Counterwhistling, or the general propensity of people to derail the thought train
First, the main proof of my argument. Put one's self in a social situation with many people in a mostly quiet area. A public park works well. Begin whistling something when nobody else is whistling or creating any music. Someone will begin whistling something contrary. Even if you are whistling a universally known song the counterwhistler will whistle something completely contrary to what you whistle. It works. Like every time. It is real. But why?
Why do people counterwhistle? Why do they derail a train that is already in motion, or attempt to? I do not believe it is a conscious act. I do believe some people counterwhistle more than others. Some people have shown me to be counterwhistlers at any given moment. Others seem to never engage in the act. What causes this? Is there a motivation within them to go against something other people have started and if so is it something they learned or is it something they were born with? My 8 year old son is a counterwhistler. I don't believe I taught him to be one but perhaps I did and I don't yet see it. I once worked with a guy that was the perennial counterwhistler. At any given note of whistling he would begin whistling his own tune. Does this also happen in nature? For example, when birds sing, is it a counterwhistle?
This does not have to be simply a whistling act to create the same effect. Having been a musician most of my life I see it in band situations as well. Nearly invariably when one person is tuning their instrument another is playing something that interferes with the tuning. If one member is showing another member a "lick" or otherwise teaching something, another member is actively playing something contrary. This, in effect, is counterwhistling. Another area I can attest to counterwhistling is while someone is engaged in thought. There are times I will personally be caught in a state of personal discourse with a subject matter. If someone is aware I am engaged in such an act and they are unable to contribute to the subject matter at hand they will begin to counterwhistle (or attempt to derail the thought train) by introducing completely unrelated subject matter to the thinker.
It seems to me that the more adverse a person is, the more they are likely to be argumentative for little or no reason, the more they are a counterwhistler. Is there a term for this, is it a known thing? I'm not a psychologist. I'm not a sociologist. I'm just a guy who wonders about such things. Why do we think and act the way we do? I sure don't know.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Monday, January 12, 2009
Nice guys do finish last
I don't understand the motive behind it precisely but I have realized this much: Being offended is what people desire. It is what motivates them to act. Certainly there are other manners of creating a reaction but this one simple act is what drives our society.
Specific examples: PETA, Scientology, MTV, Jackass, Overly loud music, Racism, Hate, Speech in improper vernacular, Feats of decided stupidity, Commercials on the whole, Wars, Sexual discrimination.
PETA gets attention by shocking people. They seem to know of no other way to further their cause. They exist on the absolute fringe of reality. Scientology seems to bring people in by shutting people out. They do not allow any speech of their religion anywhere and therefore it gains more notice than seemingly any other religion. MTV exists only to shock people into continued viewing, or at least it did the last time I turned it on. Jackass. wow. They realized in creating this show and the many copycat shows, that people laugh when others get hurt. The guy driving down main street with his radio so loud you can't hear your own music. Do you think it is in any way comfortable sitting in his vehicle? I would doubt it. Many racists spout their views at any given opportunity. I hate snakes. But I don't make or join clubs around this point. Many people create tension by speaking in the wrong voice. By this I mean they purposefully talk down to people by utilizing a type of speech that is not native to the listener. Easy examples are tech support assholes who utilize so much jargon the end user has no idea what they are trying to convey. On the other end of the spectrum are people that use words, phrases, or pronunciations that have long fallen out of usage in general everyday speech. "Ort" for "Ought", "Chimbley" for "Chimney", "I'll be John Brown" for "Imagine my surprise" and the like. Feats of stupidity have been a marketing tool for as long as people have been alive. High wire crossings to promote a new store. Climbing vertical buildings for sometimes no other reason than to prove how "badass" one can be. Commercials of almost any type serve to offend. Television uses sex. Radio uses harsh words. Political ads use hate. Religious ads use fear. War. wow. Wars just say, "Hey, I'm going to kill a bunch of you so you'll see my point." Talk about overstating the obvious. Homophobia exists, I think, only to prove that the speaker isn't a "homo." I don't give a shit if you suck cock or not, I simply don't want to see it or hear about it.
I suppose we should have seen this coming. Did we? I don't think so but that could simply be my naïveté. Did you see it coming? Were you warned of it, or did you postulate this on your own? Have you read this far, or have I not offended enough to build that buzz? Is there a solution? Is there a common desire for a solution? I don't think there is the desire for the solution to be quite honest. Prove me wrong. Please. Nice guys do finish last.
Specific examples: PETA, Scientology, MTV, Jackass, Overly loud music, Racism, Hate, Speech in improper vernacular, Feats of decided stupidity, Commercials on the whole, Wars, Sexual discrimination.
PETA gets attention by shocking people. They seem to know of no other way to further their cause. They exist on the absolute fringe of reality. Scientology seems to bring people in by shutting people out. They do not allow any speech of their religion anywhere and therefore it gains more notice than seemingly any other religion. MTV exists only to shock people into continued viewing, or at least it did the last time I turned it on. Jackass. wow. They realized in creating this show and the many copycat shows, that people laugh when others get hurt. The guy driving down main street with his radio so loud you can't hear your own music. Do you think it is in any way comfortable sitting in his vehicle? I would doubt it. Many racists spout their views at any given opportunity. I hate snakes. But I don't make or join clubs around this point. Many people create tension by speaking in the wrong voice. By this I mean they purposefully talk down to people by utilizing a type of speech that is not native to the listener. Easy examples are tech support assholes who utilize so much jargon the end user has no idea what they are trying to convey. On the other end of the spectrum are people that use words, phrases, or pronunciations that have long fallen out of usage in general everyday speech. "Ort" for "Ought", "Chimbley" for "Chimney", "I'll be John Brown" for "Imagine my surprise" and the like. Feats of stupidity have been a marketing tool for as long as people have been alive. High wire crossings to promote a new store. Climbing vertical buildings for sometimes no other reason than to prove how "badass" one can be. Commercials of almost any type serve to offend. Television uses sex. Radio uses harsh words. Political ads use hate. Religious ads use fear. War. wow. Wars just say, "Hey, I'm going to kill a bunch of you so you'll see my point." Talk about overstating the obvious. Homophobia exists, I think, only to prove that the speaker isn't a "homo." I don't give a shit if you suck cock or not, I simply don't want to see it or hear about it.
I suppose we should have seen this coming. Did we? I don't think so but that could simply be my naïveté. Did you see it coming? Were you warned of it, or did you postulate this on your own? Have you read this far, or have I not offended enough to build that buzz? Is there a solution? Is there a common desire for a solution? I don't think there is the desire for the solution to be quite honest. Prove me wrong. Please. Nice guys do finish last.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Something we tend to ignore
Yellowstone, the picturesque and ever popular vacation spot, is a volcano. It isn't like Hawaii where it has huge mountains from lava running and solidifying. It is what is considered a supervolcano. This indicates that when it blows it is so big that there's literally nothing left to solidify.
And it is about to blow. I really believe this.
After reading about such things in the must have book A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson I started watching Yellowstone and for that matter all earthquakes. Have a look for yourself:
Yellowstone area Earthquake list
That list shows, as of the time of this writing, 177 earthquakes. How long would that take? 4 days. 2 hours ago there was a magnitude 3.5 quake. There have been 10 quakes greater than magnitude 3.0 in the past 4 days.
Something down there is awake and is not happy.
So what's the history? Well from what Bryson penned, Yellowstone erupts about every 600,000 years. Its last real eruption? Just over 640,000 years ago. As he said, "We are overdue."
What will happen if it does blow? Reports are grim. Extinctions. A blanket of soot and ash across the earth to cool her down again. Is it related to global warming? Who knows. But if it does blow again we will all need to take cover. Life, as we know it, will cease.
What can be done? Nothing. We must ride the waves on this ocean of life. We can only watch out for the rocks beneath the surface. Have an action plan. Where will you go if something cataclysmic occurs? Short of taking up residence underwater I'm not sure if any plan is good enough. Historically it seems that most aquatic life fares better in times of global upheaval but we are ill equipped for such choices. It seems to me life underwater would have been more studied up to this point. Instead we seek life outside our own atmosphere. Personally I plan to go underground if such an event occurs. Perhaps it will not work. Perhaps the bears, bobcats, and other vermin will have the same plan and simply have me for a midnight snack. But it's a plan.
What's yours?
And it is about to blow. I really believe this.
After reading about such things in the must have book A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson I started watching Yellowstone and for that matter all earthquakes. Have a look for yourself:
Yellowstone area Earthquake list
That list shows, as of the time of this writing, 177 earthquakes. How long would that take? 4 days. 2 hours ago there was a magnitude 3.5 quake. There have been 10 quakes greater than magnitude 3.0 in the past 4 days.
Something down there is awake and is not happy.
So what's the history? Well from what Bryson penned, Yellowstone erupts about every 600,000 years. Its last real eruption? Just over 640,000 years ago. As he said, "We are overdue."
What will happen if it does blow? Reports are grim. Extinctions. A blanket of soot and ash across the earth to cool her down again. Is it related to global warming? Who knows. But if it does blow again we will all need to take cover. Life, as we know it, will cease.
What can be done? Nothing. We must ride the waves on this ocean of life. We can only watch out for the rocks beneath the surface. Have an action plan. Where will you go if something cataclysmic occurs? Short of taking up residence underwater I'm not sure if any plan is good enough. Historically it seems that most aquatic life fares better in times of global upheaval but we are ill equipped for such choices. It seems to me life underwater would have been more studied up to this point. Instead we seek life outside our own atmosphere. Personally I plan to go underground if such an event occurs. Perhaps it will not work. Perhaps the bears, bobcats, and other vermin will have the same plan and simply have me for a midnight snack. But it's a plan.
What's yours?
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Green for the sake of?
Green. Like energy conscious. Yeah, I can dig that. But me? I'm green for the effort of saving money. Everyone has their reasons for stuff. Most people believe in God out of fear, not faith. I shit you not, dear reader. Ask around. Probe.
Anyway, we have an energy suck in my house and I hope to find it. We have already converted over to the small fluorescent bulbs but not to save money. We do not receive 100 or 100 volts. We get 130 out of our plugs. Why? Well we are rural and they say they have to boost the power so the people on the ends of the lines get the right amount. Again, I shit you not. So in the hopes of saving changing each bulb about once a month we opted for the more expensive but hopefully longer lasting bulbs.
Our dryer, a Kenmore 90 series, consumes 4kwh per hour on Permanent Press.
So at this rate it costs less than 40 cents per hour to run our dryer (along with a computer and two laptops and several lights. No heat or anything though. No televisions or hot water usage. Actual cost would work out to be: $0.3906 per hour.
I'm suspecting the water heater. Could be the heat pump. Maybe it is the washer? I'll edit this post with further findings.
Here's what I've found today:
Item Cost per hour
Dryer $0.40
H2O tank $0.30
Oven/Stove $0.40
Heat Pump $1.00
I don't think any of that is out of line. Still not turned the heat on and we've found that within the general vicinity of a computer the temperature is measurably higher, unsurprisingly. Maybe the short answer is that with 4 people in a house things add up. More studying to come. It really isn't that cool to work the heat pump that much in here, average of about 66F and the weather is to be increasing in temperature so we may not need the heat for a while. So no conclusion as of yet. Back to edit when I have more information.
Added heat pump. Started at 60F ambient temp. Allowed to run for 30 minutes. Brought ambient temp to 66F. 5Kwh used. $1 per hour. hmm.
Anyway, we have an energy suck in my house and I hope to find it. We have already converted over to the small fluorescent bulbs but not to save money. We do not receive 100 or 100 volts. We get 130 out of our plugs. Why? Well we are rural and they say they have to boost the power so the people on the ends of the lines get the right amount. Again, I shit you not. So in the hopes of saving changing each bulb about once a month we opted for the more expensive but hopefully longer lasting bulbs.
Our dryer, a Kenmore 90 series, consumes 4kwh per hour on Permanent Press.
So at this rate it costs less than 40 cents per hour to run our dryer (along with a computer and two laptops and several lights. No heat or anything though. No televisions or hot water usage. Actual cost would work out to be: $0.3906 per hour.
I'm suspecting the water heater. Could be the heat pump. Maybe it is the washer? I'll edit this post with further findings.
Here's what I've found today:
Item Cost per hour
Dryer $0.40
H2O tank $0.30
Oven/Stove $0.40
Heat Pump $1.00
I don't think any of that is out of line. Still not turned the heat on and we've found that within the general vicinity of a computer the temperature is measurably higher, unsurprisingly. Maybe the short answer is that with 4 people in a house things add up. More studying to come. It really isn't that cool to work the heat pump that much in here, average of about 66F and the weather is to be increasing in temperature so we may not need the heat for a while. So no conclusion as of yet. Back to edit when I have more information.
Added heat pump. Started at 60F ambient temp. Allowed to run for 30 minutes. Brought ambient temp to 66F. 5Kwh used. $1 per hour. hmm.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
String Shootout
Mused into action by the great work of Brandon Drury at http://www.RecordingReview.com/ I created a shootout of my own. My mixing or recording skills are not a part of this shootout however. Mine is about strings. Old strings versus new strings. Nothing changed other than the strings and the eq on the guitar to different, but reproducible levels. The equipment:
Guitar: Fender CD-60CSE
Pickup: Piezo direct to computer input. Volume at 100%, eq as shown below.
Computer recording device: Creative Sound Blaster Audigy 2 ZS platinum pro jimmie jack this doesn't have a long enough name. Used line-in / mic in 2, front panel. Hardware mixer set at 12 o' clock. Internal jumper has been changed from factory condenser setting to dynamic (not sure if this plays any part in this but there it is.)
Strings: (Both Sets)
D'Addario EJ16 Light (.012-.053) Phosphor Bronze
Used Set: Approximately 25-50 hours of play time on them
New Set: uhhh, new.
So the breakdown: I have the eq on the guitar flat, volume maxed. I have the line in 2 volume knob at 12 o'clock, straight up. I have the line in 2 mixer setting at 100% and the record level of line 2 at 100% into audacity with no effects. The cord used is a planet waves and there is nothing between the guitar and the computer at any point. The signal should, in essence, never change in any of the recordings, other than the noted eq settings which are reproducible since +12/-12 is that slider's all up or all down position.
First I recorded a little piece of Leyenda, or at least how I think of that song, with the eq flat. Then I started a new recording with the highs on the 3 band eq on the fender all the way up (+12). After recording that I moved it back to zero and then dropped the bass all the way (-12) and recorded another version like that. Then for reference purposes I put the eq at zero and recorded another flat version.
With all that done I saved my audacity project. Now I changed strings on the Fender to the new set of D'Addario EJ16's. Interesting note, the packaging has a tension guide on them which I find fascinating.
After polishing the guitar, which I hope wouldn't make any difference, but it did happen so I can't leave it out, I tuned the guitar's new strings a couple times hoping to get them up to snuff for staying in tune, and started the process over. First flat, then treble +12, then bass -12, then another reference track.
Can I hear a difference? Indeed. There is a slight signal boost in the new strings and I suspect that is coming from the overtones / harmonics that are missing in the old strings. Therefore if your "tubes" don't sound like they used to? Maybe you need new strings.
Here are links to the sound files for your own perusal.
Next up, my bass needs new strings. I use fender Nylon Tapewound 9120s strings on a squire jazz bass. The only musical thing I'd rather do than play on new bass strings would be to crawl into a grand piano with ball pean hammers. Now the question is, what do I mean by that?!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
