sombre electronica

blip noise

Thu, 17 Nov 2011 03:03:00 -0800

See the full gallery on Posterous

crayon don't have time to breathe

Permalink | Leave a comment »

Federation Square Play

Sun, 12 Jun 2011 12:11:00 -0700

update the concrete blocks aren't there anymore... curious

See the full gallery on Posterous

Permalink | Leave a comment »

Hacking Facebook 101

Tue, 07 Jun 2011 21:07:00 -0700

Knowledge is power. Hacking is knowledge.

I view source on the page, and search for "video_src"

and we find this:

http\u00253A\u00252F\u00252Fvideo.l3.fbcdn.net\u00252Fcfs-l3-snc6\u00252F78704\u00252F1013\u00252F1610905987207_35550.mp4

Looks like mess! But you can see bits of URL in there, like it starts with "http" and there is an "mp4", that's a video file. Looks promising.

Perhaps we can just substitute the ugly bits with what we think they should be? Let's start simple.

http://site.com/some/file.mp4

So, in the ugly link, it seems that the \u00253A is in place of the colon ":" symbol. And then two "/" characters. So so far we have.

\u00253 is :

\u00252F is /

Giving...

http://video.l3.fbcdn.net/cfs-l3-snc6/78704/1013/1610905987207_35550.m...

Already looks better right! There's even a video file right at the start... let's pry it out.

http://video.l3.fbcdn.net/cfs-l3-snc6/78704/1013/1610905987207_35550.m....

Let's try downloading it in the browser...

Authorization Required

This server could not verify that you are authorized to access the document you requested. Either you supplied the wrong credentials (e.g., bad password), or your browser doesn't understand how to supply the credentials required.

Ok... so we've got something! But we seem to need more information... perhaps it's that stuff at the end we cut off?

\u00253Foh\u00253D081cd9499c9fc9730a84337...

UGLY! What a mess. But we see some characters again, like the old ones.

\u00253F

\u00253D

\u002526

So what characters do we use? A quick google or URLs and a little learning, we find that URLs can end with things called parameters.

http://site.com/some/file.mp4?a=100&b=200

This would mean "a" equals 100, and "b" is 200. So lets do the old switcharoo on our ugliness.

? is \u00253F

= is \u00253D

& is \u002526

Giving us...

http://video.l3.fbcdn.net/cfs-l3-snc6/78704/1013/1610905987207_35550.mp4?oh=081cd9499c9fc9730a84337a6c389fcb&oe=4DBACC00&l3s=201104270...

Now *that* looks like a real link. Stick it in my browser and BAM we have video! With a good browser, now just go "file"->"save as..." and you are DONE.

Permalink | Leave a comment »

Cost Defective Mining with AWS GPU Clusters

Sun, 08 May 2011 06:54:00 -0700

- or - How to Lose Money Whilst Really Really Trying

Howdy folks. Against the better judgement and superior mathematics of my Bitcoin brethren, I decided to venture into the land of rental GPU power. Burnt myself the better part of 24 hours, as well as a hole in my pocket.

Enter Amazon EC2 Cluster GPU Instances

The stats they give (per instance):

2 x Intel Xeon X5570, quad-core “Nehalem” architecture
2 x NVIDIA Tesla “Fermi” M2050 GPUs
64-bit platform
USD$2.10 per hour

And...

Up to 8 instances

The stats I got (per instance):

8 CPU threads x 3200 khs^-1 = 25.6 Mhs^-1
2 GPU CUDA threads x 90 Mhs^-1 = 180 Mhs^-1
64-bit binaries

With 8 instances...

$2.10 hour^-1 x 8 instances = $403.20 day^-1

The stats that matter:

25.6 Mhs^-1 + 180 Mhs^-1 = 205.6 Mhs^-1 x 8 instances
1.64 Ghs^-1 @ $403.20 day^-1
1.64 Ghs^-1 now= 1 block every ~3.4 days
1 block = 50 BTC @ USD$3.47 = $173.50 / 3.4 days = $51 day^-1

Permit me a LOL

AWS Linux 64 bit Binaries

The experiment did yield spoils, however: in the form of 64bit Linux binaries.

I'm making the binaries available for sale. Email admin@metonymous.com to arrange their purchase. Upon receiving your payment you will receive the two binaries, and the opencl cubinary. The source code is availble upon request to paying clients.

NOTE: These are built against the Amazon 64 Bit Linux AMI's, so YMMV.

CUDA RPC Miner & CUDA 2.0 CUBinary for 20 BTC
CPU Miner Demon with 64bit SSE2 support for 5 BTC

I also built binaries for running your own pool; but they are horribly inefficient, and not worth using.

CPU Remote Miner Client
CUDA Remote Miner Client

What About CPU Farming?

The fastest CPU rig has less than (or equal to) the CPU power of the GPU cluster, but at 0.70USD so you can get three of them for the price of the GPU rig. Which max'd out give 25Mhs^-1 each, giving 75Mhs^-1 for the same price of the GPU cluster, which yields almost 3x as many hashes.

If they swapped out the Nvidia's for AMD/ATIs it'd not cost them any more, yet would make it very worthwhile, and would likely change the state of bitcoin slightly (would Amazon target bitcoin miners? upon request? who knows!)

So no, I don't think the CPU rigs could be faster (none of the smaller rigs have GPUs, maybe if they offered a 'micro' with the Tesla, but I very much doubt they would). I ran a CPU rig for a few hours and just quit it. No point.

What about the tiny instances? Hundreds of tiny instances running their little CPUs? No idea. Anyone (with spare cash) up for the challenge? I'll do it for BTC 1CWc9rkmprfwrF6fkjPRnrohxugvUwSRSg

So unless you have spare cash now and expect the value of a bitcoin to more than double before you want to cash out, buy an ATI/AMD 8XXX; and even then... But maybe that's what you want to do? Who am I to judge! I'm someone who just got their Amazon AWS Bill. I'm not begging; 'cos I think the information is easily worth that much - but if you somewhat agree, donation link in the dooblydoo.

Oh, and I also charted up the costs/benefit of spot pricing across the Amazon range. Just to be sure GPU instances were superior. BTW, sorry it's an image; couldn't find a nicer way to export Google Spreadsheets.

Cost vs. Benefit

Yep; GPU FTW.

I can't say I didn't expect financial loss with this experiment; but If I've saved you any time or effort with this post, donations are most welcome. If I never have to see a makefile again it will be too soon.

Want to see more Bitcoin related experimental research?
Donate Bitcoin to 162Dw2KSJpAJrpVQ5Ert5427GMpnsSLPmb

Permalink | Leave a comment »

Taming Facebook

Wed, 27 Apr 2011 12:42:00 -0700

Facebook Privacy via Friend List Mastery

Most of us live in a world where not having a Facebook account can have negative social reprocussions. Many of us, also, see signing online to chat akin to stabbling themselves in the eye with a soldering eye. Twice.

Facebook has gone to great efforts to reduce spam and unwanted notifications, but they (in my opinion) have mostly left friend management hidden beneath scary configuration screens. I hope to alleviate this somewhat.

Privacy

To talk about controlling your data on Facebook, we need to first learn about friend lists. Once we define a set of lists for our associates, we can assign lists various permissions. So onto lists.

Friend Lists

Friend lists are a way of grouping your friends. By default Facebook gives you one list, "Limited Profile", you probably have seen this list whenever you add a new friend, in that you can opt to add people to it.

See the full gallery on Posterous

Limited profile is somewhat special, in that it doesn't appear in chat (at all), and has a set of permissions already attributed to it. Don't be fooled though, unless you've gone through all your privacy settings by hand, even "Limited Profile" may not be as limited as you would like.

Taking Control

Isn't Limited Profile and everyone else enough? Well, perhaps for you it is. What do lists give you? I'll use MSN as a metaphor. Lists give you control of your online status, as well as privacy all over Facebook.

Appearing Offline

Lists are the closest thing you can get to Appearing Offline, only in a much less socially manipulable way. If you appear offline to someone, they appear offline to you. No exceptions. No online "pouncing" or any such MSN tomfoolery.

To toggle whether the occupants of a list see you online or not, simply click the button up the top right of that list. This is the offline/online button.

Block (but Remain Friends)

You can also appear permanently offline to a list, and remove them from your chat interface altogether. Click the text "Friend Lists" up the top left of the chat bar, and you'll see all your friend lists.

Simply click on a list to hide or show it from your chat list. This is the extent to which you can "Keep Up Appearances", as the formal blocking mechanism is really quite cut-throat (and as it should be).

Whitelist

Whitelisting refers to the at of blocking by default, and having a special list, a "white list", and only they are allowed to see you (the opposite is blacklisting, i.e. "blocking"). Create lists for groups of people (say, your group assignment or class members, or colleagues, or family) and appear offline to "Other Friends", the bottom group in your chat box.

Now, whenever you want to appear online to just certain people, you just toggle that group online. Create as many groups as you need, but chances are you won't need many.

Privacy Take II

Using these lists, or new ones, or even a custom selection for every piece of information you have on Facebook. You should now visit your privacy settings page. If you've never been here before, and even if you have, I recommend you click the customise settings link, and have a look at who can see what of your information.

See the full gallery on Posterous

I recommend putting some time aside, and checking every single setting on the list. Even if you don't change anything, I suggest that knowing what you can change will come in handy in the future. Sick of being tagged in photos without you knowing? Change that setting. Want all your photo albums to default to just one list of friends? You can do that too.

Albums & Photos

Whenever you create an album or upload a photo, Facebook allows you to select the specific privacy of that item. Hopefully you're already familiar with this feature, and now that you've got premade lists it should be easier to manage.

See the full gallery on Posterous

Facebook also has the ability to bulk edit album privacy settings, this is very useful if you're only just starting to use lists. The option is hidden away in the privacy settings. Click Customise Settings, then Edit Privacy Settings for existing photo albums and videos.

Just Some People

Selecting just some people per item, at first, can appear impossible. But it's not, it's just awkward to find. Firstly, select "Customise" from the list of permissions. Then, select "Speific People", and add the people just for that resource (or permission).

Think of this as a one time Whitelist. If you find yourself repeating the same people over and over, consider making it into a formal list.

Split Identity

Lastly, people can belong to multiple lists, but as soon as they are added to one, they are removed from the "Other Friends" list. People will appear online if at least one of the lists they are on is online (regardless of how many offline lists the are in).

"Why Am I Online?"

Appearing online when you didn't want to be is downright annoying. And sometimes Facebook seems to "forget" that you were last offline, and log you into chat. Or perhaps you accidently clicked it and are now regretting that click.

You can prevent this, by getting into the habit of logging off all lists whilst online. Make a habit of doing this, and then regardless of whether or not you remember to go offline, or accidently click it, or Facebook randomly forgets, you'll still be offline to everyone.

Enjoy your newfound privacy, and I hope I've helped you make chat useful again.

Facebook is a glorified phone book. I encourage you to simply treat it as such.

TL;DR

If nothing else, read the two paragraphs titled "Privacy Take II", if nothing else, you stand to benefit most (long term) by controlling your privacy. If you already feel in control, be sure to spread the word.

Permalink | Leave a comment »

Red vs Blue

Thu, 21 Apr 2011 12:08:00 -0700

This is your last chance. After this, there is no going back.

You take the blue pill and the story ends. You wake in your bed and you believe whatever you want to believe.

You take the red pill and you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes.

Remember that all I am offering is the truth. Nothing more.

Permalink | Leave a comment »

How To Help WikiLeaks: Distributing CableGate

Wed, 13 Apr 2011 09:58:00 -0700

Update Server no longer online, code available on request

Just wanna help now? Jump to the TLDR!

Leaking cables. Making news. Changing governments.

This is a tale of free software, free speech & the power of the internet.

This post exists to empower YOU to help WikiLeaks.

"I wanna be involved! I wanna show my support! I wanna help!"

Wanna help distribute the latest leaks?

Hash Magnets

Are you Sarah Conner? *BAM*

Are you Sarah Conner? *SKEWER*

When it comes to finding something (or someone) just having a name isn't very effective. Why? Let us forge the search warrant of an old friend; "Untitled.txt"

WANTED

Untitled.txt

for the crimes of
storing secrets;
caching credit cards;
radical thoughts &
plots involving consipracy.

Last seen in "New Folder (4)"
May act lost, or seem in the wrong place.
Known to frequent trashcans and recycle bins.
Born without a name and possibly neglected since birth.
Has trust issues, feels unloved.
Known association with "New Text Document.txt"
Involved in conflicts around Line Feed and Carriage Return.

So What Do I do?!

Looking for something specific? What makes it unique, what makes it different, what separates it from the others. What does it have that others don't? What does it lack that others have?

But I want an exact match! You're gonna need ID, or some identifying marks. You get your thing and you mark it. You tag your items. And you search for the tag.

DNA, fingerprints, engravings, ultraviolet ink; All ways of tagging things.

But WikiLeaks cables aren't physical things; they're information. So what do we do? How do you uniquely identify them?

magnet:?xt=urn:btih:5PVR66WTV6ZDRMUO256SFRCB2HUMOAQB

We create a fingerprint from the information. And just like human fingerprints, we can search by them. Every time they add new cables to the file, its fingerprint changes. All you need to do is publicise the fingerprint and ensure the file is findable. You don't need to host the file yourself, you just host the fingerprint, and rely on the denizons of the internet to store the file.

The wikileaks cable file changes regularly, and keeping up to date with it is a royal pain. So there was created an RSS feed, which is kept up to date with all of the fingerprints. But it's no ordinary feed, the fingerprints - or "hashes" - instruct a BitTorrent download. So we need a bittorrent client, that supports RSS feeds.

TL;DR

I humbly offer a way you can help that is automatic, free, and barely uses any resourses.

1) Install uTorrent. It's a small, fast, reliable & free BitTorrent client.
Mac OS X? Download the Beta, the Stable doesn't support feeds

2) Click the Add Feed button

Update Server offline, code available on request

3) Enter https://174.143.174.85:31337/magnets.xml for Feed URL
MAC OS X? Use http://174.143.174.85:1337/magnets.xml instead
4) And a nice name like 'WikiLeaks Cables'

4) Click SAVE
5) Download those cables

6) Profit. Here's one I prepared earlier.

Permalink | Leave a comment »

HTML? Curious?

Tue, 22 Mar 2011 20:24:00 -0700

Want to tinker with websites but don't know where to start?
Right click then "View Page Source" give you seizures?
Teachers presume you've a PhD in TLAs?
Not to mention the cookies!

Well search no more!

I present,

the Absolute Beginner's Introduction to HTML (with handholding)

I hope it whets your appetite for general hacking and coding endeavers.
After all, these are the languages of the future! And I for one welcome our silicon based overlords ;)

Permalink | Leave a comment »

How to Make A Girl; Colourblind.

Sat, 12 Mar 2011 19:41:00 -0800

NB: Not all colourblindness is genetic, and not all colourblindness is sex linked recessive. This post concerns the types which are (handy reference article).

WARNING! SCIENCE CONTENT!

The gene responsible for colourblindness is sex linked recessive, on the X chromosome. What that means, is that if it’s the only X present (as in XY males) the defect becomes active, but if you have two X chromosomes (as in XX females), the deficiency has to be on both to be active; if it’s only on one, the non-deficient genes take precedence.

So how do come about colourblind females? There are a few ways, but the most common is a female with both a colourblind father and a colourblind mate, which I’ll explain through thusly.

Take a female with a colourblind father. He has sex chromosomes XY; and the X being deficient renders him colourblind. This female, having two X chromosomes (“XX”), obtained one from each of her parents. Her father’s X being his sole deficient one, and either of her mother’s healthy Xs. As the defective gene is recessive, the mothers working genetic code takes dominance over the fathers defective genes, and this girl would exhibit normal colour vision.

Now lets say this girl was to mate with a colourblind male (XY, with colour deficient X). Her “XY” male children will receive their fathers “Y” chromosome, and an “X” from the mother. His “X” has a 50% chance of being defective (from the mother’s father: the boy’s colourblind grandfather), and a 50% chance of being healthy (from the mother’s mother: the boy’s normal visioned grandmother). Her male children, therefor, have a 50% chance of normal vision. Even with both parents carrying the defective gene he only has a 50% chance of being colourblind!

If, however, we were to suppost this girl had a female child. This XX female would receive the father’s deficient X chromosome, and (like the male XY child) receive one of her mother’s XXs at random. Resulting in a 50% chance of getting defective Xs from both her mother and her father. This means a female child has exactly the same chance - 1 in 2, 50:50 - of being colourblind as her brothers; as her XY chromosomal siblings.

So when this mother gives birth, there’s a 50% chance the child is colourblind, and a 50% chance that child is XX female. A 1 in 4 chance of making a girl; colourblind.

But what if we want to be certain the female children are colourblind (and all the male children too). To achieve this we require a colourblind female child from the previous scenario: with her two deficient X chromosomes. We then pair this colour deficient girl with yet another colourblind male. Their offspring, given all the possible donor “X” chromosomes are deficient, will all be colourblind; every single boy and girl.

So how many people are colourblind then? Given it’s seeming propensity to pass itself down generations. Well, I’ll leave that to Wikipedia. But needless to say, it runs in families; and when you find one, you can almost be certain there are more in the area!

So that’s it, how one gets colourblind. If you’re curious as to what colourblindness is, or what type of colourblindness you are; check out my earlier post on those very subjects.

Thanks for reading; helping the spread of the truth about colourblindness.

Extra reading for studious types
There is, as there is always, much more to the story. For those of you interested, is that it’s not actually 100% certain those final children are colourblind. Have you wondered why I’ve been saying “XX females” and “XY males”? It’s because not everyone’s born with only two sex chromosomes. Some are “XXY”, others “XXX”. Some, even, are “XYY”. But it doesn’t stop there, some people are “XXXY”, others “XXYY”, “XXXYY”, “XXXXY” and even “XXXXX”. Some have “XXY” in some of their cells, and “XY” in the rest. Each variation of X’s and Y’s has it’s a “syndrome” which is typical of those with those genes. There even exists those with a solitary “X”. Most of these variations have a reduced IQ, as compared with their XX and XY siblings, yet some are on par.

Colourblind genes resulting in better vision? The jury is out on this one, but there’s a lot of talk that some humans could be tetrachromats; that is, they would have four different colour receptor cells in the eye, whereas a typical human has only three. Curiouser and curiouser.

Permalink | Leave a comment »

How to Make A Girl; Colourblind.

Sat, 12 Mar 2011 19:41:00 -0800

NB: Not all colourblindness is genetic, and not all colourblindness is sex linked recessive. This post concerns the types which are (handy reference article).

WARNING! SCIENCE CONTENT!

The gene responsible for colourblindness is sex linked recessive, on the X chromosome. What that means, is that if it's the only X present (as in XY males) the defect becomes active, but if you have two X chromosomes (as in XX females), the deficiency has to be on both to be active; if it's only on one, the non-deficient genes take precedence.

So how do come about colourblind females? There are a few ways, but the most common is a female with both a colourblind father and a colourblind mate, which I'll explain through thusly.

Take a female with a colourblind father. He has sex chromosomes XY; and the X being deficient renders him colourblind. This female, having two X chromosomes ("XX"), obtained one from each of her parents. Her father's X being his sole deficient one, and either of her mother's healthy Xs. As the defective gene is recessive, the mothers working genetic code takes dominance over the fathers defective genes, and this girl would exhibit normal colour vision.

Now lets say this girl was to mate with a colourblind male (XY, with colour deficient X). Her "XY" male children will receive their fathers "Y" chromosome, and an "X" from the mother. His "X" has a 50% chance of being defective (from the mother's father: the boy's colourblind grandfather), and a 50% chance of being healthy (from the mother's mother: the boy's normal visioned grandmother). Her male children, therefor, have a 50% chance of normal vision. Even with both parents carrying the defective gene he only has a 50% chance of being colourblind!

If, however, we were to suppost this girl had a female child. This XX female would receive the father's deficient X chromosome, and (like the male XY child) receive one of her mother's XXs at random. Resulting in a 50% chance of getting defective Xs from both her mother and her father. This means a female child has exactly the same chance - 1 in 2, 50:50 - of being colourblind as her brothers; as her XY chromosomal siblings.

So when this mother gives birth, there's a 50% chance the child is colourblind, and a 50% chance that child is XX female. A 1 in 4 chance of making a girl; colourblind.

But what if we want to be certain the female children are colourblind (and all the male children too). To achieve this we require a colourblind female child from the previous scenario: with her two deficient X chromosomes. We then pair this colour deficient girl with yet another colourblind male. Their offspring, given all the possible donor "X" chromosomes are deficient, will all be colourblind; every single boy and girl.

So how many people are colourblind then? Given it's seeming propensity to pass itself down generations. Well, I'll leave that to Wikipedia. But needless to say, it runs in families; and when you find one, you can almost be certain there are more in the area!

So that's it, how one gets colourblind. If you're curious as to what colourblindness is, or what type of colourblindness you are; check out my earlier post on those very subjects.

Thanks for reading; helping the spread of the truth about colourblindness.

Extra reading for studious types

There is, as there is always, much more to the story. For those of you interested, is that it's not actually 100% certain those final children are colourblind. Have you wondered why I've been saying "XX females" and "XY males"? It's because not everyone's born with only two sex chromosomes. Some are "XXY", others "XXX". Some, even, are "XYY". But it doesn't stop there, some people are "XXXY", others "XXYY", "XXXYY", "XXXXY" and even "XXXXX". Some have "XXY" in some of their cells, and "XY" in the rest. Each variation of X's and Y's has it's a "syndrome" which is typical of those with those genes. There even exists those with a solitary "X". Most of these variations have a reduced IQ, as compared with their XX and XY siblings, yet some are on par.

Colourblind genes resulting in better vision? The jury is out on this one, but there's a lot of talk that some humans could be tetrachromats; that is, they would have four different colour receptor cells in the eye, whereas a typical human has only three. Curiouser and curiouser.

Permalink | Leave a comment »

It's less 3D than you think...

Tue, 28 Sep 2010 14:57:00 -0700

How much of what you see as 3D requires two eyes?

Photo by D Sharon Pruitt

Try this experiment.

Face your monitor.
For the remainder of this experiment do not move your head.
Close your left eye.
Point your left finger at leftmost object you can see and leave it pointing there.
Open your left eye.
Close your right eye.
Point your right finger at the rightmost object you can see and leave it there.
Open your right eye.

Now don't move your head. You can, however, move your eyes as much as you like.

Only the area between your fingers can use stereopsis (stereoscopic based depth cues). The rest of your field of view relies entirely on monocular cues (of which there are about 11).

In short, people with only one eye do perceive depth - literally - their brains just rely more on the other cues.

Unconvinced? Cue 'parallax'.

By Jushua Heineman via TechFresh

Permalink | Leave a comment »

A Medium for Expression

Mon, 06 Sep 2010 08:57:00 -0700

Warning! Long Rambly Blog Entry :)

I never learnt the proper usage of the term media. Medium. Media. Although I figure now it probably doesn’t matter so much. It’s more about accepted usage and “did they know what you meant”.

Sometimes there’s enough context that people’s brains will automatically finish it off anyway even if the other person doesn’t actually decide to put the last word on this

sentence.

Here’s an interesting problem I’ve encountered most of my life.

I’ll attempt to write it how it occurs.

Other Person: Oh, this is so good, it reminds of …

See, it doesn’t work. What I need to be able to convey is that while someone is talking, you are constantly preempting what they are going to say. We need to do this because communication is hard! The world is noisy, language is ambiguous, peoples voices are different, people use different words. We’re all interpreting our brains thoughts to each other.

Ok, here’s a thought I keep thinking recently. “Are you merely reciting that, or is that what you actually *think*?”

Whenever i meet people I do so with the hope that they have the expectation of someone who is somehow completely different every time they meet them. Yet someone strangely familiar.

Why have a thought twice unless you enjoy having that thought? (completely out of context and misquote of David Allen, of “Getting Things Done” fame)

I struggle with the discipline required to get things done. The rigour. The perseverance when there is *no observable change*. Maybe that’s it also. I notice that I blinded myself to change sometimes, I go about some things so autonomously that at some levels even change has become subconscious.

But who’s in charge anyway. “Thought”? “Emotion”? The 100 trillion strong “Cell Army”? My central nervous system?

Here’s a current thought, that needs pushing along. So I’ll get it out.

Born with drives. “DRIVS” as previous friends have affectionately miscalled them :)

Establish relationships with those systems able to satisfy our internal drives.

Internal drives exhibited as overwhelming “feelings”, senses of “urgency”. Things needing to be “righted”. Whoops I’m leaning to far left, better straighten up. So to speak. Or bladder full, go pee.

I’ve been wanting to make a documentary about humans. But I’m not sure I’d be best set to make it. So I should get the money and FUND a documentary on the human species. Overarching. Narrated by the amazing David Attenborough? There are few who could do it justice, but it’d seem that “The Life Collection” team would be best suited, if anyone.

I wonder how much it’d cost to fund a project like that. Not on the history of humans. Not on the future of humans (so much, although one would speculate, as is usually done in documentaries). But on the now of humans.

It’d seem fitting that such a documentary may even be directed by artificial intelligence. What are most fascinating aspects of the human species to other species?

Ok. Here’s another thought I need help with. I grok pitch, pitch in communication. Pitch as “intensity” of communication (for example high could mean quicker, lower slower, or anything, but it gives a scale). I grok change in pitch. Melody. Intervals. Rising versus falling. All as communicative systems. A “descending” in pitch seems to be associated with friendliness, humility, and baring oneself; slowing down, cooling down, or moving on. Maintaining pitch is biding time, or pondering, cyclical wavering or repeating melodic loops with small pitch variation (suspense violins anyone?). And ascending seem to be more agressive, “crescendo”, building up.

High frequency, high energy. Low frequency, low energy. Alllll nice. Then the deltas. (flux, “change in frequency”). Lose energy (or give energy), create energy (or take energy).

So I feel I grok all thatness. Rhythm. Meter. Tempo. Another controlling factor. Would have started both as “gaps” in pitch, and as “hits” in rhythm. Both achieving similar goals? Walking has a rhythm. As does breathing. Pulse. (cue Cat from Red Dwarf, who’s cardiovascular monitor sounds more like contemporary jazz, than just a machine that goes “PING” [but GOSH do I love that machine that goes PING]).

Tempo is the time thing. Temporal. Of or relating to time. It sets the *pace* of the activity, as well as the duration.

Short note, be quick! Long note slowwwww down. (yay playschool) and when the music stops? hehe… I never did wonder how the music *player* person managed to have imunity to music stopping freezing powers. Maybe it’s something to with that “barly” kids speak so fondly of. Where’s “barly” for grown ups. Bali? *ough* that pun made my brain hurt… were we saying Bali as kids? Hehe… no idea. Fun to rant though eh. And why was whatever was barly always made out of wood. Well… not always, but more often than not. I wonder if that’s still the case. Actually… I remember it changing. Yep. Water taps. Best barly ever. Cos if it’s NOT barly, then it just turns into a water fight :P :D

So back to sound, music, and communication.

The speed you *move* —-

—- ok, so I changed editors just now. From the browser based tumblr interface to the standalone writeroom app.

I really like this app. I just have to set it up to be the way I prefer? Or maybe I don’t know what I want?

One thing I *do* know is that even if the UI of tumblr is designed in a more “creative juices” flowing way (which I don’t think, but it could be) than the spartan blank slate of WriteRoom (possible, dunno, who cares) that I’d prefer to know that I’m not accidently going to lose all my writing just because of a stupid browser crash, or command+q, or anysuch stupidity.

Anyway. Back to music.

Tempo. Time. Velocity. Displacement over time. You *were* here, and now you are *here*. And you took *this* long. Applied to music as communication. Time between repeated notes could literally signify distance traveled, or the pace which one desires an activity (walking, running, mating, gathering, flirting, grooming) to occur.

We enjoy and sync tempos with others. With derive great pleasure from being on another persons ‘tempo’, or a ‘tempo’ which lines up with anothers.

And that actually is a really nice segue into what I have been wanting to think about further. Although now with two applications (rhythm and melody).

Harmony (when in melody), and complex time (in rhythm).

Demonstrations of how 5 beats can go against 4 in the same time, and not only be done fluently and rhythmically, but with very fast appeal and “swinging” characteristics of more simpler tempos.

But in rhythm was not my original thought (although it’s also fascinating, and I’ll further that one later).

My thought is with harmony. On why we have harmony. I’m rapidly coming up with theories, but it doesn’t seem to be a question asked very often, “why harmonies?”.

Can we suppose that there was EVER a time in our evolutionary past when being able to maintain “harmonious” communications served useful?

The obvious answer that glares in my face is in culture, tradition, music, and dance. That african peoples (whom I sadly can’t recal) whom I watched the documentary on who had a style of singing similar to yodelling, allowing a hoarse form of multiphonics, but which was fascinating to behold.

Singing in unison is harder to make sound “appealing” than singing in harmony (presuming one *can* sing in harmony). That is, the expectation of the average ear is that two voices on the same note should be either different enough as to not conflict (eg. male + female) or similar enough AND skilled enough to not produce any audible “beating”.

The “beating” is interesting…

When singing in harmony, although the singers skills are still put to the test, it is a very different set of skills, it is less about “absolute perfection” (i.e. wherein unison 440hz needs to be 440hz) and more about relative frequency. Extra leeway is granted to the actual timbre of the singers voice, and a faithful harmonious reproduction of an old favourite can being a tear to an afficionado’s eye where the same tear may well have been out of dissonance if in unison :(

It *seems* that the way my brain is “honed” is to think in terms of western musical history - “WHERE DID WE GET HARMONY FROM”, “WHO INVENTED COUNTERPOINT” etc… and yes, all of this is massively and stupendously important and interesting too.

But the west didn’t create harmony alone. Nor did they do it first.

I’m going to grab a random line from wikipedia “Measurements of frequencies in good performances confirm that the size of the major third varies across this range and can even lie outside it without sounding out of tune” (and no, I didn’t look for the “measurements” source. Fine. I will. Grrr).

Well, I didn’t find the measurements. But I did learn a little bit about Music History. And I read a Frank Zappa quote.

Today’s post goes out to Craig “Wheezy Waiter”.

Grr… so once again I end up at the thought. Why harmonies.

Okay. Reason numero 9. There is more “acceptableness” to the ear in harmony, a large “margin for error” frequency wise.

Lets theorise.

But first I’m adding a new word to my vocabulary.

“Consonance”

As in, the opposite of dissonance. It’s when something is “pleasing” to the ear. So that’d be a better way to rephrase my evolutionary philosophical argument:

“Why do we find harmonies consonant?”

I need to learn how to better quote people but you gotta start somewhere. I’ve been significantly influenced recently by the Ted talks by one Dan Dennet, in one of which he goes on to say (rough misquote, not word for word, I’m not learned in quoting yet! )

“We find sweet food sweet because we’re wired to like sugar. We find “sexy” girls sexy because we’re wired to want sex [to do with] Hyperstimulus [these objects are] Super normal stimulus.”

He then goes on to say that his students are actively working on the same theory to explain humour and why we find things funny. As he put it “the brain’s reward for debugging”. With comedians being “miners” for those chords? Anyway… I’ll leave that to his students.

Anyway. Harmonies.

Why do we find harmonies thrilling, tantalising, engaging. What primal mechanism is it tapping into?

Or is it learned? Did music and harmony through music evolve alongside…

There would be definite advantages during battles and such, where volume is of concern (for example) to be able to add as many independant voices with still having control of the overall volume, whilst still being able to pick out each voice distinctly.

Permalink | Leave a comment »

Attribution & Responsibility

Tue, 31 Aug 2010 20:42:00 -0700

Thought stimulated by Dan Dennet’s On Dangerous Memes (skip to 6minutes in)

Here’s a thought I’m working on :P (it’s a work in progress… like all of mine are :P)

If you directly quote someone, and attribute it to them, the words are someone else’s and you’re just the messenger.

All other of your words and opinions are tools of your own mind, said with specific emotional and rational intent - overt and covert; be prepared to stand by them and discuss them… or it seems that regardless of the statement, the speaker can earn no respect.

And worse still, if your original intent was somehow to convince or help then, what if they detect or feel any hint of spite or callousness in your statement?

Just a thought.

Permalink | Leave a comment »

Bring on the Hoon plates!

Sat, 20 Feb 2010 12:28:00 -0800

Back when there was the Hoon plate hoo-hah (ACA, Geelong Advertiser, etc.), I actually owned a car that (visually at least) qualified for hoonisms.

But now, I drive something far more awesome.

Less words, more pics.

If you look closely you can see the lines I cut. I made the mistake of presuming that the middle line of the "P" was middle vertically. It wasn't, so I had to do some fancy cutting.

Want to make your own? Here's the cutting diagram. (You cut both P's the same; I didn't, but you can).

Permalink | Leave a comment »

The Scale of Complexity

Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:05:00 -0800

An Entertaining Idea - The Scale of Complexity and the Value of Progress

I was asked, in jest, if the internet was becoming Skynet. I responded (innocently), "it already is; it's basically sentient". Little did I realise the can of worms I had opened.

So I have an idea for you to entertain.

Firstly, are you willing to entertain an idea for fun? If not, try to work out the expression, "to argue semantics"; It's harder than you think!

Now to the entertaining idea of scale of complexity. The complexity of what? Well, in general I'm referring to any system at all; both those which actually exist (reality) and those merely conceived to exist (hypotheticals).

In a system, is not simplicity desired? Well yes, obviously, simplicity is the universal goal. But take simplicity to its logical extreme: what's the simplest thing possible? I'd wager "nothing". Non existence. Things which are not. Anything which does not exist, could not exist, and could never exist. These things have a complexity of zero. This things have no complexity.

Nothings are hypothetical systems with zero complexity. Zero complexity entities (if you can still call them entities), are the leftmost point on this scale, so the scale starts at '0'.

|---------------------------------->

Is there negative complexity? I'm not sure how to entertain this thought, but feel free to try for yourself!

It would seem logical to me, however, that complexity never actually reaches zero. For hypothetical non existant systems, by their very nature, don't exist. A sort of asymtote, if you will. Nothing doesn't exist, as it's name suggests, yet not only does it not exist, it isn't possible for it to ever exist. You can't get something out of nothing, and even if you could, it would then cease to be nothing, it would cease to be a zero complexity system. Something is at least some thing. It is the very essence of it.

Nothings. They are the unthinkables. They are the unfathomables.

So our would not include the start point. In 'range' notation, you use an open dot to indicate that point is not part of the data set.

O--------------------->

nb: Melissa gives good feedback.

T1: How many systems exist with zero complexity?

T2: None

T1: What about nothing? Doesn't that have no complexity?

T2: Yeah, I guess it does.

T1: Then is not there at least *one* system with zero complexity? "Nothing"

T2: I guess...

Let's make a list of all systems with zero complexity.

Let's say an empty list looks like this "[]", with a non-empty list looking like this "[1,2,3,4,5]"

WARNING: Semantic Content: You may have heard of maths geeks referring to "sets", what most people think of as "lists" are usually "sets". A 'set' is an 'unordered list', whereas a normal "list" is usually "ordered", that is, the order of the items in the list matters.

So, now take our set of zero complexity systems:

[]

And lets put all possible zero empty systems in it. We'll start with the system of "nothingness".

What is the complexity of nothingness? Zero. It has zero complexity, "there is nothing to it". It, in fact, *is* nothing. So, we'll add it to the set.

["nothingness"]

This still doesn't sit well with me, however. Does "nothing" really qualify as a system? What's a system?

I think a system is an entity which can be defined as a whole, but which is in itself also comprised of other entities (which may in turn, be systems, or just atomic entities).

So, by this definition, nothing is *not* a system. It isn't a collection of anything, it's not even a collection at all. It's the lack of things, the lack of collections, the lack of systems. So... we've managed to define a few things so far. Let's state them a little more formally.

Things: Anything which can be defined (so, technically, "thing" is itself a "thing").

Nothings: The absence of things, what exists when no other things exist.

Set: A list of things, possibly empty

Is "Nothing" a Thing? It seems useless. Is there ever a use for nothing? It feels like as soon as you check for something, it ceases being a nothing, and becomes a thing, "even if you don't find what you expected".

What's outside? "Nothing". Is that ever true?

What's going on outside? "Nothing unusual". That's more like it.

What's outside the universe? "We don't know". Unknown.

There we go. Something that is actually useful. "Unknowns", and their counterpart, "Knowns".

So, for now, lets kick out Nothing into the realm of non-existence.

Rejected Systems = Nothing

"Nothing" is a known, we know about it, but it is not useful (yet). Nothing does not exist. Things can exist. Nothing can not exist.

Out of nothings land into the land of things, or at least somethings. The systems with some (non zero) complexity.

Ultimately, there should be 'literally-atomic' entities, from which all systems are comprised. By my best current understanding, these are somewhere about "elementary-particles". Seems to be lots of thinking still going in this direction. I'm going to defer this discussion into a later post. Now, back to system complexity!

Lets now place something simple on the scale. Say, an electron. A relatively simple system.

electron

O-----|---------------------------------------->

It's not *at* zero. But it's close. Especially on the scale we're to be working on.

Now lets place rocks on the scale. Considerably more complex than a single electron, how many orders of magnitudes do you think? Methinks this scale may be logarithmic (youtube powers of 10, you'll not regret it).

electron rock grasshopper mouse dog chimpanzee human

O--|-------|--------|-------|----|------|-------|----->

Humans seem to be the most adept species on our planet at entertaining ideas. Creating 'concepts' in their mind. Playing those concepts through, comparing these concepts to reality and each other, and executing action based on the best perceived outcome. Humans are also able to conceptualise the idea of a concept. It is this 'meta meta' higher level analysis which seems to be unique (to our knowledge) to humans (did you know that technically we are classified as homo sapien sapien? Ever wondered what sapien means? Well know you have!).

If we zoom in on the human portion of the scale it becomes more controversial. People seem comfortable comparing complexities of systems between animals and humans, but why not between one human and another? Obviously, there are different facets of complexity... But the most complex organ in our system seems to be the brain, so lets presume its complexity is orders of magnitudes greater than say, a heart or muscle, so that its complexity greatly outweighs any complexity of the 'lesser' organs. Lets just entertain it for a second.

Village Idiot Average Joe Albert Einstein

<--------------|-------------|---------------|-------------->

The relative complexity higher order living system ability to conceive more complex systems. Abstraction.

As far as the human population goes, it's probably be a normal distribution around Joe. This type of thinking is powerful, but dangerous. People often take offence at this point. If you ever find yourself face to face with someone who looks like they'd rather you died than suggest not all humans were created equal, simply restate that you never suggested that rocks were better than electrons, just that they are more complex. Let them put 2 and 2 together for that one. If they still want to kill you, I suggest talking about the weather. Or maybe compliment the clothes they are wearing.

So, as humans are quite complex. No doubt. So lets zoom out again. What's more complex than humans?

humans ???

<--------|--------------|-------->

I'd hazard a suggestion that the Earth is more complex than humans (it does contain us to some degree, after all), maybe even some of the more complex plants are?. A galaxy is certainly more complex than a human. So lets chuck them on the scale.

electron rock mouse human earth galaxy

O----|--------|--------|---------|----------|--------|------>

What is the complexity of the universe that we inhabit? Infinite? I'm not sure... Are there parallel universes? I'm not sure yet. Humans definitely have the capability to conceive parallel universes, just like they do gods and aliens. So maybe they do exist. But I don't think it makes sense for a parallel universe to be either less or more complex than ours. In what does our universe exist? A metaverse? A multiverse? I think that's a discussion for another day! For now, we'll end our scale at my proposed metaverse (a universe of universes). Remind me to discuss time and space sometime. Maybe I should read up about them first, instead of trying to work everything out myself.

electron rock human earth galaxy universe metaverse

O----|--------|--------|--------|--------|-----------|-----------|------>

Science is exploring both ends of this scale, both approaching zero complexity (Large Hadron Collider), and approaching infinite complexity (Hubble Deep Field).

I was in a discussion with my brother, when he started to argue with my referring to the internet as being sentient. Sure, maybe, in some definitions of the word isn't. But it some definitions of the word it very much is. I'm not suggesting it is 'alive' in the way we think about it. But I'm talking about life as a set of behaviours.

I think of society as an entity. A massively complex entity. I would put it higher on the scale than humans. I consider my SIM card to be a system, to be an entity, with its own little processor able to protect the data inside, and even call home if it needs to and is in the right environment. A SIM is certainly more complex than an electron. And I'd suggest more complex than a rock. And the internet is certainly more complex than a SIM card (did you know the internet is self healing? and that it was designed to be so?). The internet is taking a life of its own.

One interesting thing to note now, is where do you put what we refer to as life on this scale? Where does it start? Are we the highest form of life on the scale of complex living?

Happiness is simple, btw, simplicity is happiness. Ever seen a sad rock? Just be like a rock and you'll be happy. But is there more to life than just being happy? I think there is. I think ultimate meaning of life itself can never be known, but that living a fulfilled life means looking for answers to the questions you have. And once you get these interim answers, you realise how many more questions there are to ask.

What is a good life? I think a good life is a fulfilled life. Doing good. What is doing good? I think it is doing well for humanity. Furthermore, maybe it is doing well for life in general. Life's purpose seems to be self preservation; evolution and adaptation being the tool for its survival.

Lets attempt to plot life on the graph. When did non living matter become living matter? How did it happen? A tangent for another day.

I think I'll have to work out the value of progress another day. I see value in considering the Earth to be alive. To be living. It certainly seems to fit most definitions of living. Does it have free will? Whatever that is. Perceived free will. Thinking about freewill seems to be like contemplating whether or not we're just a brain in a vat. Smarter men have thought down those paths, and have left many a sign which read "Wrong way, go back!", at varying degrees of intensity as you get further from the point. :)

Permalink | Leave a comment »

He who speaks _ speaks

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 23:23:00 -0800

Multiple choice, select the most correct answer.

We hear what sounds:

first
loudest
last

Permalink | Leave a comment »

The Tough Answers

Mon, 09 Nov 2009 22:48:00 -0800

I remember when I did physics, I felt like I actually knew everything in it.

And I remember there being one question on the exam that I didn’t know the answer to.

And I remember that when I left the exam all the *smarter* students were complaining that we weren’t taught that question.

And that we were told that the score for that question was being removed from the exam.

And i remember us discussing what would have happened if you’d actually got it right, would you have felt jipped.

But we didn’t know anyone who got it right.

And last night, i was trying to teach myself sound (the question on the exam was on sound).

And realised that the question they asked is one of those questions that is REALLY REALLY tricky to answer.

Even for the most advanced researchers.

It makes me think that maybe they put one question on VCE exams, if they can sneak it in, which they don’t know the answer too yet.

To see how students come up with an answer for it.

And to see if they can help the people in charge work out the answer.

Just a theory.

I could work out the answer, I could find the exam online. But who doesn’t like a little mystery.

Permalink | Leave a comment »

Caps Lock : An Endangered Species

Sat, 17 Oct 2009 08:29:00 -0700

Not many many people know this, but over the next 20 years Caps Lock will become extinct.

(src gadgets.fosfor.se)

Poor caps lock is being abused. From Kanye West, to Oprah, to your Mum. It seems no-one is immune.

Join the cause and help stop this abuse. First, a little background. Did you know that on the Commodore 64 (still the best selling single model of computer of all time) capslock was called shift lock?

(src maximumpc.com)

It was called shift lock because on typewriters it would lock the shift mechanism in place. The normal shift key would shift all the hammers in one direction, using the uppercase letters instead. Pressing shift took a lot of mechanical effort, so shift lock made a lot of sense.

"Make sense no longer, caps lock does, hmm?" - Yoda

How can you help?

Fortunately people have already started. And because of the efforts of people like Nicholas Negroponte (One Laptop Per Child, capslock not included) and campaigns like CapsOff, the hardware manufacturers are beginning to listen. People unite! You are not alone.

So what about QWERTY? More archeological baggage. Colemak may not overtake QWERTY in the near future, but the revolution has started.

One thing we can ALL do now is to take a leaf out of Colemak's book. To not remove the Caps Lock key, instead replace its function with something more useful!

What's more useful than CapsLock I hear you ask? Almost anything! Escape, Control, Alt, Command, Option, or that even more frequently used key, 'BackSpace'.

Colemak replaces Caps Lock with Backspace, one of the most used keys on most keyboards, placing on home row, and for people with hands the size of mine (octave and a third on most pianos) it places backspace directly under my left pinkie. Very productive. Very efficient.

So join the revolution. Rebind your Caps Lock to Back Space.

Windows users download this registry entry (src), rename it to '.reg' and right click->merge.
OS X users install PCKeyboardHack, go into the pref panel, and enable the capslock checkbox.
Linux users can work it out; is that not what you do? ;)

Happy backspacing,

- Glenn

P.S.
By removing my normal backspace key I able to learn solely use the capslock backspace in less than a week. But be careful here, in some modes (eg. the BIOS), the keys will not be switched, so you'll probably not want to throw the key away!

Permalink | Leave a comment »

Relevance

Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:44:00 -0700

If you want to help someone, then stay relevant. Too far deviated and you risk being ignored, or just polarizing further. Why do you think they always ask you to identify the target audience in high school? If you can’t get relevant, find someone who can. Your very own translator. The marketing of ideas.

Permalink | Leave a comment »

Words

Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:39:00 -0700

Words are only one type of self expression, how many can you list?

And do you grok that list?

Permalink | Leave a comment »

sombre electronica

blip noise

Federation Square Play

Hacking Facebook 101

Cost Defective Mining with AWS GPU Clusters

Taming Facebook

Red vs Blue

How To Help WikiLeaks: Distributing CableGate

TL;DR

HTML? Curious?

How to Make A Girl; Colourblind.

How to Make A Girl; Colourblind.

It's less 3D than you think...

A Medium for Expression

Attribution & Responsibility

Bring on the Hoon plates!

The Scale of Complexity

He who speaks _______ speaks ______

The Tough Answers

Caps Lock : An Endangered Species

Relevance

Words

He who speaks _ speaks