over, you've lost control. Y'know what the extreme is? Dead. Not many hit that, but we can safely say that you'll only hit that once. People try to rationalise it, but the concept of getting drunk is stupid, and not even you can excuse yourself from this rule.
Some of you may be saying that it's all in fun. So's lighting your teacher on fire. But it's not fun anymore when you find that your teacher is dead, and neither is it fun when you've got a headache. (There is a bit of assumption there, but I've heard a bit about what it's like the morning after, and I do know how unfun a headache is.)
It's only a matter of time before I encounter a rape victim.
Right now, all I can say is lay off the booze and keep control of yourself. One drink shouldn't hurt but I can have fun without it.
I've had it with drunkenness. As far as being on the receiving end of a drunk person, I haven't really had any issues. But twice I've encountered people from Porirua, at Wellington Station, needing a train ride home after getting smashed and losing their wallets. The last straw was walking home and seeing a girl crying her head off on the footpath, moving along and hearing a party at a house nearby.
It doesn't help that I go onto Facebrick and get an invite to some "Mardi Gras" in Oakune (I think there's supposed to be an "h" in there): "A night and morning of intense amounts of alcohol. Be there or be square." Pity Facebrick doesn't have a "No flippin' way" option. Or the most recent likes, like "Blame it on the a-a-a-a-a alcohol, LOL .. JK your just a slut. :)", "Being Too Honest When Your Drunk", and the not entirely related "Hey baby, wanna come over to myspace and twitter my yahoo til' i google all over your facebook? ;)".
Some time last year I was waiting at a bus stop and someone kinda begged me to use the money he was giving me to go to the bottle store over the road to buy some alcohol. I didn't, and I think the only way my butt was saved was that the boy was hungry and I had a bag, knowing it had an apple, and not knowing it had a couple of cookies in it, too.
There are several (IRL) groups called "Students Against Driving Drunk". I'd be keen to take it one further. We have this culture which says it's not OK to drink-drive, but perfectly fine if you get smashed in and you have someone who can take a hit for the team. That's kinda like walking on the handrail on a cliff: it may seem like you're OK, but if you slip wrong, you fall, and there's only two ways you can fall: back on, or way off.
Some of you may be saying that this is really only the extreme side of drinking. Y'know what? The line is drunk. Hit that line, and game over, you've lost control. Y'know what the extreme is? Dead. Not many hit that, but we can safely say that you'll only hit that once. People try to rationalise it, but the concept of getting drunk is stupid, and not even you can excuse yourself from this rule.
Some of you may be saying that it's all in fun. So's lighting your teacher on fire. But it's not fun anymore when you find that your teacher is dead, and neither is it fun when you've got a headache. (There is a bit of assumption there, but I've heard a bit about what it's like the morning after, and I do know how unfun a headache is.)
It's only a matter of time before I encounter a rape victim.
Right now, all I can say is lay off the booze and keep control of yourself. One drink shouldn't hurt but I can have fun without it.
08 April, 2010
Love.
I haven't touched this blog in several months despite having some stuff to say. Dunno why, really, other than preoccupation.
"I love you" is a powerful statement. It's also used very exclusively in our society. A man saying "I love you" to another man is most likely mistaken as homosexuality... or at least that's what it looks like - I haven't actually done any research into this, but there's an amazing amount of stuff which you think is going to sound different than how it actually turns out when you do it. It's amazing how we believe the lies crammed into our minds. Nevertheless, this is at least one of those fears.
What is love, anyway?
I have a rule I go by: You're my friend, therefore I love you. This is provided that you're my friend. The thing is, you can become my friend very, very quickly, as despite being diagnosed with Asperger's, I like socialising.
BibleGateway.com released a list of the most frequently searched passages on their site, with 1 Corinthians 13 being the top of the list. This is one of my favourite passages (Hebrews 11 is another favourite of mine, and so is 1 John 5 - I tend to like entire chapters). I prefer the GNB translation of this passage to the NLT translation (I have a full GNB and recently obtained a New Testament NLT at Easter Camp this year), so I may stick with that.
The first three verses of this beautiful passage are essentially "I can X, but if I have no love, then it's all worthless". The next 4 verses are a list of characteristics of love. The next 3 are about how love is eternal and quite a bit based around it. Another verse is about growing up, and the verse after that is about how what we see will be completed. It finished with verse 13 (GNB): "Meanwhile these three remain: faith, hope, and love; and the greatest of these is love".
Seriously, pick up a bible and read this passage. (The KJV refers to it as charity.) What are you afraid of, anyway: finding that it may be the truth? Or experiencing God's love?
There's a lot of "out with the old, in with the new" stuff. People start revolutions. The problem is, if there's no love, if people undervalue the fundamental love that should come with friendship, everyone starts feeling like crap and then society degrades because basically everyone in society gets depressed. Some people think that the solution boils down to "legalise it". The thing is, subjective morality kicks in when you're trying to be weened off what feels like the only thing you've got.
However, there are deeper issues that need to be solved. I will raise two points for two different reasons.
One is pornography. Porn is incredibly nasty. It just sucks you in. I came out of the other end and I want to see this thing banned. However, outright banning it isn't going to fix the issue. People who are addicted need help, and there's nothing stopping them from making their own porn for personal use or at least playing porn through their mind. They need the fundamental love that comes (or at least should come) with friendship. And, quite frankly, I say they'd need Jesus' love, too.
The other is homosexuality. I am bringing this up because I want to see fellow "Christians" deal with this issue properly, rather than simply say that it should be banned and it's immoral and stuff like that, because that's not fixing the problem. I've heard something along the lines of "love the sinner, but hate the sin" somewhere before. There's a difference between tolerance and acceptance. My approach would be to accept the person, but tolerate their sexuality w/o actual acceptance in the hope that one day there will be a change of heart and they will realise that love itself is much more important than sex.
Seriously, having sex without love completely misses the point of sex. Same goes for heterosexuals, too.
Some people seem to insist that homosexuals were "born that way". This is most certainly due to the point I raised earlier: when people feel like someone's trying to ween them off the one thing they've got, their subjective morality kicks in. Of course, another thing I could raise is that we're a fallen creation and pretty much born sinners, so the argument of "born that way" does not make for an excuse to continue.
Now that I am pretty much in rant mode and really quite tired, I think I'll end this post here. I just had to express some stuff.
"I love you" is a powerful statement. It's also used very exclusively in our society. A man saying "I love you" to another man is most likely mistaken as homosexuality... or at least that's what it looks like - I haven't actually done any research into this, but there's an amazing amount of stuff which you think is going to sound different than how it actually turns out when you do it. It's amazing how we believe the lies crammed into our minds. Nevertheless, this is at least one of those fears.
What is love, anyway?
- Love is not the same thing as sexual intercourse. "Making love" is not necessarily done out of love.
- Love has many types. Only one type is exclusive to a single partner.
- Love is not "Baby don't hurt me".
I have a rule I go by: You're my friend, therefore I love you. This is provided that you're my friend. The thing is, you can become my friend very, very quickly, as despite being diagnosed with Asperger's, I like socialising.
BibleGateway.com released a list of the most frequently searched passages on their site, with 1 Corinthians 13 being the top of the list. This is one of my favourite passages (Hebrews 11 is another favourite of mine, and so is 1 John 5 - I tend to like entire chapters). I prefer the GNB translation of this passage to the NLT translation (I have a full GNB and recently obtained a New Testament NLT at Easter Camp this year), so I may stick with that.
The first three verses of this beautiful passage are essentially "I can X, but if I have no love, then it's all worthless". The next 4 verses are a list of characteristics of love. The next 3 are about how love is eternal and quite a bit based around it. Another verse is about growing up, and the verse after that is about how what we see will be completed. It finished with verse 13 (GNB): "Meanwhile these three remain: faith, hope, and love; and the greatest of these is love".
Seriously, pick up a bible and read this passage. (The KJV refers to it as charity.) What are you afraid of, anyway: finding that it may be the truth? Or experiencing God's love?
There's a lot of "out with the old, in with the new" stuff. People start revolutions. The problem is, if there's no love, if people undervalue the fundamental love that should come with friendship, everyone starts feeling like crap and then society degrades because basically everyone in society gets depressed. Some people think that the solution boils down to "legalise it". The thing is, subjective morality kicks in when you're trying to be weened off what feels like the only thing you've got.
However, there are deeper issues that need to be solved. I will raise two points for two different reasons.
One is pornography. Porn is incredibly nasty. It just sucks you in. I came out of the other end and I want to see this thing banned. However, outright banning it isn't going to fix the issue. People who are addicted need help, and there's nothing stopping them from making their own porn for personal use or at least playing porn through their mind. They need the fundamental love that comes (or at least should come) with friendship. And, quite frankly, I say they'd need Jesus' love, too.
The other is homosexuality. I am bringing this up because I want to see fellow "Christians" deal with this issue properly, rather than simply say that it should be banned and it's immoral and stuff like that, because that's not fixing the problem. I've heard something along the lines of "love the sinner, but hate the sin" somewhere before. There's a difference between tolerance and acceptance. My approach would be to accept the person, but tolerate their sexuality w/o actual acceptance in the hope that one day there will be a change of heart and they will realise that love itself is much more important than sex.
Seriously, having sex without love completely misses the point of sex. Same goes for heterosexuals, too.
Some people seem to insist that homosexuals were "born that way". This is most certainly due to the point I raised earlier: when people feel like someone's trying to ween them off the one thing they've got, their subjective morality kicks in. Of course, another thing I could raise is that we're a fallen creation and pretty much born sinners, so the argument of "born that way" does not make for an excuse to continue.
Now that I am pretty much in rant mode and really quite tired, I think I'll end this post here. I just had to express some stuff.
13 December, 2009
Quick Santa Claus rant.
A few ideas I'd like to express.
Christmas is coming. Y'know, that tradition which seems like a pagan tradition which was originally a Roman and/or Catholic tradition which coincided with a pagan tradition. That thing. Yeah. I just had a thought. But first, I have to make something clear.
If you're young enough to believe in Father Christmas / Santa Claus, you shouldn't be on the internet. So, to make sure that you don't accidentally see something you don't want to, I'm going to put some filler material in.
If you're going to make an Amiga MOD player, I have a few optimisation suggestions.
Firstly, pad your samples appropriately. If the sample length is 1 16-bit word, then you pad with 0s, otherwise you pad with the loop data. If you have a loop (that is, the sample length is NOT 1 16-bit word), then you duplicate the loop after the sample data. Once you've done that, add about 2500 bytes (1250 16-bit words) of padding.
Secondly, use a few 2D tables. Scream Tracker 3 uses one for translating waveforms through channel volumes. This would be rather impractical for 16-bit samples, but we aren't using 16-bit for .mod, are we? No, of course not. So we'll just use a 65*256 table (or *64 if we don't mind making a quick check to see if the volume is set to 64). Another idea I wrote down really only applies if you're mixing 8-or-so-channel MODs down to 4 channels on an Amiga, and that is to do a volume * volume table. 65*64 would be your best bet, while comparing if the two channel volumes are the same, unless you don't mind having a 65*128 table. You could also have another 65*64/65*128 table for selecting the actual volume.
Alternatively, if you're using an Amiga, you could do the 14-bit trick (set 0+1 to 64 and 2+3 to 1, then 2+3 hold the lower 6 bits while 0+1 hold the upper 8 bits) using two 65*256 tables. You could also do another 256*64 table for remapping the top and a 256 1D table for remapping the bottom when it gets around to adding stuff together. If you're working with 8-channel mods, you shouldn't have to clip for the bottom; however, the top will probably still need it.
Thirdly, you could use another table to clip your output volumes or something like that - this is probably most appropriate for non-Amiga MOD players. In a lot of cases, this is unnecessary, but if you're doing some reasonably advanced mixing, then this is probably the way to go.
And so on and so on.
I use the first two tricks in my J2ME MOD player. In doing so, I discovered that Blackberry phones suck at handling audio state signals. Oh well, at least it actually plays.
Blah.
E=mc^2.
(Actually, it's delta E = delta m . c^2.)
Still reading this? OK, here we go.
Christmas as we know it is pretty much... mess. A mess with the "Christ" label which the retailers can't seem to remove so they just skirt around the issue and basically say in their minds, "well it's just a name which doesn't actually mean anything". Their hearts? "La de da da I'm not listening (*tongue*)". However, what I've realised is that the retailers aren't the only issue.
Meet Mr Bribery. Mr Consumerism. Mr Claus.
The problem with naturalists is that they have to find some way to teach morals to their children. Santa Claus is one way of doing so. Hey, let's chop down a tree. Hey, let's decorate it. Hey, let's tell the kids that if they're good, they get gifts from Santa. No wait, make it that if they don't behave, then they won't get gifts from Santa.
So, uh, let's make that Mr Blackmail.
And everything's fine and dandy, and you're out there lying, and then eventually--
Midnight strikes. The kids are awake. Pretending to be asleep.
They hear you get out of bed and put the gifts in the lounge.
Game over. Your 10-or-so years of playing games with your children just to teach them at least to behave has, like Santa stuck in a burning fireplace, gone up in smoke.
Here's hoping that the tooth fairy and the Easter bunny have remained... Oh wait, those aren't behaviour bribes. Unless, of course, those have had a domino effect and now they don't believe a damn thing that teaches them at least good behaviour.
And, uh, yeah, we're about to go out to dinner soon. So, here's a couple of things you might be able to ponder: the Santa Claus effect on society, and how to make a really fast MOD player. Yeah.
Christmas is coming. Y'know, that tradition which seems like a pagan tradition which was originally a Roman and/or Catholic tradition which coincided with a pagan tradition. That thing. Yeah. I just had a thought. But first, I have to make something clear.
If you're young enough to believe in Father Christmas / Santa Claus, you shouldn't be on the internet. So, to make sure that you don't accidentally see something you don't want to, I'm going to put some filler material in.
If you're going to make an Amiga MOD player, I have a few optimisation suggestions.
Firstly, pad your samples appropriately. If the sample length is 1 16-bit word, then you pad with 0s, otherwise you pad with the loop data. If you have a loop (that is, the sample length is NOT 1 16-bit word), then you duplicate the loop after the sample data. Once you've done that, add about 2500 bytes (1250 16-bit words) of padding.
Secondly, use a few 2D tables. Scream Tracker 3 uses one for translating waveforms through channel volumes. This would be rather impractical for 16-bit samples, but we aren't using 16-bit for .mod, are we? No, of course not. So we'll just use a 65*256 table (or *64 if we don't mind making a quick check to see if the volume is set to 64). Another idea I wrote down really only applies if you're mixing 8-or-so-channel MODs down to 4 channels on an Amiga, and that is to do a volume * volume table. 65*64 would be your best bet, while comparing if the two channel volumes are the same, unless you don't mind having a 65*128 table. You could also have another 65*64/65*128 table for selecting the actual volume.
Alternatively, if you're using an Amiga, you could do the 14-bit trick (set 0+1 to 64 and 2+3 to 1, then 2+3 hold the lower 6 bits while 0+1 hold the upper 8 bits) using two 65*256 tables. You could also do another 256*64 table for remapping the top and a 256 1D table for remapping the bottom when it gets around to adding stuff together. If you're working with 8-channel mods, you shouldn't have to clip for the bottom; however, the top will probably still need it.
Thirdly, you could use another table to clip your output volumes or something like that - this is probably most appropriate for non-Amiga MOD players. In a lot of cases, this is unnecessary, but if you're doing some reasonably advanced mixing, then this is probably the way to go.
And so on and so on.
I use the first two tricks in my J2ME MOD player. In doing so, I discovered that Blackberry phones suck at handling audio state signals. Oh well, at least it actually plays.
Blah.
E=mc^2.
(Actually, it's delta E = delta m . c^2.)
Still reading this? OK, here we go.
Christmas as we know it is pretty much... mess. A mess with the "Christ" label which the retailers can't seem to remove so they just skirt around the issue and basically say in their minds, "well it's just a name which doesn't actually mean anything". Their hearts? "La de da da I'm not listening (*tongue*)". However, what I've realised is that the retailers aren't the only issue.
Meet Mr Bribery. Mr Consumerism. Mr Claus.
The problem with naturalists is that they have to find some way to teach morals to their children. Santa Claus is one way of doing so. Hey, let's chop down a tree. Hey, let's decorate it. Hey, let's tell the kids that if they're good, they get gifts from Santa. No wait, make it that if they don't behave, then they won't get gifts from Santa.
So, uh, let's make that Mr Blackmail.
And everything's fine and dandy, and you're out there lying, and then eventually--
Midnight strikes. The kids are awake. Pretending to be asleep.
They hear you get out of bed and put the gifts in the lounge.
Game over. Your 10-or-so years of playing games with your children just to teach them at least to behave has, like Santa stuck in a burning fireplace, gone up in smoke.
Here's hoping that the tooth fairy and the Easter bunny have remained... Oh wait, those aren't behaviour bribes. Unless, of course, those have had a domino effect and now they don't believe a damn thing that teaches them at least good behaviour.
And, uh, yeah, we're about to go out to dinner soon. So, here's a couple of things you might be able to ponder: the Santa Claus effect on society, and how to make a really fast MOD player. Yeah.
29 November, 2009
2009 in the year of our Lord
It appears that the BC/AD (Before Christ / Anno Domini (In The Year Of Our Lord)) dating convention appears to be offensive to some, so they've decided to use the CE/BCE (Common Era / Before Common Era) dating system. The problem? It sucks.
This Conservapedia article best explains it. For those of you who won't touch Conservapedia with a barge pole, I'll reproduce the text here, because I can.
Then there's a snippet which is a citation of this page, (C) Ohr Somayach International:
As far as I can see, CE doesn't reference anything. It is meaningless. I view this as a half-hearted attempt to shun God from society, and it's not really working. Why don't they just set another reference point, for example, Charles Darwin's birthday, or, more appropriately, his publication of the Origin of Species?
How did people date in BC? They dated from the year their king came into power, and named the king. You see this all the time in the Bible. In essence, Jesus is the last and current king, and that is why we have AD. The BC just makes it easier to reference earlier dates.
So, two things that I have to say.
Firstly, as far as I'm concerned, CE stands for "Can't Explain". BCE stands for "Before we Couldn't Explain". Because the CE/BCE rubbish is just to remove the meaning of our dating system. This is absolutely pathetic.
And secondly, I intend on making AD more blatant, and say "in the year of our Lord".
Let's face it. CE is meaningless. Vanity of vanities.
This Conservapedia article best explains it. For those of you who won't touch Conservapedia with a barge pole, I'll reproduce the text here, because I can.
The term "Common Era" (CE) is an attempt to erase the historical basis for the primary calendar dating system in the Western world. "Common Era" has no real meaning, and even the origin of this term is unclear. The 1972 Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary has no entry for "Common Era." A later edition (11th) defines it as the Christian Era.
The established calendar dating system is based on the approximate birthday of Jesus, and no one disputes that. But this birth did not begin a "common" era, or any immediate change in history. The 1997 Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary gives a date of 1889 for the origin of the term "Common Era," but there is no indication of who began using it then, and why. Some claim it is a substitute for an occasional reference to the "Vulgar Era," with "vulgar" being Latin for "common" but acquiring a derogatory English meaning over time.
Then there's a snippet which is a citation of this page, (C) Ohr Somayach International:
Viviane Prager wrote:
Dear Rabbi:
I would like to know why we say "before the Common Era" and "Common Era" (BCE and CE). I mean, why do we call it "common?" Some Jews object to it on grounds that the "C" in CE could be misconstrued as standing for "Christ." I would very much appreciate if you could help me answer their objections. Thanks for your wonderful work.
Dear Viviane Prager,
When I was a school boy I thought that CE stood for "The Common Error."
Now, 25 years and a number of common errors later, I assume that Common Era simply means "the date commonly accepted and used." But the truth is that I don't know, so I asked your question to a professor of European history. He didn't know either.
As far as I can see, CE doesn't reference anything. It is meaningless. I view this as a half-hearted attempt to shun God from society, and it's not really working. Why don't they just set another reference point, for example, Charles Darwin's birthday, or, more appropriately, his publication of the Origin of Species?
How did people date in BC? They dated from the year their king came into power, and named the king. You see this all the time in the Bible. In essence, Jesus is the last and current king, and that is why we have AD. The BC just makes it easier to reference earlier dates.
So, two things that I have to say.
Firstly, as far as I'm concerned, CE stands for "Can't Explain". BCE stands for "Before we Couldn't Explain". Because the CE/BCE rubbish is just to remove the meaning of our dating system. This is absolutely pathetic.
And secondly, I intend on making AD more blatant, and say "in the year of our Lord".
Let's face it. CE is meaningless. Vanity of vanities.
27 November, 2009
Copyright & Consumerism
OK, if you saw that ranty bit about Linux and the announcement of binning my music collection in my last post (which is incredibly long, incomplete, and doesn't really conclude anything), you'll probably understand that I've taken a lot of steps to rid myself of consumerism. This was my recent conviction after watching a video on YouTube one night. The thought of "yeah, yeah, I suppose I could, uhh... DO YOU SERIOUSLY WANT ME TO BIN MY MUSIC‽‽‽" I prayed about it.
The next day was when I binned a bunch of toys and found some stuff I'd lost in the process (e.g. the serial cable for my currently broken palmtop, and the power adaptor for it, which also works on my piano keyboard - the original adaptor for that is yet to be found), and the day after that, I actually threw most of my collection into a rubbish bag, and the rest into a box (along with a lot of books - mostly fiction - and several stuffed toys).
Out of those in the box, I took back four today. These were Christian artists, of which the CDs were given to me. It helps to balance out all the mostly secular stuff (yes, I am referring to the free, mostly instrumental stuff). It would be nice to get some free stuff out there which could bring hope to others or something without people having to get stuck into the consumerist culture or something. I know that there are "Christian" artists out there who are actually spreading rather contradictory messages.
Some user on YouTube was singing one of these songs to himself as it came out, the one about "A couple dents in my Fender, a couple rips in my jeans", and a few days later, his jeans ripped.
Lyrics quoted off a blog, which I think is the official one:
OK, back to the point of copyright and consumerism. The recording industry makes out that downloading music illegally is what they don't want you to do. Perhaps that is what they truly believe, and that it's something rather demonic which is driving the whole system. Whatever it is, there is an agenda. They want to see an end to "illegal downloading"... eventually. Once they get you hooked on consumerism, they'll want to see you play it by their rules. The answer here is not "piracy", but a change of attitude.
What is copyright for? The first copyright act, known as the Statute of Anne, had a 14 year term (and a 21 year term for those works already in print). This was about allowing authors to retain rights over their own work instead of having them ripped from them by the printing companies. Now it appears to have been turned around the other way as the music industry and the like force the authors into contracts instead, and hold tight to the copyrights they have authority by from their artists by contract.
This is the same deal with a quantity of software, although nowadays it appears to be changing, and I think most software that aren't games are free these days.
I repeat: most software that aren't games are free these days.
Why would one "need" Windows, anyway? To play the latest games. Which are all first person shooters these days, anyway. And yet a subset of the same type of people are going to knock me for believing a "violent, nasty book", as to which I have two things to say:
TVTropes.org has a trope entitled "Rated M For Money". The title alone sums up most of the trash you get today. And yet people are sucked into paying for this trash.
I am not encouraging "piracy" here. I am encouraging something much more damaging to the industries but also much more legit. I'm encouraging you to be free from this sort of garbage they feed you.
The same applies to movies, really. The "Rated M For Money" principle also applies here, and everyone's killing one another with most of your action films. Horror films are guaranteed to have at least one specific type of blasphemy moment. I'm sorry, but that's what happens. Thrillers are the horror equivalent of action films. This leaves comedy and drama to taint. Some drama can be quite active and lively. Nevertheless, these can also be tainted. Hey, let's portray homosexuals as completely innocent and pure, and all those horrible Christians as nasty mean horrible bleeps. That's an example of tainted drama. Then there's comedy, which only need two words to explain the idea: South Park.
(I should also mention romance. Romance could teach rather bad things about sex. Also, all pornos are wrong by definition even if there any truths in them.)
I'm not saying all films are bad. I'm not even saying that all of the films in any of those categories are bad, but many, many are. Nevertheless, we have short films... and some very long short films, if it is necessary to make a new category. These usually express an idea that we could learn from. Of course, these can still be tainted, too, but they usually don't suffer from consumerism.
If there appears to be a whole bunch of hype about some film, album, book, game, software, sports game, fish tank, or anything else, and the hype is everywhere, it's got some A-list actor in it or it's written by a great author or it's by a world-class publisher or something like that, theoretically you could get involved. Or, alternatively, you could do what I do: don't. You don't need it. Eventually, you won't even care about it. That's usually the guideline.
I'm going to have to assemble a checklist, aren't I?
See how many of these you encounter.
This should give you just an idea of what is most definitely "consumerist".
I'm going to finish this off with a request. Please, whatever you do, do not use any of the Microsoft Office formats. At the very least, do not send me anything in those formats. Note the "not"s there. I'm not saying "don't use Microsoft Office"; I can say that another time. I'm also not going against you sending me RTF files or anything, despite it originally being a Microsoft format; at least it's human-readable. Ideally, if you can, use PDF - Microsoft supplied a horribly broken "Save as ODF" option in one of their latest patches of MS Office which doesn't even follow the standard properly, so I advise that you use the Sun plugin instead, or alternatively use something like OpenOffice.org, like I do - it's free, and more free than just "freeware".
So, uh, have some links to some pages on the Free Software Foundation website:
And finally, I am not saying "don't support the artists". I'm saying don't buy into the culture. If there's an artist you would truly like to support, try buying it straight off them, bypassing the distributors if possible.
The next day was when I binned a bunch of toys and found some stuff I'd lost in the process (e.g. the serial cable for my currently broken palmtop, and the power adaptor for it, which also works on my piano keyboard - the original adaptor for that is yet to be found), and the day after that, I actually threw most of my collection into a rubbish bag, and the rest into a box (along with a lot of books - mostly fiction - and several stuffed toys).
Out of those in the box, I took back four today. These were Christian artists, of which the CDs were given to me. It helps to balance out all the mostly secular stuff (yes, I am referring to the free, mostly instrumental stuff). It would be nice to get some free stuff out there which could bring hope to others or something without people having to get stuck into the consumerist culture or something. I know that there are "Christian" artists out there who are actually spreading rather contradictory messages.
Some user on YouTube was singing one of these songs to himself as it came out, the one about "A couple dents in my Fender, a couple rips in my jeans", and a few days later, his jeans ripped.
Lyrics quoted off a blog, which I think is the official one:
‘Cause I got a couple dents in my fender"But perfection is my enemy"... perfection is supposed to be our target. Didn't Jesus say at the end of Matthew 5, in the context of loving your enemies, "you must be perfect - just as your Father in Heaven is perfect"? That should give you an idea.
Got a couple rips in my jeans
Try to fit the pieces together
But perfection is my enemy
On my own I'm so clumsy
But on Your shoulders I can see
I'm free to be me
OK, back to the point of copyright and consumerism. The recording industry makes out that downloading music illegally is what they don't want you to do. Perhaps that is what they truly believe, and that it's something rather demonic which is driving the whole system. Whatever it is, there is an agenda. They want to see an end to "illegal downloading"... eventually. Once they get you hooked on consumerism, they'll want to see you play it by their rules. The answer here is not "piracy", but a change of attitude.
What is copyright for? The first copyright act, known as the Statute of Anne, had a 14 year term (and a 21 year term for those works already in print). This was about allowing authors to retain rights over their own work instead of having them ripped from them by the printing companies. Now it appears to have been turned around the other way as the music industry and the like force the authors into contracts instead, and hold tight to the copyrights they have authority by from their artists by contract.
This is the same deal with a quantity of software, although nowadays it appears to be changing, and I think most software that aren't games are free these days.
I repeat: most software that aren't games are free these days.
Why would one "need" Windows, anyway? To play the latest games. Which are all first person shooters these days, anyway. And yet a subset of the same type of people are going to knock me for believing a "violent, nasty book", as to which I have two things to say:
- Why do you play games which involve killing everyone and then attempt to attack the Bible for the same thing? Aren't you a hypocrite for doing this?*
- Since when were you God‽ We have authorities on earth who are able to use force against other people. They're called the Police.
TVTropes.org has a trope entitled "Rated M For Money". The title alone sums up most of the trash you get today. And yet people are sucked into paying for this trash.
I am not encouraging "piracy" here. I am encouraging something much more damaging to the industries but also much more legit. I'm encouraging you to be free from this sort of garbage they feed you.
The same applies to movies, really. The "Rated M For Money" principle also applies here, and everyone's killing one another with most of your action films. Horror films are guaranteed to have at least one specific type of blasphemy moment. I'm sorry, but that's what happens. Thrillers are the horror equivalent of action films. This leaves comedy and drama to taint. Some drama can be quite active and lively. Nevertheless, these can also be tainted. Hey, let's portray homosexuals as completely innocent and pure, and all those horrible Christians as nasty mean horrible bleeps. That's an example of tainted drama. Then there's comedy, which only need two words to explain the idea: South Park.
(I should also mention romance. Romance could teach rather bad things about sex. Also, all pornos are wrong by definition even if there any truths in them.)
I'm not saying all films are bad. I'm not even saying that all of the films in any of those categories are bad, but many, many are. Nevertheless, we have short films... and some very long short films, if it is necessary to make a new category. These usually express an idea that we could learn from. Of course, these can still be tainted, too, but they usually don't suffer from consumerism.
If there appears to be a whole bunch of hype about some film, album, book, game, software, sports game, fish tank, or anything else, and the hype is everywhere, it's got some A-list actor in it or it's written by a great author or it's by a world-class publisher or something like that, theoretically you could get involved. Or, alternatively, you could do what I do: don't. You don't need it. Eventually, you won't even care about it. That's usually the guideline.
I'm going to have to assemble a checklist, aren't I?
See how many of these you encounter.
- Is it something with a beginning and an end? (With games / TV shows, it's often preferable to not have an end when the next item is applied)
- Do I have to pay something each year/quarter/month/week/day/millisecond just to keep my subscription going?
- Is it actually achieving something, other than making me "feel good"?
- Does it receive much media attention?
- Do you hear it on the radio?
- Is it marked as copyright by a particular distributor as opposed to the author / band / group which is labelled whereever?
- Films: Is it an action, horror, thriller, or porn film?
- Software: Is it a game?
- Music: Is it about sex, violence, drugs, or "I got what you don't" (e.g. the "I'm so two-thousand-and-eight, you're so two-thousand-and-late" trash track I've heard where someone's showing off plasma screens... I heard it for the first time half way through this year, 2009)?
- Books: Is it fiction, and not "illustrative fiction"? Same could also apply to films, too.
- TV shows: Do I find an impulse to watch this one particular show every day/week/whatever at that specific time?
- Toys: Is it of a particular film / game / book / whatever character?
- Fish tanks: Does it... Well, I don't know.
- Does it have a huge franchise revolving around it or is part of one of these franchises?
This should give you just an idea of what is most definitely "consumerist".
I'm going to finish this off with a request. Please, whatever you do, do not use any of the Microsoft Office formats. At the very least, do not send me anything in those formats. Note the "not"s there. I'm not saying "don't use Microsoft Office"; I can say that another time. I'm also not going against you sending me RTF files or anything, despite it originally being a Microsoft format; at least it's human-readable. Ideally, if you can, use PDF - Microsoft supplied a horribly broken "Save as ODF" option in one of their latest patches of MS Office which doesn't even follow the standard properly, so I advise that you use the Sun plugin instead, or alternatively use something like OpenOffice.org, like I do - it's free, and more free than just "freeware".
So, uh, have some links to some pages on the Free Software Foundation website:
And finally, I am not saying "don't support the artists". I'm saying don't buy into the culture. If there's an artist you would truly like to support, try buying it straight off them, bypassing the distributors if possible.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)