Saturday, 30 April 2011
Mobile
Sometimes it's very hard to understand those idiots who make mobile phones. For years they are pushing us useless shit - a glaring example is MMS. How many times in your life did you actually used MMS? I can tell you how many times i did. Two. In my enfire fucking lifetime. And it wasn't something i couldn't live without.
But this indicates a more global problem. These guys try very hard to make sure we believe we actually need all that stuff - MMS, GPRS, EDGE, UMTS, HD-cameras, MP3-ringtones, gigabytes of storage, big screens... Who the fuck needs all that stuff?! I can understand having connectivity on the phone, but camera? Video playing? No one in their right mind will watch movies on a small ass screen and actually enjoy the experience. No one will ever be able to take good photos with a phone camera, let alone video. No one with self respect will ever listen to music on mobile phone without headphones - and all those stupid MP3 ringtones sound so lame and make owners of those phones look lame too.
The problem is, the phones don't have a target audience. In my view, there are several types of users with drastically different goals and use cases. The first one is old people, and this is often the category of users left out by modern technology. Old people don't give a fuck about camera, or MP3 ringtones, or gigabytes of storage, or games - there are a lot of things, really. All they care about is BIG BUTTONS, BIG BRIGHT SCREEN and ease of use. There is a reason why they wear glasses, after all. Such a phone should not be small (i.e. easily lost), should be as loud as possible, and should contain absolute minimum of functionality - address book (without all those "home number" shit - just name and number), SMS, Bluetooth and some MIDI ringtones. That's fucking it - a phone like this will be VERY popular in older people circles. And not only that, there is a group of people that are not old but still don't give a fuck about all those technologies.
Another group of people is technocrates like me. We want all to the maximum - processing power, connectivity options, GPS, RFID/NFC, camera etc. And a shitload of battery power. Here also fall the business people who need a phone as a workhorse. And a third group of users are cheapskate facebook-inhabiting assholes who need something in between.
Now the bi gquestion is - why do we need a hundred of cheapskate models? Why do all phones necessarily need to be lighter and with a cheesy design? Take a look at Apple phones - they actually have one. It is well designed, it is suitable for a wide range of needs, and it is heavy enough so you can actually feel it in your hand. I want to feel my phone. I want it to be performant and unrestrained. If there was a phone that was solid and well made like and iPhone, and with Android OS - a LOT of people would buy it. And it will be successful. It will literally own the market. Like iPhone does.
Fucking idiots. Don't make millions of models which are same shit in different casing - make a couple "old people" models, a couple of "hi-end" models, and a few cheapskate models. If they work well - people will recommend them to friends and buy the new models when old ones are broke. The market will be owned by whoever gets the "less is more" idea first.
Tuesday, 15 March 2011
Religion: you're doing it wrong!
No, it's not another rant of a raging atheist with too much time on his hands. It's something more interesting. Well, at least i hope so.
For now, a little disclaimer. I was raised in a western world, so obviously the only religion i am at least partially familiar with is christianity. Well, at least my level of familiarity with it allows me to quote Bible. In no way i am an expert on religions (or even christianity), so don't take my disregard for not-so-notorious Bible quotes or other religions as ignorance or deliberate fact hiding. It's not like i care about your opinion in the first place, but if someone ever comments on this blog - it better be a constructive argument, not religious flamefest.
OK, a couple of words on atheism. Some people all but jump out of their shoes to tell everyone that god doesn't exist. Another bunch of people bring lamest excuses such as "if there is a god, may he strike me dead" and expecting us to believe that if god doesn't do magic at their will - he doesn't exist. Yet another bunch of people are reasonable enough not to shout it out loud that there is no god.
However, the lamest atheists are the ones who aren't really atheists, but pride themselves on thinking and believing they are. These are the guys that talk about a universal information field, or some sort of supreme overmind, or some other bullshit. These people are the believers that are afraid of the word "god" because everyone told them that god is a guy that sits in the sky and does stuff, so they believe in something they prefer not to call "god", despite the fact that it is essentially the same thing. Terminology matters, you know, a psychologic moment.
Hello christfags. Hello muslims. Hello every other freak of nature out there. Some of these dudes all but jump out of their shoes to tell everyone that god does exist. Another bunch of people bring lamest excuses such as "if there wasn't god, my wife/son/granddad/dog/dick wouldn't be here today because <insert a horrible accident> and god saved him" and expecting us to believe that if something random happens that turns out to be good - it must be god's will, therefore he exists. Yet another bunch of people are reasonable enough not to shout it out loud that there is a god.
However, the lamest believers are the ones who fight because of religion. My god has bigger dick that your god. You have to eat this on wednesday and go to church on sunday. You have to pray every saturday noon facing north. You have to wear this and say that. Otherwise you will burn in hell. Load of crap this is, Master Yoda say.
The great thing about religion is that everyone thinks of it as a separate thing of itself, whereas in fact it's tightly connected to our own psychological matters. A religion is blind devotion to something. You don't have to believe in god to be religious - you can believe in science, or in glamour, or in money, or in music, or in white power, or in whatever makes you feel comfortable to believe in. Religion is no different from fanatism. In fact, it is fanatism.
Fanatism is not productive. The whole hoopla about things being black and white is getting too old. Life isn't that simple. This is what religious people have yet to learn. Mind you, christfags are much more relaxed now, since the whole science revolution started there aren't many active christfags left. However, this doesn't seem to be the case with muslims.
Don't get me wrong though, i don't hate muslims. It's just that i live in a multinational country, i see many religions and muslims are the only ones i have big problems with. In general, they are too fundamentalistic. They are too fanatical about this whole Islam thing, their Qur'an, their prayers, their clothing, their women - everything they touch carries a scent of absurdity. Moreover, they try to make us account for their stupid ninja religion. No, i am not being ignorant. It's just that if they are coming to Europe to live in here - better respect local laws and local culture. Eat our food, drive our cars, fuck our women - no problem, be my guest. Trying to change our laws to account for a foreign culture - no fucking way. They don't account for ours - why should we do so?
To be fair, christfags when faggy enough aren't a lot better. They try to dictate us which movies we should watch, which books we should read, which music we should listen to. Oh no, these rock bands, they like totally worship satan! Oh no, these violent video games got blood in them! Oh no, these movies got tits in them! Yep, better ask catholic priests about adultery.
However, the most funny thing about christianity (and probably other religions too) is that they totally got it all wrong. People are being told the same thing for thousands and thousands of years (at least by christianity, probably by the majority of religions), and they still don't get it. Let's go straight to the Bible and the famous ten commandments. Two of them are of particular interest - "I am your god and you shall have no gods before me", and "You shall not make for yourself an idol".
What does this mean? Well, if we remember the whole story with these commandments, it goes something like this: a guy walks to a mountain, there he recieves these ten commandments, writes them on a stone and gets back to people to tell them about these commandments. Pretty straightforward i would say. Now, presumably, that "I" in first commandement, is the very god that gave Moses these commandments. So, we as humans should not make gods other than him, and should not make idols.
Now let's go a little further in time and remember Jesus. He told us that "God is love, and he who abides in love abides in god". He also said that "Kingdom of god is within you". What does this mean? Well, apparently, that god is love and his kingdom is within us. Pretty unclear and metaphoric, i would say.
Now let's try and combine those two commandments and sayings of Jesus. I shall have no gods before love, and i should not make an idol for myself. Now, as a sane and critical thinking person i always knew that Bible is not a history book and therefore the stories inside it should not be understood literally, but rather metaphorically. In other words, don't try to follow the book, follow the ideas behind it.
At first, when i was trying to understand those ten commandments, i didn't understand what the hell are these first two commandments about. I always thought they were extra and just were there for the officiality and psychological importance, and i always considered that the "main" commandment is the one that is about loving your neighbour, other ones were just derived from it (how can you love your neighbour if you steal from him?). However, later i realized what exactly the Bible was talking about.
And this very thing, this saying of Jesus answers all the questions at once. God is love. God is our concience. God is our mind, our soul, the spark of our creativity - all the things that are constructive. And we should abide only in our love. We should not follow our hatred, our anger, our aggression, you know, all the fun stuff that is usually attributed to devil. This is what the first commandment is all about. And this is where almost all the other commandments derive from - you shall not kill, because it is against love. You shall love your neighbour, because that way you abide in your god, which is love. This is the first, and only commandment one can ever need.
All these stories about dudes making sacrifices - they are not there to teach to kill your children if god asks so, you dumb fucks. They are there to tell you that there can be time when something you love should be sacrificed for greater good. And they are there to tell you that god is forgiving, for he is love, and if you can't sacrifice something - that's OK too, because love will forgive. Our love forgives us, and we shall forgive other people, for we shall abide in love. Wasn't that obvious? A lot of people seem to have a real problem in getting through all these prayers, legends of ressurection and loads of other bullshit to see the real picture - it's not the story that matters, it's the morals behind it.
Now, the second commandment is a little tricky at first. It says that i shouldn't make an idol for myself. Well, surely i can't imagine someone literally cutting out a figure from the wood and praying to it. However, again, this is not what the commandment is about. Since the whole Bible is full of metaphors, we must treat this commandment as a metaphor also. One shall not make an idol for himself - wait, i got it! One cannot treat anything as an absolute truth, or absolute lie, or anything absolute, for that matter, apart from your god - that is love.
You cannot have a book that tells you what to do (and by what to do i don't mean dishwashing, i mean more profound things like killing people), because that makes it your idol. You cannot have a man that tells you what to do, because that makes him your idol. You cannot have anything that tells you what to do, because that makes it your idol. You should only do whatever is abiding love, and always trust yourself and your love, not your idol. The funniest part about this is that christfags treat the Bible as their idol, and make an idol from something they understand as god - thus violating the second commandment. The whole fucking christian world violates the second commandmend. Now that's doing it wrong on an epic scale.
Now, since the Bible is really a bunch of fucking stories that have a general idea behind them, why do they exist in the first place? Because people need something more than a simple idea. They will keep asking why they can't kill, why they can't steal, why they should love everyone - it never passes their mind that being egoistic and selfish is counterproductive, and you need something official, like a higher power, to tell them why they can't do all these things. And even this is not enough as there will be other people who don't get it and don't like the idea of some supreme dude telling them what they should or shouldn't do, questioning religious texts because apparently what's written there is bullshit. And it is fucking bullshit, just like any other fairy tale, but that doesn't make ideas behind it wrong.
The problem is that you just can't tell people the idea that they are their own gods and expect them to behave themselves, because they will erroneously think that if they are god - they are allowed to do whatever the fuck they want; and you can't tell people the idea of god watching them because some of them will rightly think that all that god thing is bullshit, erroneously thinking that the morals of the god story are also wrong.
You need to be smart in order to exercise your freedom of choice for the greater good. General public is not smart. Hence the ten commandments (instead of two), hence the whole fucking book of stories that everyone treats as if they were historical documents, hence the whole religious mess we have today (because whichever way you put it, people still don't get it). People are unbelievably dumb, and no matter how many times you explain them not to kill each other and treat each other with love, they still kill each other and think of how to steal something from one another. And that's kinda sad.
Now, just a couple of notes on heaven and hell. Since god is love, and god is you and your own concience, what does it make of these notions of heaven and hell? The way i see it - if you do bad stuff, your concience will eat you, and eat you, and eat you. You will have regrets about things you've done, you will think them over and over again, wishing to correct the wrongs. This is hell. This is god punishing you - you didn't abide in love, and that's what you get. No one can save you from yourself. This is what heaven and hell are all about - god is inside all of us, and it's us who will punish ourselves, not some great supreme being that needs your prayers every fucking morning. And if you can forgive yourself - your sins will no longer haunt you, and you will again be in peace with god - which is your love and your conscience.
A rather unorthodox look on religion, don't you think? Also, it's kinda universal and happily explains why you don't have to believe in god to be a good man - because there is no god to believe in, aside from love inside you. Praise the lord with your good deeds - it's all he really needs.
For now, a little disclaimer. I was raised in a western world, so obviously the only religion i am at least partially familiar with is christianity. Well, at least my level of familiarity with it allows me to quote Bible. In no way i am an expert on religions (or even christianity), so don't take my disregard for not-so-notorious Bible quotes or other religions as ignorance or deliberate fact hiding. It's not like i care about your opinion in the first place, but if someone ever comments on this blog - it better be a constructive argument, not religious flamefest.
OK, a couple of words on atheism. Some people all but jump out of their shoes to tell everyone that god doesn't exist. Another bunch of people bring lamest excuses such as "if there is a god, may he strike me dead" and expecting us to believe that if god doesn't do magic at their will - he doesn't exist. Yet another bunch of people are reasonable enough not to shout it out loud that there is no god.
However, the lamest atheists are the ones who aren't really atheists, but pride themselves on thinking and believing they are. These are the guys that talk about a universal information field, or some sort of supreme overmind, or some other bullshit. These people are the believers that are afraid of the word "god" because everyone told them that god is a guy that sits in the sky and does stuff, so they believe in something they prefer not to call "god", despite the fact that it is essentially the same thing. Terminology matters, you know, a psychologic moment.
Hello christfags. Hello muslims. Hello every other freak of nature out there. Some of these dudes all but jump out of their shoes to tell everyone that god does exist. Another bunch of people bring lamest excuses such as "if there wasn't god, my wife/son/granddad/dog/dick wouldn't be here today because <insert a horrible accident> and god saved him" and expecting us to believe that if something random happens that turns out to be good - it must be god's will, therefore he exists. Yet another bunch of people are reasonable enough not to shout it out loud that there is a god.
However, the lamest believers are the ones who fight because of religion. My god has bigger dick that your god. You have to eat this on wednesday and go to church on sunday. You have to pray every saturday noon facing north. You have to wear this and say that. Otherwise you will burn in hell. Load of crap this is, Master Yoda say.
The great thing about religion is that everyone thinks of it as a separate thing of itself, whereas in fact it's tightly connected to our own psychological matters. A religion is blind devotion to something. You don't have to believe in god to be religious - you can believe in science, or in glamour, or in money, or in music, or in white power, or in whatever makes you feel comfortable to believe in. Religion is no different from fanatism. In fact, it is fanatism.
Fanatism is not productive. The whole hoopla about things being black and white is getting too old. Life isn't that simple. This is what religious people have yet to learn. Mind you, christfags are much more relaxed now, since the whole science revolution started there aren't many active christfags left. However, this doesn't seem to be the case with muslims.
Don't get me wrong though, i don't hate muslims. It's just that i live in a multinational country, i see many religions and muslims are the only ones i have big problems with. In general, they are too fundamentalistic. They are too fanatical about this whole Islam thing, their Qur'an, their prayers, their clothing, their women - everything they touch carries a scent of absurdity. Moreover, they try to make us account for their stupid ninja religion. No, i am not being ignorant. It's just that if they are coming to Europe to live in here - better respect local laws and local culture. Eat our food, drive our cars, fuck our women - no problem, be my guest. Trying to change our laws to account for a foreign culture - no fucking way. They don't account for ours - why should we do so?
To be fair, christfags when faggy enough aren't a lot better. They try to dictate us which movies we should watch, which books we should read, which music we should listen to. Oh no, these rock bands, they like totally worship satan! Oh no, these violent video games got blood in them! Oh no, these movies got tits in them! Yep, better ask catholic priests about adultery.
However, the most funny thing about christianity (and probably other religions too) is that they totally got it all wrong. People are being told the same thing for thousands and thousands of years (at least by christianity, probably by the majority of religions), and they still don't get it. Let's go straight to the Bible and the famous ten commandments. Two of them are of particular interest - "I am your god and you shall have no gods before me", and "You shall not make for yourself an idol".
What does this mean? Well, if we remember the whole story with these commandments, it goes something like this: a guy walks to a mountain, there he recieves these ten commandments, writes them on a stone and gets back to people to tell them about these commandments. Pretty straightforward i would say. Now, presumably, that "I" in first commandement, is the very god that gave Moses these commandments. So, we as humans should not make gods other than him, and should not make idols.
Now let's go a little further in time and remember Jesus. He told us that "God is love, and he who abides in love abides in god". He also said that "Kingdom of god is within you". What does this mean? Well, apparently, that god is love and his kingdom is within us. Pretty unclear and metaphoric, i would say.
Now let's try and combine those two commandments and sayings of Jesus. I shall have no gods before love, and i should not make an idol for myself. Now, as a sane and critical thinking person i always knew that Bible is not a history book and therefore the stories inside it should not be understood literally, but rather metaphorically. In other words, don't try to follow the book, follow the ideas behind it.
At first, when i was trying to understand those ten commandments, i didn't understand what the hell are these first two commandments about. I always thought they were extra and just were there for the officiality and psychological importance, and i always considered that the "main" commandment is the one that is about loving your neighbour, other ones were just derived from it (how can you love your neighbour if you steal from him?). However, later i realized what exactly the Bible was talking about.
And this very thing, this saying of Jesus answers all the questions at once. God is love. God is our concience. God is our mind, our soul, the spark of our creativity - all the things that are constructive. And we should abide only in our love. We should not follow our hatred, our anger, our aggression, you know, all the fun stuff that is usually attributed to devil. This is what the first commandment is all about. And this is where almost all the other commandments derive from - you shall not kill, because it is against love. You shall love your neighbour, because that way you abide in your god, which is love. This is the first, and only commandment one can ever need.
All these stories about dudes making sacrifices - they are not there to teach to kill your children if god asks so, you dumb fucks. They are there to tell you that there can be time when something you love should be sacrificed for greater good. And they are there to tell you that god is forgiving, for he is love, and if you can't sacrifice something - that's OK too, because love will forgive. Our love forgives us, and we shall forgive other people, for we shall abide in love. Wasn't that obvious? A lot of people seem to have a real problem in getting through all these prayers, legends of ressurection and loads of other bullshit to see the real picture - it's not the story that matters, it's the morals behind it.
Now, the second commandment is a little tricky at first. It says that i shouldn't make an idol for myself. Well, surely i can't imagine someone literally cutting out a figure from the wood and praying to it. However, again, this is not what the commandment is about. Since the whole Bible is full of metaphors, we must treat this commandment as a metaphor also. One shall not make an idol for himself - wait, i got it! One cannot treat anything as an absolute truth, or absolute lie, or anything absolute, for that matter, apart from your god - that is love.
You cannot have a book that tells you what to do (and by what to do i don't mean dishwashing, i mean more profound things like killing people), because that makes it your idol. You cannot have a man that tells you what to do, because that makes him your idol. You cannot have anything that tells you what to do, because that makes it your idol. You should only do whatever is abiding love, and always trust yourself and your love, not your idol. The funniest part about this is that christfags treat the Bible as their idol, and make an idol from something they understand as god - thus violating the second commandment. The whole fucking christian world violates the second commandmend. Now that's doing it wrong on an epic scale.
Now, since the Bible is really a bunch of fucking stories that have a general idea behind them, why do they exist in the first place? Because people need something more than a simple idea. They will keep asking why they can't kill, why they can't steal, why they should love everyone - it never passes their mind that being egoistic and selfish is counterproductive, and you need something official, like a higher power, to tell them why they can't do all these things. And even this is not enough as there will be other people who don't get it and don't like the idea of some supreme dude telling them what they should or shouldn't do, questioning religious texts because apparently what's written there is bullshit. And it is fucking bullshit, just like any other fairy tale, but that doesn't make ideas behind it wrong.
The problem is that you just can't tell people the idea that they are their own gods and expect them to behave themselves, because they will erroneously think that if they are god - they are allowed to do whatever the fuck they want; and you can't tell people the idea of god watching them because some of them will rightly think that all that god thing is bullshit, erroneously thinking that the morals of the god story are also wrong.
You need to be smart in order to exercise your freedom of choice for the greater good. General public is not smart. Hence the ten commandments (instead of two), hence the whole fucking book of stories that everyone treats as if they were historical documents, hence the whole religious mess we have today (because whichever way you put it, people still don't get it). People are unbelievably dumb, and no matter how many times you explain them not to kill each other and treat each other with love, they still kill each other and think of how to steal something from one another. And that's kinda sad.
Now, just a couple of notes on heaven and hell. Since god is love, and god is you and your own concience, what does it make of these notions of heaven and hell? The way i see it - if you do bad stuff, your concience will eat you, and eat you, and eat you. You will have regrets about things you've done, you will think them over and over again, wishing to correct the wrongs. This is hell. This is god punishing you - you didn't abide in love, and that's what you get. No one can save you from yourself. This is what heaven and hell are all about - god is inside all of us, and it's us who will punish ourselves, not some great supreme being that needs your prayers every fucking morning. And if you can forgive yourself - your sins will no longer haunt you, and you will again be in peace with god - which is your love and your conscience.
A rather unorthodox look on religion, don't you think? Also, it's kinda universal and happily explains why you don't have to believe in god to be a good man - because there is no god to believe in, aside from love inside you. Praise the lord with your good deeds - it's all he really needs.
Tuesday, 15 February 2011
Gay Pride!
It's been a while since i last wrote here, i've been away having some nice vacation. But now that i'm back, i can start talking shit again.
This time the target is the LGBT community. For those not in the know LGBT stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender. The topic of gayness is very hot in modern society. There are, basically, two groups of people - those who dismiss stuff as being "gay" and those who consider being "gay" cool. I belong to the first group. I am straight.
Do i have a problem with homosexuals and all the other freaks of nature? No. Why do i call them freaks? Well, because they are. And fuck you. Yes, they are. There is something wrong within their psyche or within their body, or within their DNA, or with whatever the fuck else - it's a fact. A male is attracted to female - that's our nature. If a male feels like he's a female - it's an illness. If a male has a sexual desire for another male - it's an illness, because it's not what nature wants us to do (some people argue that people are inherently bisexual - i beg to differ). They are ill. Is it wrong? Of course not. You can have an illness that is not curable, there's nothing wrong with that. Hell, some people's illnesses are far more dangerous to the society than a man's desire for a fellow man's dick.
So what's the problem with these guys? It's their attitude towards the world. You see, i don't care if the guy is gay or not, that's not my fucking business. They can have their gay sex all they want. But these guys tend to have a desire to tell each and everyone that they are gay. They constantly show off their gayness and all but scream about their "difference". I don't care, and i don't want to care - but they make me care, and that's what i don't like. Ever heard of straight parades? Where people were marching down the street telling everyone that they're straight? Neither did i. Great, let's make castrate parade then. Or amputees parade. Or some other assclown minority parade.
Moreover, some of these guys try to harass me, trying to persuade me into various homo activities. And the funny part is, i can't even hit them in the face for doing that, because those politically correct idiots make any negative activity towards gay people look like homophobia. I can't even say "fuck off" to a homo and not be labelled as a homophobe.
But what really pisses me off the most is that they try to convince everyone that being gay is normal. I already said, there's nothing wrong with being gay, but it's certainly not normal either. Gay marriage - OK, fair enough, i couldn't care less. But adopting kids? Fuck you. When you keep all your gay activities to yourself - i don't care, i don't want to know that. But involving other people (that might not be gay) is another story. Especially the fucking kids. We can as well allow certified mentals to adopt kids - there's nothing wrong with being a nutcase either. How big are the chances that a kid will know what a "mother" (or a "father", in case of lesbian family) should be when he grows up and makes his own family, and how big are the chances that he doesn't turn to more "familiar" gay lifestyle instead, forming yet another dysfunctional family that does not produce a new human being as a result of their relationship?
Some people argue - better be gay parents than straight drug addict parents. I say - neither is better. But at least junkies have a slight chance to recover.
This time the target is the LGBT community. For those not in the know LGBT stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender. The topic of gayness is very hot in modern society. There are, basically, two groups of people - those who dismiss stuff as being "gay" and those who consider being "gay" cool. I belong to the first group. I am straight.
Do i have a problem with homosexuals and all the other freaks of nature? No. Why do i call them freaks? Well, because they are. And fuck you. Yes, they are. There is something wrong within their psyche or within their body, or within their DNA, or with whatever the fuck else - it's a fact. A male is attracted to female - that's our nature. If a male feels like he's a female - it's an illness. If a male has a sexual desire for another male - it's an illness, because it's not what nature wants us to do (some people argue that people are inherently bisexual - i beg to differ). They are ill. Is it wrong? Of course not. You can have an illness that is not curable, there's nothing wrong with that. Hell, some people's illnesses are far more dangerous to the society than a man's desire for a fellow man's dick.
So what's the problem with these guys? It's their attitude towards the world. You see, i don't care if the guy is gay or not, that's not my fucking business. They can have their gay sex all they want. But these guys tend to have a desire to tell each and everyone that they are gay. They constantly show off their gayness and all but scream about their "difference". I don't care, and i don't want to care - but they make me care, and that's what i don't like. Ever heard of straight parades? Where people were marching down the street telling everyone that they're straight? Neither did i. Great, let's make castrate parade then. Or amputees parade. Or some other assclown minority parade.
Moreover, some of these guys try to harass me, trying to persuade me into various homo activities. And the funny part is, i can't even hit them in the face for doing that, because those politically correct idiots make any negative activity towards gay people look like homophobia. I can't even say "fuck off" to a homo and not be labelled as a homophobe.
But what really pisses me off the most is that they try to convince everyone that being gay is normal. I already said, there's nothing wrong with being gay, but it's certainly not normal either. Gay marriage - OK, fair enough, i couldn't care less. But adopting kids? Fuck you. When you keep all your gay activities to yourself - i don't care, i don't want to know that. But involving other people (that might not be gay) is another story. Especially the fucking kids. We can as well allow certified mentals to adopt kids - there's nothing wrong with being a nutcase either. How big are the chances that a kid will know what a "mother" (or a "father", in case of lesbian family) should be when he grows up and makes his own family, and how big are the chances that he doesn't turn to more "familiar" gay lifestyle instead, forming yet another dysfunctional family that does not produce a new human being as a result of their relationship?
Some people argue - better be gay parents than straight drug addict parents. I say - neither is better. But at least junkies have a slight chance to recover.
Wednesday, 19 January 2011
Beware of the pedobear
Why paedophilia is wrong? Ask yourself that question and try to answer it without moralist responses. This subject is very controversial and its discussion is a taboo - well, the more fun to write about it!
I am by no means an expert in little girls (or little boys, for that matter), so you can think of my words as an opinion of a deluded personality with socially unacceptable judgements.
Now, why is paedophilia wrong? A lot of studies seem to base the conclusions on the fact that child abuse results in serious psychological problems in the future. But let's take a look at it this way - what is child abuse? And how it is different from, say, rape? Not really different, i would say. But guess what - if we based our judgements about sex on rape victims' experience, wouldn't the conclusion be a little skewed?
However, no one seems to have a problem with basing conclusions on child equivalent of rape. Abuse is abuse, it brings a lot of mental problems that people deal with for years, but what does it have to do with child sex? Sex per se is not abuse. Child sex is not abuse. I know a lot of people who had sex or been exposed to sexual behaviour in childhood, and only one of them has mental problems, and that's because he was actually abused as a child.
The way i see it, the roots of this are lying in the notion of the modern society that child is something special and it needs to be taken care of. Of course we should take care of our children, but taking care of them and overprotecting them is not the same thing!
I wasn't abused as a child, but i have been watching porn since i was 6, and jerking off since i was 11 - am i some kind of monster? No, i'm perfectly normal. If anything, this experience provided me with far more open mind towards sex and sexual behaviour than most of my peers. I knew blowjob and anal sex wasn't a crime back when i was 8 years old while everyone else thinks it's something disgusting up until they are in their 20's (and some still think that giving head is a crime against humanity).
Did that make me promiscuous? Did that introduce any disorders in my sex life? Did that introduce any mental disorders? No. The "promiscuousness" part is sole responsibility of our parents (and partly, our DNA). I don't have any mental disorders. Now, naturally, when i was watching porn, i was curious about what sex is. And i surely fantasized a lot about having sex even before i got the idea of jerking off. If someone offered me to have sex (female of course) back then, i would surely agree, and i'm 100% sure that it would be a pleasant and fun experience and wouldn't damage my fragile childish mind in any way, as long as i wasn't abused e.g. no one made me have sex, suck cocks, take it up the ass or anything i wouldn't want to do.
So, i tell ya - the whole idea of child sex = child abuse is bullshit. There is a difference between sex and rape, and there is a difference between child sex and child abuse. But of course no one would ever get that because we're too busy protecting our children from violent video games, violent movies, internets and all that. We should take a look at our education instead. And also, don't forget the fucking parents - if someone is an asshole or has socially dangerous problems - in 90% times it's their fault.
I am by no means an expert in little girls (or little boys, for that matter), so you can think of my words as an opinion of a deluded personality with socially unacceptable judgements.
Now, why is paedophilia wrong? A lot of studies seem to base the conclusions on the fact that child abuse results in serious psychological problems in the future. But let's take a look at it this way - what is child abuse? And how it is different from, say, rape? Not really different, i would say. But guess what - if we based our judgements about sex on rape victims' experience, wouldn't the conclusion be a little skewed?
However, no one seems to have a problem with basing conclusions on child equivalent of rape. Abuse is abuse, it brings a lot of mental problems that people deal with for years, but what does it have to do with child sex? Sex per se is not abuse. Child sex is not abuse. I know a lot of people who had sex or been exposed to sexual behaviour in childhood, and only one of them has mental problems, and that's because he was actually abused as a child.
The way i see it, the roots of this are lying in the notion of the modern society that child is something special and it needs to be taken care of. Of course we should take care of our children, but taking care of them and overprotecting them is not the same thing!
I wasn't abused as a child, but i have been watching porn since i was 6, and jerking off since i was 11 - am i some kind of monster? No, i'm perfectly normal. If anything, this experience provided me with far more open mind towards sex and sexual behaviour than most of my peers. I knew blowjob and anal sex wasn't a crime back when i was 8 years old while everyone else thinks it's something disgusting up until they are in their 20's (and some still think that giving head is a crime against humanity).
Did that make me promiscuous? Did that introduce any disorders in my sex life? Did that introduce any mental disorders? No. The "promiscuousness" part is sole responsibility of our parents (and partly, our DNA). I don't have any mental disorders. Now, naturally, when i was watching porn, i was curious about what sex is. And i surely fantasized a lot about having sex even before i got the idea of jerking off. If someone offered me to have sex (female of course) back then, i would surely agree, and i'm 100% sure that it would be a pleasant and fun experience and wouldn't damage my fragile childish mind in any way, as long as i wasn't abused e.g. no one made me have sex, suck cocks, take it up the ass or anything i wouldn't want to do.
So, i tell ya - the whole idea of child sex = child abuse is bullshit. There is a difference between sex and rape, and there is a difference between child sex and child abuse. But of course no one would ever get that because we're too busy protecting our children from violent video games, violent movies, internets and all that. We should take a look at our education instead. And also, don't forget the fucking parents - if someone is an asshole or has socially dangerous problems - in 90% times it's their fault.
Thursday, 13 January 2011
Protected doesn't protect
Remember C++. Remember OOP. Remember memory access modifiers. Remember the good old days, when private was private, protected was protected and public was public. What does private do? It tells a class to keep a variable/function to itself. What does protected do? It tells a class to keep a variable/function to itself and its subclasses. What does public do? It tells a class to expose a variable/function to everyone.
Enter Java. The great thing about Java is that this language is completely ass-backwards, has stupid naming convention, and yet it is somehow supposed to be an educational tool. First of all, what's up with all these "listeners" and "actions"? Whatever happened to event handlers and events? What the fuck is "extends" and whatever happened to "inherits"? Why the fuck they opted not to implement operator overloading, while at the same time doing exactly fucking that with a String class? What the fuck is "implements", and why use two different keywords to do essentially the same thing? And yet, they opted to ditch the concept of default parameters as it was "adding unnecessary complexity". Thanks guys, that made me real happy, writing all these overloads.
Another thing that bugs me all the way through Java development is that code of one class can't be separated into multiple files. Yeah, who gives a fuck about a class with 1000 lines of code, "when it's all in one place it's easier to comprehend". Why didn't they make it so i had to write ALL my code in one file then? That would certainly be easier to comprehend than wading through many files! All that "class should never have more than X lines of code" - cut the fucking crap, you never wrote a real program.
Now, the truly great part about Java is its memory access model. Java did introduce an interesting concept, called packages. I understand that concept and i like it. What i don't understand is why did they have to fuck with traditional notions of "public", "private" and "protected". I mean, i don't mind adapting these to the fact that Java now has packages, but why dealing with this in such an illogical manner?
Consider this. We have a package, and we can declare classes as either private or public. What does that mean? Class declared as public would be visible from outside the package. Class declared as private would be visible only inside the package. Now why would i need protected classes? Java gives us the answer - in case your class has another, inner class. Now this is complete bullshit.
First of all, why make an inner class in the first place? Whatever happened to the "one file - one class" paradigm? Second, that was a rhetorical question, because i do actually understand why would i need an inner class. What i don't understand, however, is that if i don't want this class to be seen from outside its outer class, i would make it private. If i want subclasses to have access to that inner class, i would make it protected. If i want other classes to access it, i would make it public. That doesn't deal with the fact that if i want other classes to have access to it i would not make it inner in the first place, but we'll leave that fact aside.
But what does this have to do with packages?! Why the scope of the memory access modifier goes beyond the borders of the class? In my opinion, Java access modifiers should have been like this:
Package level - public (visible outside the package), private (not visible outside the package). No protected, because it doesn't make sense.
Class level - public (visible outside the class), protected (not visible outside the class but visible to subclasses) and private (not visible outside the class).
That's fucking it! No fuss, no headaches, dead fucking simple. Why Java changed the behaviour of these basic things so that they actually operate on the package level is beyond me.
Now let's see if it would actually work. The famous Java visibility table:
What the fuck is "no modifier"? Whatever happened to "private by default" OOP paradigm? Let's try and make this table from my perspective:
That's it! Obviously i generally don't quite get the concept of package visibility and why does one need any. Package visibility should be controlled with the same logic class visibility is - by using either private or public, thus making stuff either invisible or visible from outside of the package. Creating a backdoor for accessing members from inside the package while still denying access to them from a subclass is as idiotic as it can be - shouldn't subclass have higher priority of access than package?
Overall, Java model of access modifiers is illogical, inconsistent, and it just plain sucks.
Enter Java. The great thing about Java is that this language is completely ass-backwards, has stupid naming convention, and yet it is somehow supposed to be an educational tool. First of all, what's up with all these "listeners" and "actions"? Whatever happened to event handlers and events? What the fuck is "extends" and whatever happened to "inherits"? Why the fuck they opted not to implement operator overloading, while at the same time doing exactly fucking that with a String class? What the fuck is "implements", and why use two different keywords to do essentially the same thing? And yet, they opted to ditch the concept of default parameters as it was "adding unnecessary complexity". Thanks guys, that made me real happy, writing all these overloads.
Another thing that bugs me all the way through Java development is that code of one class can't be separated into multiple files. Yeah, who gives a fuck about a class with 1000 lines of code, "when it's all in one place it's easier to comprehend". Why didn't they make it so i had to write ALL my code in one file then? That would certainly be easier to comprehend than wading through many files! All that "class should never have more than X lines of code" - cut the fucking crap, you never wrote a real program.
Now, the truly great part about Java is its memory access model. Java did introduce an interesting concept, called packages. I understand that concept and i like it. What i don't understand is why did they have to fuck with traditional notions of "public", "private" and "protected". I mean, i don't mind adapting these to the fact that Java now has packages, but why dealing with this in such an illogical manner?
Consider this. We have a package, and we can declare classes as either private or public. What does that mean? Class declared as public would be visible from outside the package. Class declared as private would be visible only inside the package. Now why would i need protected classes? Java gives us the answer - in case your class has another, inner class. Now this is complete bullshit.
First of all, why make an inner class in the first place? Whatever happened to the "one file - one class" paradigm? Second, that was a rhetorical question, because i do actually understand why would i need an inner class. What i don't understand, however, is that if i don't want this class to be seen from outside its outer class, i would make it private. If i want subclasses to have access to that inner class, i would make it protected. If i want other classes to access it, i would make it public. That doesn't deal with the fact that if i want other classes to have access to it i would not make it inner in the first place, but we'll leave that fact aside.
But what does this have to do with packages?! Why the scope of the memory access modifier goes beyond the borders of the class? In my opinion, Java access modifiers should have been like this:
Package level - public (visible outside the package), private (not visible outside the package). No protected, because it doesn't make sense.
Class level - public (visible outside the class), protected (not visible outside the class but visible to subclasses) and private (not visible outside the class).
That's fucking it! No fuss, no headaches, dead fucking simple. Why Java changed the behaviour of these basic things so that they actually operate on the package level is beyond me.
Now let's see if it would actually work. The famous Java visibility table:
| Modifier | Class | Package | Subclass | World |
|---|---|---|---|---|
public | Y | Y | Y | Y |
protected | Y | Y | Y | N |
| no modifier | Y | Y | N | N |
private | Y | N | N | N |
What the fuck is "no modifier"? Whatever happened to "private by default" OOP paradigm? Let's try and make this table from my perspective:
| Modifiers | Class | Package | Subclass | World |
|---|---|---|---|---|
public class, public member | Y | Y | Y | Y |
public class, protected member | Y | N | Y | N |
public class, private member | Y | N | N | N |
private class, public member | Y | Y | Y | N |
private class, protected member | Y | N | Y | N |
private class, private member | Y | N | N | N |
That's it! Obviously i generally don't quite get the concept of package visibility and why does one need any. Package visibility should be controlled with the same logic class visibility is - by using either private or public, thus making stuff either invisible or visible from outside of the package. Creating a backdoor for accessing members from inside the package while still denying access to them from a subclass is as idiotic as it can be - shouldn't subclass have higher priority of access than package?
Overall, Java model of access modifiers is illogical, inconsistent, and it just plain sucks.
Thursday, 30 December 2010
Digital audio myths give me jitters
Now, i'm going to say right out - the subject i'm about to rant on is highly controversial. The field of digital audio is much too polluted with ghost stories, common misconceptions and outright bullshit. I am also going to say right out that by no means i am an expert in that field, and by no means i assume that i can't be wrong. However, i am in such a position of having knowledge and view of things from a number of perspectives.
The following article is a collection of musings based on this article by Roger Nichols and this piece by John Vestman.
With all due respect guys, for the most part this is complete bullshit.
First, let's take a look at Vestman's piece. Leaving jitter issues aside for a moment, this guy seems to genuinely believe that 1-to-1 perfect copy of the file is somehow not identical to the source? Moreover, i would say that in the digital domain there is no such thing as "original file" and "a copy" - they are identical! They are both original! They can't be different because it is the same file, they are effectively the same data, down to the last fucking bit!
I can understand why this shit even comes to their heads. These guys are audio engineers. They are used to analog, they are used to physical, they are used to how things work in real world. They are used to the fact that two pieces of the same hardware can be different, they are used to the fact that two copies of vinyl are not necessarily identical, hell, they are even used to the fact that digital copy from a digital tape might not be the same as the source.
However, guess what, these things, while they might be operating in the digital domain, in fact are analog. The digital tape is analog media, modified to hold digital data. CD's are not analog media. Hard drives are not analog media. They are digital media. And while it is possible for digital copy of analog tape to be different from the original, it is not possible for digital copy of digital media being different from the original. The copy is either identical, or it is not a copy. This is what audio engineers usually don't know, and this is exactly what we, programmers, do know. We programmed the thing, goddammit, we know it is perfect, because in binary world it is either perfect or it does not work.
I might agree that playing the same data from different source (IDE harddrive, FW harddrive, CD) could sound different, but this has nothing to do with the media. It might have something to do with the noise of CD player, or different head position during listening (comb filtering effect), or maybe speakers picking up different noises from wires, but it is certainly not the media itself. No CDR's can have "solid and balanced high-to-mid-to-bottom and wide sparkle", no hard drives are better than the other. I'm sorry, Mr. Vestman, i respect your work and your experience, but this is complete bullshit.
Now, moving to the jitter, error correction et al. Again, audio engineers tend to think analog. They tend to think that these microscopic bumps on the CD are actually representing sound. They don't. They are just numbers. It is true that the recorder jitter might put these bumps in not-so-perfect distance from one another - that's where the pure digital world meets analog reality.
However, that does not mean that once these bumps get read back into the memory, they retain these imperfect distances. There is no such thing as "jitter" inside a computer memory, and this is exactly what happens when the CD gets read. Unlike vinyl, these bumps don't make up the sound themselves, they merely represent 1 or 0. Hence, when the data is read, it is read not giving a flying fuck about jitter, because it is not fed directly to the sound device, it is read into a buffer! And when the data reaches the DAC, it has already been aligned properly - there is no jitter at that point! Same goes for the part II of that article, where Mr. Vestman goes on about moving parts of HDD introducing jitter and sound data being lost due to calculations on the digital data... The jitter part is obvious bullshit, and the part about calculations is... erm... was true, back in the day of 16-bit DAWs, but now that DAWs are 32-48-64 bit resolution, these errors are still there, but they are undetectable even by measuring, let alone by ear. It's hilarious to read a highly technical article from a guy who has no clue about how things work.
There is another thing that gets mentioned - imperfect media and imperfect playback devices. Imperfect media does not introduce jitter, that is complete bullshit and i have already showed that. What it can introduce, however, are errors. Now, read errors are not as common as John Vestman tends to think - quite on the contrary, they only start happening after your CD (DVD, HDD, thumb drive) have been to hell and back. So obviously, these errors happen rarely (with good media of course, if you're a cheapskate - you get what you pay for) and are not that much of a big deal.
There is an interesting phrase by Mr. Vestman - "Error correction helps, but when it comes to your master, you want the ultimate... not second-best". Obviously, Mr. Vestman again thinks analog. In the analog world, when you restore a signal that has been damaged, you can never get the original signal back - that's just how it is.
However, in the perfect digital world, it is fucking possible. It is possible to damage your data, then use error correction and get your data back in perfect condition. Obviously, Mr. Vestman has never used WinRAR and its recovery records to recover a broken archive. Yes, i understand that this is slightly different, but if what Mr. Vestman is talking about happened in real life, it would be a disaster because it would not be possible to copy files on CD without fear of them becoming corrupt. If those "error correction codes" were only approximations and not the perfectly recovered original signal, that would work on audio but would totally ruin data CD's. And since data CD's and music CD's are essentially the same media - one must be a fool to think that error correction works flawlessly on data CD's and doesn't work on audio CD's.
In other words, these errors are perfectly recoverable. It is not like noise reduction, the correction process actually restores the original data. Now, it is true that some errors are unrecoverable and lead to guessing and/or read errors, but these usually involve media being damaged or worn out, which is not the fault of the digital system anyway.
A couple of words on jitter. When does it happen? When it is physically possible for jitter to happen? It can happen only at one stage - at the boundaries between analog and digital. When you digitize your signal, you might introduce jitter. When you turn your signal to analog, you might introduce jitter. That's fucking it. There is no jitter in reading the digital data into a digital container. There is no jitter in processing digital data. There is no jitter anywhere other than in the process of converting digital to analog and back.
What can introduce jitter when playing back the CD? Poor DACs in your CD player. That's fucking it. There is no way jitter could be ever introduced in other places or on other steps of the process of playing back the CD, simply because these processes don't involve anything that introduce even the remote possibility of jitter.
So, i am sorry to say that, but even great minds can make mistakes. Mr. Vestman, you're wrong and you're full of shit. Same goes for Roger Nichols. I'm with Ethan W(h)iner on this one.
Some people say that audio engineering is art, and not everything can be scientifically explained and/or verified by tests. I say it's complete bullshit. Audio engineering is as much engineering as it is audio, and you guys should understand that and know your math.
Differences? Great way of determining the differences is the null/summing test. Not practical for audio equipment? Double blind test (although this guy tries to make a point that blind tests are flawed). That's it. Pure science. If you can't reliably hear it - it's not there. If you can't see it on an spectrum analyzer - it's not there. If things null - they are the same.
Regarding the article about blind tests being flawed, i would argue that the guy might not even heard the artifact, he might have discovered that by running the signal through spectrum analyzer - that 1.5Khz tone could be easily spotted. I also might argue that the test conditions were not adequate to perform a good blind test. It should be noted that it has to be done right too. All in all, the guy makes some valid points, but comes to the wrong conclusion. What he should have concluded is not that "double-blind tests suck", but "double-blind tests should be done right". In other words, as any scientific test, the double blind test should be done at the most ideal conditions possible. Basically, the comments to the article say it all.
A lot of people claim they hear a difference between two amplifiers, between two pairs of headphones, between two cables, between two X, between two Y... I'm not saying they can't be different, i'm saying that sometimes it is just not physically possible for the difference to be there, or to be noticed. I agree headphones sound different, but i do not agree that, say, DAWs sound different. Because math is math. If 1+1 is somehow not equal to 2, then your host is doing it wrong. If 1+1 is 2 but you hear something else - then it's something wrong with either your ears, or your listening equipment/environment, or this, or that - there is a gazillion of factors that could influenced your perception. Our ears aren't perfect, and they can be easily fooled - so we should rely on science to prove things instead of just subjective experience.
The following article is a collection of musings based on this article by Roger Nichols and this piece by John Vestman.
With all due respect guys, for the most part this is complete bullshit.
First, let's take a look at Vestman's piece. Leaving jitter issues aside for a moment, this guy seems to genuinely believe that 1-to-1 perfect copy of the file is somehow not identical to the source? Moreover, i would say that in the digital domain there is no such thing as "original file" and "a copy" - they are identical! They are both original! They can't be different because it is the same file, they are effectively the same data, down to the last fucking bit!
I can understand why this shit even comes to their heads. These guys are audio engineers. They are used to analog, they are used to physical, they are used to how things work in real world. They are used to the fact that two pieces of the same hardware can be different, they are used to the fact that two copies of vinyl are not necessarily identical, hell, they are even used to the fact that digital copy from a digital tape might not be the same as the source.
However, guess what, these things, while they might be operating in the digital domain, in fact are analog. The digital tape is analog media, modified to hold digital data. CD's are not analog media. Hard drives are not analog media. They are digital media. And while it is possible for digital copy of analog tape to be different from the original, it is not possible for digital copy of digital media being different from the original. The copy is either identical, or it is not a copy. This is what audio engineers usually don't know, and this is exactly what we, programmers, do know. We programmed the thing, goddammit, we know it is perfect, because in binary world it is either perfect or it does not work.
I might agree that playing the same data from different source (IDE harddrive, FW harddrive, CD) could sound different, but this has nothing to do with the media. It might have something to do with the noise of CD player, or different head position during listening (comb filtering effect), or maybe speakers picking up different noises from wires, but it is certainly not the media itself. No CDR's can have "solid and balanced high-to-mid-to-bottom and wide sparkle", no hard drives are better than the other. I'm sorry, Mr. Vestman, i respect your work and your experience, but this is complete bullshit.
Now, moving to the jitter, error correction et al. Again, audio engineers tend to think analog. They tend to think that these microscopic bumps on the CD are actually representing sound. They don't. They are just numbers. It is true that the recorder jitter might put these bumps in not-so-perfect distance from one another - that's where the pure digital world meets analog reality.
However, that does not mean that once these bumps get read back into the memory, they retain these imperfect distances. There is no such thing as "jitter" inside a computer memory, and this is exactly what happens when the CD gets read. Unlike vinyl, these bumps don't make up the sound themselves, they merely represent 1 or 0. Hence, when the data is read, it is read not giving a flying fuck about jitter, because it is not fed directly to the sound device, it is read into a buffer! And when the data reaches the DAC, it has already been aligned properly - there is no jitter at that point! Same goes for the part II of that article, where Mr. Vestman goes on about moving parts of HDD introducing jitter and sound data being lost due to calculations on the digital data... The jitter part is obvious bullshit, and the part about calculations is... erm... was true, back in the day of 16-bit DAWs, but now that DAWs are 32-48-64 bit resolution, these errors are still there, but they are undetectable even by measuring, let alone by ear. It's hilarious to read a highly technical article from a guy who has no clue about how things work.
There is another thing that gets mentioned - imperfect media and imperfect playback devices. Imperfect media does not introduce jitter, that is complete bullshit and i have already showed that. What it can introduce, however, are errors. Now, read errors are not as common as John Vestman tends to think - quite on the contrary, they only start happening after your CD (DVD, HDD, thumb drive) have been to hell and back. So obviously, these errors happen rarely (with good media of course, if you're a cheapskate - you get what you pay for) and are not that much of a big deal.
There is an interesting phrase by Mr. Vestman - "Error correction helps, but when it comes to your master, you want the ultimate... not second-best". Obviously, Mr. Vestman again thinks analog. In the analog world, when you restore a signal that has been damaged, you can never get the original signal back - that's just how it is.
However, in the perfect digital world, it is fucking possible. It is possible to damage your data, then use error correction and get your data back in perfect condition. Obviously, Mr. Vestman has never used WinRAR and its recovery records to recover a broken archive. Yes, i understand that this is slightly different, but if what Mr. Vestman is talking about happened in real life, it would be a disaster because it would not be possible to copy files on CD without fear of them becoming corrupt. If those "error correction codes" were only approximations and not the perfectly recovered original signal, that would work on audio but would totally ruin data CD's. And since data CD's and music CD's are essentially the same media - one must be a fool to think that error correction works flawlessly on data CD's and doesn't work on audio CD's.
In other words, these errors are perfectly recoverable. It is not like noise reduction, the correction process actually restores the original data. Now, it is true that some errors are unrecoverable and lead to guessing and/or read errors, but these usually involve media being damaged or worn out, which is not the fault of the digital system anyway.
A couple of words on jitter. When does it happen? When it is physically possible for jitter to happen? It can happen only at one stage - at the boundaries between analog and digital. When you digitize your signal, you might introduce jitter. When you turn your signal to analog, you might introduce jitter. That's fucking it. There is no jitter in reading the digital data into a digital container. There is no jitter in processing digital data. There is no jitter anywhere other than in the process of converting digital to analog and back.
What can introduce jitter when playing back the CD? Poor DACs in your CD player. That's fucking it. There is no way jitter could be ever introduced in other places or on other steps of the process of playing back the CD, simply because these processes don't involve anything that introduce even the remote possibility of jitter.
So, i am sorry to say that, but even great minds can make mistakes. Mr. Vestman, you're wrong and you're full of shit. Same goes for Roger Nichols. I'm with Ethan W(h)iner on this one.
Some people say that audio engineering is art, and not everything can be scientifically explained and/or verified by tests. I say it's complete bullshit. Audio engineering is as much engineering as it is audio, and you guys should understand that and know your math.
Differences? Great way of determining the differences is the null/summing test. Not practical for audio equipment? Double blind test (although this guy tries to make a point that blind tests are flawed). That's it. Pure science. If you can't reliably hear it - it's not there. If you can't see it on an spectrum analyzer - it's not there. If things null - they are the same.
Regarding the article about blind tests being flawed, i would argue that the guy might not even heard the artifact, he might have discovered that by running the signal through spectrum analyzer - that 1.5Khz tone could be easily spotted. I also might argue that the test conditions were not adequate to perform a good blind test. It should be noted that it has to be done right too. All in all, the guy makes some valid points, but comes to the wrong conclusion. What he should have concluded is not that "double-blind tests suck", but "double-blind tests should be done right". In other words, as any scientific test, the double blind test should be done at the most ideal conditions possible. Basically, the comments to the article say it all.
A lot of people claim they hear a difference between two amplifiers, between two pairs of headphones, between two cables, between two X, between two Y... I'm not saying they can't be different, i'm saying that sometimes it is just not physically possible for the difference to be there, or to be noticed. I agree headphones sound different, but i do not agree that, say, DAWs sound different. Because math is math. If 1+1 is somehow not equal to 2, then your host is doing it wrong. If 1+1 is 2 but you hear something else - then it's something wrong with either your ears, or your listening equipment/environment, or this, or that - there is a gazillion of factors that could influenced your perception. Our ears aren't perfect, and they can be easily fooled - so we should rely on science to prove things instead of just subjective experience.
Thursday, 23 December 2010
Equal opportunities
Today i was helping a friend of mine with applying for a job using an online form. Apart from loads of stupid-ass questions, there was this ubiquitous politically correct bullshit about equal opportunities. Now, this "equality" policies are a major problem plaguing modern society.
While these policies pursue a noble goal of giving everyone an equal chance for a job, education or whatever, the truth is that it is complete bullshit and is actually all the same racism, sexism etc. only in different words.
A simple question - if people are equal, why would anyone ask for that kind of information in the first place? If they truly treated people equally, they just wouldn't care if it's man or woman, black or white, young or old, these things just wouldn't matter. But no, they do, and this is exactly why these "policies" are racist, sexist etc.
Now i'm not sure if it has its place in the Western world, but in some former USSR Asian countries there are policies on how many people of which race should be working for any given business. Again, the idea was to give everyone an opportunity to have a good job and try to eliminate racism or ethnic chauvinism. I assume a variant of these policies is more or less present everywhere - in Europe, in USA, in Australia etc.
Now, for the sake of argument, consider the following - imagine i have a private business. Let's say i am racist and i don't like certain race, for example, black. Let's say, i have a vacancy open, and i look at two candidates - one is a hard working black man, another is a white raging alcoholic and generally a dumb fuck. Who do i choose? Probably white man, because i don't want blacks working for me. No matter how dumb the white guy is, no matter how bright and hard working a black guy is, i would choose white. Is it right? Of course not. However, if i have reached my quota for white people, the policies of the government on equality wouldn't allow me to do that, and i will be forced to do the right thing and offer black man a job. So far so good.
Let's try it the other way around. Let's say i don't have all the racial prejudices. Let's say i have an open vacancy, and i look at two candidates - one is a hard-working white man, another is a black raging alcoholic and generally a dumb fuck. Who do i choose? Probably white man, because i don't want dumb fucks working for me, i want to succeed in my business. However, if i have reached my quota for white people, the policies of the government on equality wouldn't allow me to do that, and i will be forced to offer black man a job. And no matter how dumb is that black man, no matter how bright and hard working is the white man, i am forced to give a job to a dumb alcoholic just because the right guy for the job happens to be white. Which is - ta-da! - racism in its purest form.
The bottom line is - all these policies are just different kind of racism, sexism and all the other "-isms". Moreover, they deprive me of my freedom. How is that? Well, you see, it's my business, and i should decide who is working for me, and who isn't. It's up to me to decide who faces my customers and who represents my company, not some ass-clown in the government who thinks only white can be racist. However, right now government would make me differentiate between black, white, male, female, straight, gay, bisexual, transsexual, overweight, dyslexic - in other words, this policy actually forces me to be racist, sexist and all that. And it doesn't occur to people that i wouldn't care, and i wouldn't want to care about these things, i would just want people to do the job!
While these policies pursue a noble goal of giving everyone an equal chance for a job, education or whatever, the truth is that it is complete bullshit and is actually all the same racism, sexism etc. only in different words.
A simple question - if people are equal, why would anyone ask for that kind of information in the first place? If they truly treated people equally, they just wouldn't care if it's man or woman, black or white, young or old, these things just wouldn't matter. But no, they do, and this is exactly why these "policies" are racist, sexist etc.
Now i'm not sure if it has its place in the Western world, but in some former USSR Asian countries there are policies on how many people of which race should be working for any given business. Again, the idea was to give everyone an opportunity to have a good job and try to eliminate racism or ethnic chauvinism. I assume a variant of these policies is more or less present everywhere - in Europe, in USA, in Australia etc.
Now, for the sake of argument, consider the following - imagine i have a private business. Let's say i am racist and i don't like certain race, for example, black. Let's say, i have a vacancy open, and i look at two candidates - one is a hard working black man, another is a white raging alcoholic and generally a dumb fuck. Who do i choose? Probably white man, because i don't want blacks working for me. No matter how dumb the white guy is, no matter how bright and hard working a black guy is, i would choose white. Is it right? Of course not. However, if i have reached my quota for white people, the policies of the government on equality wouldn't allow me to do that, and i will be forced to do the right thing and offer black man a job. So far so good.
Let's try it the other way around. Let's say i don't have all the racial prejudices. Let's say i have an open vacancy, and i look at two candidates - one is a hard-working white man, another is a black raging alcoholic and generally a dumb fuck. Who do i choose? Probably white man, because i don't want dumb fucks working for me, i want to succeed in my business. However, if i have reached my quota for white people, the policies of the government on equality wouldn't allow me to do that, and i will be forced to offer black man a job. And no matter how dumb is that black man, no matter how bright and hard working is the white man, i am forced to give a job to a dumb alcoholic just because the right guy for the job happens to be white. Which is - ta-da! - racism in its purest form.
The bottom line is - all these policies are just different kind of racism, sexism and all the other "-isms". Moreover, they deprive me of my freedom. How is that? Well, you see, it's my business, and i should decide who is working for me, and who isn't. It's up to me to decide who faces my customers and who represents my company, not some ass-clown in the government who thinks only white can be racist. However, right now government would make me differentiate between black, white, male, female, straight, gay, bisexual, transsexual, overweight, dyslexic - in other words, this policy actually forces me to be racist, sexist and all that. And it doesn't occur to people that i wouldn't care, and i wouldn't want to care about these things, i would just want people to do the job!
Tuesday, 21 December 2010
Privacy
A lot of talk has been around WikiLeaks concerning what should and what should not be kept secret, about privacy of Powers That Be, about perceived hypocrisy surrounding WikiLeaks (aaah, you ask for openness and you're all secret yourself!)...
Now, lemme tell ya somethin' bout the government. Well, not exactly about the government, but about all of these issues i've mentioned in the first sentence. You see, people keep confusing privacy with secrecy. Privacy is what i do in my backyard, what porn i jack off to, what music i like - this is privacy. If i killed somebody and didn't tell anyone and no-one found out - that's secrecy, not privacy. This is not my private matter, for fucks sake, i killed a man (or a woman)!
Now, does WikiLeaks need secrecy? Of course it does. It is a media outlet. It needs to protect its sources if they wish to remain anonymous, so that the government (or anyone else) couldn't take action against them. Does Julian Assange need privacy? Of course he does - just as i do, you do and everyone else does. But do not confuse privacy with secrecy.
When you are on duty, there's no such thing as privacy. You have your corporate email, CCTV's on site, strict code of conduct, timetable and everything is being monitored from up above - and that's how it's supposed to be. Because you are at work. You're not at home - home is a private place, work isn't.
When someone in the government is on duty - they fall exactly under the same category of "work". They are serving people, and they have to be held accountable for what they do. Everything needs to be transparent. They have no right for privacy while they are on duty. They have their right of privacy when they come back home after a long day and fuck their wives or jack off to horse porn - i have no problem with that, but why people keep confusing privacy and secrecy is beyond me.
The difference between corporations and government though is in case of corporations, there is management and all these people who run the show. They can be held accountable for what the corporation does, or can punish their employees for violating corporate rules or doing something illegal. In case of government, the "management" is me, you and any other voter who chose them. The government must be held accountable by us, and people doing shady stuff should be punished by government on our behalf. When corporations (or government) are doing shady stuff in a coordinated fashion - this is called conspiracy.
Diplomatic cables are like corporate email. It is sort of a private conversation, but when the need arises, it can be made public. No one should use corporate email for private stuff, that's why we have private email addresses. If your corporate email exposes some stuff you shouldn't have said or done - well, it's not my problem. You're supposed to do your job, not fucking little boys dressed in girl's clothes. If these cables revealed guys just doing their jobs - no one would ever say a word and i would be all for prosecuting Assange for sharing private information without the need for it.
Now, do we need secrecy? Of course we need some secrets. Some things are meant to be kept secret for a while. The primary point of secrecy is to gain strategic advantage, so your enemies are not aware of what you are up to. So when you did gain it, when all is said and done - why secrecy? No one would be afraid of declassifying secret or top secret information if there was nothing to hide.
The problem is that there is. The mechanism of secrecy is long since being abused to cover up fuck-ups and shady stuff the government does. That is why the government is so outraged at WikiLeaks - because it can expose something that shouldn't have been a secret but been under criminal investigation. Tortures, spying, bribing one government and putting pressure on another, covertly transporting prisoners - the list goes on and on. This has nothing to do with privacy and confidentiality, this is criminal activity hidden by the cloak of secrecy. Do we need that kind of secrecy? I doubt it.
Now, the curious case of WikiLeaks. Some may argue that WikiLeaks got the documents as a result of criminal activity (sharing confidential and top secret government information with third parties). What did WikiLeaks do? Buy this information? No. Sell it to someone? No. What they did was send the data to newspapers and let them do the job they are meant to do. There's certainly nothing criminal in WikiLeaks action.
Some may argue that sharing top secret information is still a crime. OK, valid point, but there must be common sense applied to that. First of all, WikiLeaks' cables and documents disclose information that shouldn't have been secret in the first place. Tell me one reason why people should not know when government is spying on them. Tell me one reason why people should not know that USA is pressuring Germany not to bring a criminal case against CIA agents. Tell me one reason why people should not know that their government killed 15'000 more civilians in Iraq. Are these legitimate secrets? You decide.
Second, whistle blowing is a noble activity. It is OK not to share corporate information with third parties, but what if your corporation (e.g. government) does something it shouldn't do and gets away with it? If you expose this information, who should be prosecuted - you or the government? For me, the answer is obvious.
This brings up a curious question - who is supposed to decide what is good and what isn't? Well, don't we have laws for that? Isn't murder illegal? Isn't bribery illegal? Isn't influencing justice system of a foreign country illegal? Not wrong, but illegal. So why exposing illegal activities is illegal?
Now, lemme tell ya somethin' bout the government. Well, not exactly about the government, but about all of these issues i've mentioned in the first sentence. You see, people keep confusing privacy with secrecy. Privacy is what i do in my backyard, what porn i jack off to, what music i like - this is privacy. If i killed somebody and didn't tell anyone and no-one found out - that's secrecy, not privacy. This is not my private matter, for fucks sake, i killed a man (or a woman)!
Now, does WikiLeaks need secrecy? Of course it does. It is a media outlet. It needs to protect its sources if they wish to remain anonymous, so that the government (or anyone else) couldn't take action against them. Does Julian Assange need privacy? Of course he does - just as i do, you do and everyone else does. But do not confuse privacy with secrecy.
When you are on duty, there's no such thing as privacy. You have your corporate email, CCTV's on site, strict code of conduct, timetable and everything is being monitored from up above - and that's how it's supposed to be. Because you are at work. You're not at home - home is a private place, work isn't.
When someone in the government is on duty - they fall exactly under the same category of "work". They are serving people, and they have to be held accountable for what they do. Everything needs to be transparent. They have no right for privacy while they are on duty. They have their right of privacy when they come back home after a long day and fuck their wives or jack off to horse porn - i have no problem with that, but why people keep confusing privacy and secrecy is beyond me.
The difference between corporations and government though is in case of corporations, there is management and all these people who run the show. They can be held accountable for what the corporation does, or can punish their employees for violating corporate rules or doing something illegal. In case of government, the "management" is me, you and any other voter who chose them. The government must be held accountable by us, and people doing shady stuff should be punished by government on our behalf. When corporations (or government) are doing shady stuff in a coordinated fashion - this is called conspiracy.
Diplomatic cables are like corporate email. It is sort of a private conversation, but when the need arises, it can be made public. No one should use corporate email for private stuff, that's why we have private email addresses. If your corporate email exposes some stuff you shouldn't have said or done - well, it's not my problem. You're supposed to do your job, not fucking little boys dressed in girl's clothes. If these cables revealed guys just doing their jobs - no one would ever say a word and i would be all for prosecuting Assange for sharing private information without the need for it.
Now, do we need secrecy? Of course we need some secrets. Some things are meant to be kept secret for a while. The primary point of secrecy is to gain strategic advantage, so your enemies are not aware of what you are up to. So when you did gain it, when all is said and done - why secrecy? No one would be afraid of declassifying secret or top secret information if there was nothing to hide.
The problem is that there is. The mechanism of secrecy is long since being abused to cover up fuck-ups and shady stuff the government does. That is why the government is so outraged at WikiLeaks - because it can expose something that shouldn't have been a secret but been under criminal investigation. Tortures, spying, bribing one government and putting pressure on another, covertly transporting prisoners - the list goes on and on. This has nothing to do with privacy and confidentiality, this is criminal activity hidden by the cloak of secrecy. Do we need that kind of secrecy? I doubt it.
Now, the curious case of WikiLeaks. Some may argue that WikiLeaks got the documents as a result of criminal activity (sharing confidential and top secret government information with third parties). What did WikiLeaks do? Buy this information? No. Sell it to someone? No. What they did was send the data to newspapers and let them do the job they are meant to do. There's certainly nothing criminal in WikiLeaks action.
Some may argue that sharing top secret information is still a crime. OK, valid point, but there must be common sense applied to that. First of all, WikiLeaks' cables and documents disclose information that shouldn't have been secret in the first place. Tell me one reason why people should not know when government is spying on them. Tell me one reason why people should not know that USA is pressuring Germany not to bring a criminal case against CIA agents. Tell me one reason why people should not know that their government killed 15'000 more civilians in Iraq. Are these legitimate secrets? You decide.
Second, whistle blowing is a noble activity. It is OK not to share corporate information with third parties, but what if your corporation (e.g. government) does something it shouldn't do and gets away with it? If you expose this information, who should be prosecuted - you or the government? For me, the answer is obvious.
This brings up a curious question - who is supposed to decide what is good and what isn't? Well, don't we have laws for that? Isn't murder illegal? Isn't bribery illegal? Isn't influencing justice system of a foreign country illegal? Not wrong, but illegal. So why exposing illegal activities is illegal?
Sunday, 19 December 2010
Anonymous Strikes Back for WikiLeaks! (Operation Payback)
Been away for a while, missed a lot... But here's a fun video:
Tuesday, 14 December 2010
Land of the free, home of the brave
...as well as astronomical amounts of bullshit and hypocrisy - USA blocks access to WikiLeaks-related content from within U.S. Air Force networks. Another U.S. "official" advocates for censorship of the press. How is that freedom of speech? How is that democracy? What the fuck is going on?!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)