I have learned more by simply finding online resources, viewing/reading them, following “tutorials” etc. over the past several weeks, than I *ever* learned from Karl in nearly 30 years:

The most pleasant aspect of this (beyond the acquisition of knowledge itself), has been the fact that I have not had to sit through ass-face’s rhetorical questions about “how can I not know this stuff?” or “where have I been!!!!?”, or any of his other stock INSULTS.

Nor have I had to listen to him whining incessantly about how much his life sucks, how little money he has, how he doesn’t have “enough time” or “resources” to meaningfully sort through the detritus — er, I mean “computer collection’, etc.

I honestly hope that his rickety shit-bucket of a jeep has finally become utterly nonfunctional, resulting in him being fired from his job.  That state of affairs would probably result in him losing the storage units of scrap and (as a bonus) becoming homeless (due to nonpayment of rent) — ALSO resulting in the loss/destruction of the hoarded E-waste cluttering his trailer.

I genuinely hope the above scenario has occured.  There are very few individuals who i genuinely loathe — but I am becoming increasingly aware of the fact that Karl is definitely one of them.

 

Advertisements

Did you ever wonder what Karl would be like if he had actual skills?

He’d probably be somewhat like Richard Stallman.

Here is an off-site link to Stallman’s publicity-packet thingy:

https://groups.google.com/a/mysociety.org/forum/#!msg/mysociety-community/zkyZpOXjgoQ/_8xyXSxv9zYJ

Richard Stallman is a very strange man.  Having said that, he has actually done an amazingly  valuable thing by springboarding both the FLOSS (Free, Libre, Open-source Software) and “Free culture” movements.  These have both  fueled the “IP Skeptic”/pro-public domain movement.

At any rate, Stallman’s personal idiosyncracies are actually pretty charming and “eccentric”, as compared to Karl (Ka3rcs).  Plus, he devised  the GNU variant of EMACS, which is just about the most convoluted and over-developed text editor in history. 🙂

Plus, the “Friendly parrot” thing is…..funny?  I dunno.

 

The closest real-life equivalent to Gandhi’s advice to European jews? The “Peoples temple” murder/suicide

  1. Listen to the entire thing.
  2. Realize that this is (probably) as close as it is humanly possible to come to enacting Gandhi’s  advocacy that the Jewish (and Non-Jewish?) victims of what we now describe as the Holocaust should have committed “Auto-genocide” (rather than engage in “resistance” or “violence” against their would-be murderers:

    IF there is a Hell, I GENUINELY HOPE that Mohondas K. Gandhi is there, and gets to spend eternity being RAPED TO DEATH, reincarnated, and then RAPED TO DEATH, OVER AGAIN — by every single jew – and Non-Jew, victim of Nazi atrocities.

Just sayin’.

 

Csound: (supposedly) extremely versatile and powerful “audio rendering” application/language — *IF* you can ever wrap your mind around how the damn thing works!

I consider myself to be at least fairly intelligent.  I am also a “multi-instrumentalist” (to a imited extent — guitar/banjo/mandolin/bass/keyboards, etc.).   Having said that, I’m not entirely sure why I’m interested in Csound.

Supposedly, it’s am amazingly versatiile application/language.  (Several of hte Csound references I’ve consulted describe it as an “audio renderer”.)   The “core” Csound application is a command-line (non-GUI), and is essentially an “audio compiler” (in that you can “program” Csound via specially-structured text files.

Now, here’s the thing:

Csound has to be just about the most blatantly obscure (to the point of being almost-totally incomrehensible)  thing I’ve ever encoungered.

Oh, sure: I managed to download, install and run the thing.  I also managed to download and install several of the “front-end” applications (which claim to make using csound more “user friendly”).   So far — WinXound (a specialized text-editor for the 3 types of Csound files), Blue, and cabbage.

So, yeah: I managed to get stuff installed.  THEN I attempt to consult the various “manuals” or “tutorials” — and end up completely and utterly mind-boggled.

The “Canonical Csound Manual”.  The “FLOSS” (Free, Libre, Open-Source Software) Csound manual.   The “Alternative” Canonical Csound manual.  Boulanger’s “Csound Audio Design TOOTorials” — even the “manual” from the (ill-fated) OLPC project  (They subjected SMALL CHILDREN to this thing, seriously???????)

So I (mistakenly) think that getting the “Csound BOok”  (which is supposedly the “definitive reference and instructional work” for Csound would be helpful.  Unfortunately for me, “new” copies appear to cost anywhere from $75-$100.  “Used” copies are somewhat more reasonable.

So I luck into what I mistakenly see as a gold-mine opportuny: a (heavily) used copy of the Csound book, for less than $5, including shipping!

Cool part is: it even includes the CD-rom.

Problem is: The book itself is confusing to the point of being nearly incomprehensible.

Really: I cannot be this stupid.  It has to be (at least partially)  the fact that everything related to Csound appears to have a horrifyingly steep learning-curve.  (The “first” tutorial — which, when rendered, merely genereates a 440-hz sine wave for a few seconds — is almost too syntactically obscure for me to comprehend.

I am — exceedingly — perplexed, and more than a bit annoyed, at this point.

I am NOT this stupid!  I simply CANNOT be this stupid!

 

If this works out correctly, I’m back to where I *should have been* in 2008:

One of my primary projects for at least the last 20 years (since 1996, that I know of) has been the attempt to digitize the morass of “analog” audio media (tapes, LP’s,) and “rip” the CD collection — both for “backup” purposes and to have the sort of quick access to the collection that you get with a “media player” program (like SMpayer or VLC), and two mouse-clicks.

Anyway:  my “bottleneck” has always been drive space:

Here’s the issue:

File size – WAV files are large. A stereo, CD quality recording (44.1khz, 16-bit), works out at 10.09 MB per minute. Moving up to 48kHz 24-bit stereo (which will improve both the frequency range and the available dynamic range) will increase file size to 16.48 MB per minute.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=How+big+are+WAV+files

So: unless I’m willing to immediately dump the audio recordings to (say) 320 Mp3/FLAC, they tend to sit around uncompressed for some while, taking up HD space.

At one point (2008) I was almost where I wanted to be, when I added a 500 GB drive to that rickety shit-box of a Dell Optiplex GX-270.  Unfortunately, the drive itself was perilously close to failure when I acquired it (which the dickhead I got it from hadn’t told me — but that’s another topic entirely.)

Result: 2009 the drive fails, and I lose approximately 3 years of “content”. 😦

Thankfully, I just got a 500 GB drive off of a guy — swears that the drive is known to be good (!!!)

If all works out according to plan, I will be in a position to resume transterring the albums/tapes etc. — a project which has been “on hold” since before we relocated here to Florida.

Just sayin’. 🙂

 

Organizing is difficult

So: in addition to “backing up” the various analog/digital media, I am confronted with how best to organize the end-product:

  1. Alphabetization does not yield coherent results.
  2.  Basing the albums around “Genre” seemed sensible until I was confronted with “borderiline cases” (IE: albums with content which is not exactly “Bluegrass”, but not exactly “Country”, either — for example).

Sensible solution:

The following hierarchy:

GEOGRAPHICAL REGION

NATION

GENRE

ARTISTS/COLLECTIONS

In categorizing a given work within a given region, I am considering where the artist/group originate.  This makes sense, because there are different regional “scenes” — different approaches to how a given genre is approached.

The “Bluegrass” section is oddly difficult for such a circumscribed genre.  The two “main” sub-genres are “Traditional” and “Progressive”/”Newgrass”.

“Traditional” artists/groups are either those who originate from the “classic” era (1940s/50s), or “modern” artists/groups who attempt to be similar to groups from that era.

“Progressive” artists/groups are (quite frankly) all over the map: ’60s/’70s hippie-sounding stuff, more “jazz”-influenced stuff, albums which eschew the “acoustic instrumentation only” thing, in favor of…..all sorts of stuff. 🙂

That’s why I have decided to consider an artist/group as “traditional”, until/unless after listening to them, I determine otherwise.

Short-cut?  Definitely.

Then again, given the sheer amount of “stuff” I have to dig through, failure to resort to such “short-cuts” neccesarily means that I don’t get the project done in anything resembling a reasonable amount of time.