Theo Verelst Diary Page

Mon aug 20 2001, 14:10 PM

I've decided after good example to write some diary pages with toughts and events.

Oh, in case anybody fails to understand, I'd like to remind them that these pages are copyrighted, and that everything found here may not be redistributed in any other way then over this direct link without my prior consent. That includes family, christianity, and other cheats. The simple reason is that it may well be that some people have been ill informed because they've spread illegal 'copies' of my materials even with modifications. Apart from my moral judgement, that is illegal, and will be treated as such by me. Make as many references to these pages as you like, make hardcopies, but only of the whole page, including the html-references, and without changing a iota or tittel...

And if not? I won't hesitate to use legal means to correct wrong that may be done otherwise. And I am serious. I usually am. I'm not sure I could get 'attempt to grave emotional assault' out of it, but infrigement on copyright rules is serious enough. And Jesus called upon us to respect the authorities of state, so christians would of course never do such a thing. Lying, imagine that.

Previous Diary Entries   |   List of Diary Pages   |   Home Page

Tue 21 Aug 2001, 10:33 AM

I posted a question some time ago on the site, but forgot the question, so I can't find it back, or it didn't make it, I don't know. I though about it somehow, and though about some other of the modern jazz/fusion music I liked years ago, and still do.

This page has been renewed because it wasn't finished, and I've updated the music samples, which are taken from, hopefully without them having problems with the principle, I've made the samples hopefully work by just clicking them, most are realplayer streams, some are windows media player links, when I test them they work, which makes it better for readers to know what the hell music I'm talking about, and since they are public little excerpts, I don't think there is a problem.

Mike Stern

Being on of them, I knew some from yet another, Micheal Brecker, from the album Don't Try This At Home, from 1988. I saw him perform I think on the same stage, maybe the same show as Zwazinul on amsterdam drum festival around '90 I guess, and definately still remember a few songs in which he plays what could be called lyrically, and in some major and quite harmonic keys, which span and make a space and sonic pleasurability hard to find in much music, while remaining interesting, in jazz soloing performance sense.

When I developed an interest for Jazz music, around that time, maybe a bit before, and was into playing blues (and pop) hours a day with my roland digital piano, various names came to me from a few sources, like Scofield, as seems known in conservatory circles, various (to me at the time) well known older ones, like Coltrane and Monk, and Larry Carlton, and some mostly not 'featuring' artists like (drummer) Dennis Chambers, pianist Don Grolnick, and others.

To get an idea of what I mean with modern Jazz, and so also an idea of what part of my taste developing examples were already since I liked to expand my musical horizons with Jazz, the Micheal Brecker album is a good example. These musicians are top rated, not into fashionable video culture, and certainly quite into their music, and cannot be put aside as irrelevant in music development, though many are not heard regularly on the radio or through other mass media channels.

I  checked the jazzrock department of netradio was reminded of such, there at least some of such music passes by at times. Don't try this at home is quite an extreme example of what the title suggests, this is not real book jazz to join in and play in one session, experienced top musicians workmanship this is, and considering the title, for also such a reason.

And I do find that important in the sense that there is more music being made today which is not the product of all to primary musical ideas being forged into a clip and some audio tracks, which leave just about everything unchallenged musically and contains not even the intention to be all to original or advanced musically.

Again I though about 6th grade primary school where I was though that from the beginning of the century, some very obscure circles planned to slowly bring in african rythms into popular music to impact yought to make them not think straight in various senses and bring them under the dominion of various demons in the process if they can, to secure their power and riches and keep the annoying progressives, wannaknows, develop yourselves lefties and righties and, god forbid, intellectuals from becoming ex-laymen. Did I hear laughter? For real 25 or so years ago I hear this stuff, and what did we get since? Mean actors to control hiroshima times 50 f* 1000 nuclear power, and african rythms which succede to make the poorest and most boring disco seem bright and shining, minus the potential of the recording machines, and lame 'see if I can actually say a few things in a preset rythm' music all over the charts, with not that much worth while stuff to compensate.

For real. And the illegal substate will give you the drugs to go with it, just like your favorite historic freemason prepared for you. And with both, you might even think you're relatively free. Isn't that something.

Well, there's better news than that, for sure. Try to beat the freedom in this Brecker song  Itsbynne Reel , the sample is where the violin-like intro lines break out into the main song part. Don't try this at home. I did of course, and only about 4 years ago, still having my keys, I could do a part with reasonable phrase matching, which is after years, and musically rewarding. It certainly beats playing packman, even though there is not overall reason to make a certain complicated piece of music reproduced accurately, except when it's worth learning from or listening to. It can be sort of like voluntarily making an exam.

On the same album, Stern plays the guitar on  Suspone.

On the 1999 Mike Stern 'Play', he gets together with John Scofield, Dennis Chambers, Bill Frisel and others, which pays.  Blue Tone is an example, and why would this end up in pieces in the background of advanced documentaries or maybe tv leaders, to some it may be quite refreshing to know that guitars, electronics and musicians can still get together and make something worthwhile and more, or is it that modern music listeners want to be made or considered completely lame and near brain dead? Why would that be so. Biking last sunday I saw a little open air stage with a rock and roll band, not a particularly good one, though definately musically capable enough to perform, and couldn't resist having a look and maybe set the rythm a bit a song. Funny experiments, and at least it seems there is a major effect when a song works at enough volume and a crowd not completely fit for the deepest hell.

A song I played as well in the Jazz combo I was in for years I found on a recent Larry Carlton live album, "No Substitutions-Live In Osaka", Room 335 , it's got nice chord progression schemes, and nice enough theme, I was lucky at the time to know my chords, otherwise acompaniment with keys is not so trivial. The first song The Pump on the same album is a good example of feedback guitar sounds in various variations, some of them remarkebly sound like some of my simulators sounds, except the real guitar has bend and more vibrato control, but as I wrote and examplified, I'm working on that. Nice stuff. I had 'friends' on tape long ago, and did the last song I think it was live in some variation, a lick from it is definately in the back of my mind in the first phrase of the piano mpeg on my home page.

Another song I played in various setting which can serve as example is friday night at the cadillac club by Bob Berg.

For some fun enough demonstation of spectacle like synth and multimedia use check out Jarre's 2001 concert on, and wath the little (linux?) pinguins dance to world beat breaks of an oldie synth hit played on a minimoog. Musically not challenging, but at least its still fun enough.

Anti semitism

I was talking with someone having returned from holyday last week, and was reminded that he had uttered a pretty strong opinion about anti semitism as major drive in certain peoples lives and thinking, and that that concept also in live in and around amstedam is not dead also outside ultra right circles of clearly moranic nature, and the the sentiment may even be quite relevant for instance with some people I've known.

I never considered myself jewish (or anything else much outside being the Hague born Dutch with moderately blond hair and sort of blue eyes, long stature and strongly built enough to handle anything on sailboats under strong winds), only some years ago I consciously considered that when I'm indeed my mothers child, which is not unlikely, and when she is indeed physically my grandmothers child (not completely likely in general considering the amazing amount of colour variation in six children from what I think would be the some two parents, though for some the assumption may normally hold), my grandmothers nose and some features would make it quite likely that under the reasoning of motherline progression of jewishness and her likely properties, I could claim some land in the promised land. Not unpleasant idea, though practically for me it makes no difference to add such a label to my being, I would consider it not unhonorable, and of course in normal life only of limited meaning, though I guess a more than fair measure of intelligence should give me a good possibility of a well paid engineering job. Talking about which ...

Seriously though, I like most other sane homo sapiens on this and other parts of the globe minus maybe eskimos, inlands of africa and australia and maybe some rainwood indians, of course am aware of the scapegoat idea of the endloeschung of all arian sin problems in this world, and know that mankind, being by nature only inclined to evil will not easily accept that the second world war was not a fun experiment, and that the idea of reversing the respective blessing and curse of abrahams descendands and its reflection is probably not that easy to reprove, but seriously, making discernments between people on the basis of such racial considerations is a bit out of time for normal people, I think. Nazism never succeeded, that is known enough, and the idea of making good use of maybe alledgly jewish characteristics should be included in the race picture to probably find out that there is Gods election, and the rest distinctions which makes both jews and non-jews just as much sinfull, and the jews a lot less in number that others, though possibly testably marginally more intelligent and having place for a certian sex-drive, though I forgot the exact data on that. There was a media hausse on the subject some years ago, or was that about our black fellowman with voodoo grandmother? Probably both, I do remember that the testable overage IQ differences were relevant but modest.

Of course I am also aware of it that still all jews in the end wil rule the money world and therefore deserve to die in favour of all those who will cling to Voltares' lie with everything they're worth, and will live up to their old indian heritage of being the best there is, making the almost impossible effort of combining such with wonderful superiority prooving blond hercules bodies, and of course beating the jewish problem in themselves the best. What? Never mind, I just think I'd sort of win that game, and I was only attracting attention, sort of sifting the audience.

Satanic jews who in the time of the roman empire wanted to rule the world over the back of the new successfull synagoge replacement also in the career lines of the newly invented catholic faith preparers must have been the worst pain in the behind of quite some people at the time, and  probably not mentioned for nothing as a hidden danger which shouldn't be taken serious as alternative or part of the new faith in a jew who was worth it.

After all the centuries of catholic oppression, those kinds probably have merged nicely accurding to babylons mixup rule, and become part of the illuminati and other world dominion suckers with way too much power and moneyt and abusiveness they normally can never be atoned for.

In short, let us stick with the problem here.

'You can't work here, blacks have no labour-ethos'. Out of date, unfashionable, probably not common in public, and highly illegal in most western hemisphere regions I'm aware of.

You can't work here because this function requires a stable and capable person with no psychiatric past is a tricky one, but that is another story.

Anyhow, 'you can't work in this bank because you're jewish' is an interesting one.

And yet another interesting one is how I've looked at the software world, and when I graduated many work worlds I qualified for at the time, which was a considerable field, and see how easy it would be to find some well enough paid job simply on the basis of my proven capabilities.How naive, how stupid, on basis of what?

I guess people have few choices in certain illegally run societies: become drug addict, nazi (with good non-jewish ausweis), maybe serious catholic, generally inspicuous, or crazy, and maybe some other options, and otherwise the commonly known rules of before revolution jungle are officially ignored or covered as being semi religeously or very semi intellectually a better idea than the ideas of our ancestors and calvins and luthers and hus' and others views after being well informed about the pre-enlightment period misery they wanted to get out of. But of course if you're nothing much you're the shortest distance away from saying sich heil with so maybe others sell everything others want to uphold unto the first one that comes along to make such deal and be involved in the wonderfully powerfull world of occultism and satanism, which in the end of course will be much more generous in sharing their wealth and power and wonderfull companionship with the lesser and lower masses of the earth, so all in the end is fine when you're smart enough the gain Understanding, and accept that they of course are more equal for a good reason, and the the satanist democracy is realy the best there has ever been, and it would better be successfull, or who else would defeat it?

Can't touch that

(dark lets say italian influence negro voice on)
'I didn't do it'


As a variation on the theme on nazi army belts 'gut sei mit uns' a song from quite long ago (for me too) says it better 'with God on our side' (Joan Beaz), which I could not resist playing in church yesterday after preparatory hymns, bleus, some rock and a impovised piece in classical style which would keep my attention.

The navy

Not as the title of the second hit song of some people having survived the art center of new york, but as the deep blue thing.

Biking a bit as I said, I came past amsterdam harbour, which since recently I've also seen from the water side, which is fun enough, and apart from a major bulky passanger ship which I even caught leaving, which happens remarkably fast and without any ado as it seems (what would that take, 5000 horsepower?), there was a marine vessel, I think from greece, considering the greek symbols on it, and because I wanted to wait some time, I walked around it a bit and observed some of the personel ongoings. Without going into some thoughts, it seemed to me that some of the rituals are clearly intended to make sure some people don't get ideas in their head, and to make clear that their ways are theirs and that their system is not going to decay in stupidity, betrayal, personal trouble or get caught into people wanting to play games. Nothing special, but some things made me wonder quite a bit, starting with the reason for their presence, apart again from obvious peace time army occupations and personel trips. In the spiritual, I'd say nothing much gets far with what I saw being there to make impact enough to claim a space, which without question intentional, but raises the obvious question of the power distribution in the spiritual, with the particularity of who is powerfull in spirit to begin with, which humanly and christianwise speaking is a profound question.

And I wondered what such a vessel, maybe say 80 meters long looking not too mean but technical and solid, carries, and what apart form communications is its purpose. I could well imagine al kinds of weapons in it, apart from a few visible cannons, possibly nuclear, a few rockets fit even in submarines, possible of newer radiation based kinds.

Having talked about nuclear missiles a bit lately, and of course heavily impressed with their incredible power to destroy just about everything on the face of this earth within 20 minutes, lets bring in another wonderfull subject in life which must of course be surrendered to intelligent actors and catholics of the world to make sure no accidents happen: star wars.

Do you have any idea what 5 megawatts of directed light or infrared radiation do to anything at all in its way? My guess is that I'd be evaporated in a very short time, and in beams of 10 meter diameter, I'm not ever sure I'd even consider going back to my car after it has even at some speed passed it from some satelite.

What if microwaves are directed like in laser radion maybe coherent and not very dispersive, not even through many materials, or other frequencies, and 'received' by living tissue? Not a nice thought.

Lately I was reading about hiroshima and the subsequent nulcear arms buildup, the destruction, the lets say war politics, the missiles, the physical and other computations, the experiments to back them up, the limited meltdowns of tsjernobil, and I found some interesting einstein quotes.

As we know, apart from not becoming like the balkan or the catholics, russia, and most likely quite some other countries and areas, had a problem with historic truth being reversed with their eager to control propaganda infrastructure. I'm sure that in my personal and professional life, certain liars (normal word for persons who make or want to live in significant lies) tried simular things, up to the point of just like behind the iron curtain for many years, and quite possibly still, wanting to put me in the nithouse for not being willing to even consider the pigs and their higher form of equality.

Maybe I could aim for getting similar treatment, and then honorably fall back on claiming to suffer in the name of my faith, and be indeed in miserable circumstances and say that that is to glorify the name of Jesus, which personalitywise and who knows even politically could be sort of a angle worth trying. The way of phrasing makes clear I don't agree with such starting point, in line at least with quite a few historically influential people who stood up and did not want to be brought down when going against incredible evils in this world, and historically I can be assured that at least more than a few of them could still at least stand theselves in the mirror, and have a more than average legacy and even name (if that would be their game) in the western and other worlds.

And goddamn the gestalts and other miserable demonically inspired spiritual emotional and personal buildings people come up with, they won.

And so much that centuries later what they've wanted is still there and alive and kicking even with more than a few people, in fact certain subjects are all over the news again, including why certain politics may just inspire 'doodoodoo, da da da', while other nothing much else then 'machine gun' or 'the eve of destruction'.

Microsoft Com

I took some time reading into the microsoft software suite of recent date, and well well, it never hurts to have been into a good education, after windows 2000 seemingly in the end falling back on file systems like the 25 year old and widely used nfs-likes, making databases as replacement for the fast and line editing prone unix/linus password files, getting there where paths can be adjusted per user and global paths can exist for all and having private installations created from shell scripts, eh lets say registry calls, I've looked at a book on some of the latest issues raised in various programming areas.

The microsoft foundation classes I've not written off, but seriously, I don't like much to learn a lot of class hierarchies, inheritance structures and double bookkeeping between graphics hierarchies and datastructures and a parallel object datastructure with loads of redundancies and room of inaccuracies, ambiguities and errors.

And don't tell me I cannot at least have something profound enough to say in general about these subjects, even though many may not because they'd be about esteatics and their personal tastes or model railway track outline rules, I know what graphics software and object oriented programming are made of, how they in major lines can be put together, and what is good and bad programming practice. I've programmed for at least 20 years, I've a degree in electrical engineering of an in that time contentwise esteemed enough university, of which (of course) progamming was integral part, and specifically my thesis had a few sections on complicated enough efficient programming and data managament, and I've officially in an environemt where I was amoung the most advanced computer knowledge and capable of dealing with it programmed for years, and my programs repeatedly in public were shown to work.

In that time I've looked at various object oriented environments, because such was fashionable at the time in lets say experimental or scientific environments, and I've programmed Objective C for enough years to in the end be quite aware enough of serious programming issues to maybe not spawn but certainly influence programming projects in the style of my programming experiments at the level of Cern. And then come to similar conclusions as they and other must have: object orientedness is fine enough, but the essence is as it was long before: how can one split up and modularize programs, how does that fit with certain machine and network setups, what is pleasant programmerwise to get used to and gain knowledge of, what are the essentials that remain after various different programming tasks are evaluated, and what is most efficient, best to maintain, most reliable, prone to optimalisation, and such.

Since the substrate most programmers work on is quit similar: von neuman type processors and computer systems, with additions for IO and timing developed over years, and commonly used, the technical side of such programming is well documentable and can be modeled scientifically quite well.

The theoretics of programming probably end up in language or other definition methods of structure and content, and of course are rooted in the technical means they are supposed to deal with, which are well defined enough, except very often not all too specified.

Who specifies the task switching time, and maximum process number when selling even a scientific computer system? Not many, though the information can be found. Who specifies the number of effective pixel operations for various types of  graphical operations based on program library functions type, granularity of operation and lets say graphics mode? Not many, though 'speed' is a major computer selling point, and certainly not unrelated to processor clock speed.

A well programmed windows 3.11 program on a 33 MHz 486 machine may run faster and smoother (sort of gmpf) then a windows 2000 application on a half gigaherz pentium with order of 100 MB memory, and fast disc, even though the screen quality and pixel number may not differ that dramatically. Why is that so? Because the windows 3.11 program is better programmed? Because it is more optimized? Or because the windows multitasker is better made? Or because the graphics library used in certain class libraries simply isn't made for programmers who want to do the work of thinking about the actual bits and bytes they are going to be pushing around but more about the compatibility of for instance a printer routine with their implicit organisation of the graphics format used to fill a window, and how they are going to drag and drop certain modules in the application wizzard which may actually produce some working program, not even knowing what windows refresh and background tcp/ip threads are?

I don't think I'll be all to agressive on the subject, and of course I too don't like to make an X program from scratch because there is so much to choose and to fill in and call, but still, it is not irrelevant to distinguish a microsoft CE from an engineer who knows their stuff and a serious enough scientist who knows some of the foundations of what there is in computer land.

I'm quite positively sure there are more than a few, some rich, people and parties who take the computer world for something they must have power over and by, and not at all as some market with products some or many people may like or need, or even as a game of making packman in 3D and coloured magazine equivalents pass around and globally knowable.

And just like the owners of production goods, the keepers of information, the religeous leaders, the nazi like systems of oppression and exploitation and killing, they do not deserve to get an angle on the ongoings of machines which have complicated but completely accurately defined technical and overseeable enough applicationwise place in the 'normal' world to influence the politics even which normal people may want concerning the machines and their programming.

In short, it is hard enough to make computers, though not when one has knowledge enough and possibility to use certain expensive and complicated production goods. Assuming certain parts are available, it is doable to make a variety of them for a limited number of edified people. Everyone with little amounts to spend in the western world can take the freedom of programming such machines themselves, and as I found there are even quite capable tools to do so available for free, so if certain people want to use computers for certain purposes, such as proof that their spiritual thoughts are right and in line with napoleon who they realy were in a past life, then let them make programs to do so, but I will not make them anything special or worth noticing, and certainly not any party at all in wanting to think about or decide about what computers can be how they may and may not be used and expecially, I am against people being tought factual error in these areas.

I think the truth sets free. Isn't that something, even in computers.

I just missed 'Show me the way' ('76 Peter Frampton, with the mouth tube guitar effect) and hit grooving 70's with 'Sweet talking woman' ('78 Electic Light Orchestra, with major synth setup and vocoder effects, hard to beat).

The title of the chapter refers to work at microsoft in the area of distributed computing, which I've been looking into years ago for practical reasons.

Funny isn't the word, but kind of interestingly it seems that my straightforward enough thoughts in the area from lets say about a decade ago have taken a certain place in the setup of some classes or libraries of functions to deal with distributed operations, or in fact for both multithreaded, multiprocess or distributed process applications.

As usual in such setups, there is a layer to take care of type conversions and lets say argument streaming, an interface to drive the communication stub between threads processes or tcp/ip link reachable remote processes, a unique id generator method, which is sort of half fixed as I understand, the registration of a process is as in there is a kind of such a process and one or maybe more instances, which are not necessarily started automatically, but can be asked for from some possibly remote client, and the match is made by the programmer, so there is no standard service deamon or globally started server or communicaton-other-end necessarily, though there can be.

The idea of registering services isn't bad, but the idea of application keys and the way, in this case NT, deals with them didn't strike me as easy to oversee, I understand that functions to address the registry, and as I read maybe a standard database form such as sql addressable as in the windows 2000 file access scheme, are not a bad idea, but somehow it all comes together, and then as manager of the system it would be good to know that not some bug or annoyance in a completey untraceable software module isn't going to disable furter debugging because the access system doesn't understand the programmer anymore.

Anyhow, the sort of amusement was about the idea of having a C++ level transparent enough interface to an in process thread for a service, a process on the same machine, or a remote process, which as an idea is not bad, except that the whole ideais half reversed. The uniform interface is the idea, but mixing up threads with server activity isn't necessarily to the point, and the compile time bindings needed for all these goodies are bound to be not too optimal, as I read them. The idea of having threads is to program problems in multi process-like ways which are not so easily or not at all doable in non-streamed programming ways, in fundamental sense, or when there are by the nature of the programming problem at hand timing issues at stake which make it necessary to decouple a few or more threads of control, and desirable to do so in a os supported way, for instance to make them pre-emptive.

The idea of having a certain service available in a process on the same machine or a remote machine is a matter of resource control, that is certain services, as in the textbook airline reservation example, require that only one instance is run to decide on availability of a certain service or priviledge, while a remote service may also be there because it is more efficient to run it on another machine, which is quite different motivation.

Having threads in the same process which can be made to run in another, remote process, is definately a good programing paradigm consideration, but requires efficient interfaces and preferably good compiler level support to make the run time relocating of modules possible while not being burdened with with parameter packing hassle and efficiency catches.

Suppose I'd want to use com like (it seems to incorporate corba, which is an understandable variation on the distributed computing support theme) service to make sure a certain piece of for instance a openGL graphics program runs on another machine to improve rendering speeds, then it is beneficial to have the choice of making certain functions first run in the same process, and then decide to try them on another machine, and make that machinery work smooth enough, and subsequently make it more efficient, and maybe in the end contrive of some way to find idle running machines somewhere who are free for some time to negotiate sharing computations with.

The 'normal' client server stuff is sort of incorporated, its even called 'encapsulated' as in when we 'have' it it works, which in normal enough software terminology should be phrased as we have a complete enough set of functions and paramer connecting sets to deal with a certain problem in a way that may normally well yield a working piece of software, and the terms would suggest that such is easy to achieve.

Encapsulation in valid enough oo sense means that a unit of data is made which contains both executable code of some form and the data it deals with, and that no data passes to or from that unit except over the methods the object knows and their parameters. Fine enough, but not that infinetely usefull.