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 familiy, christianity, and othercheats. The simple reason is that it may well by that some people have been ill informed because they've spread illegal 'copies' of mymaterials 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 (corrected 12-20: pointed wrong !)
Possibly dangerous there are persons even with certain distinctly non-arian features that all to easily can make me imagine raising their right arm and exclaiming 'sich heil' distinctly, as being in with some christ himself. Normally hard to imagine, but then again, collaborators where all over in 2d WW, and I've even seem my personal brother (in a time I still had significant trust) make the right arm greet on the road (while driving ahaed of me on a motorbike) towars delft university quarters. COuld have various meanings.
War in Europe is not anchient stuff, these things happended in the hart of it, less then a lifetime ago. Unpleasant.
Imagine that there are even 'human beings' that flat out deny that the holocoust ever took place. Or that have religions similarly cruel, pointless and potentially powerfull.
Yesterday there was a university lecture about the underlying thoughts of Nazism, it would have been interesting to hear it, at least it may be of significant use that the subjects are brought forward.
And to the angel of Philadelphia write: These things says the Holy One, the True One, the (One) having the key of David, the (one) opening, and no one shuts; and shuts, and no one opens: I know your works. Behold, I have given before you a door being opened, and no one is able to shut it, because you have little power, and have kept My word, and have not denied My name. and also to other interesting ones:
General Henry Knox, 1777: "It is the will of heaven that America be great -she may not deserve it- her policy wretched, nay, her supiness in the past winter would, according to the common operation of things, mark her for destruction."
General George Washington, 1776: "Under a full persuation of the justice of our cause, I cannot entertain an idea that it will finally sink, though it may remain for some time under a cloud"
There an idea here that seems relevant: when all think it will only be luctor and hardly ever emergo (a latin proverb known in Holland) things are different than when we would be 'under a cloud' (probably also refering to the israelites bing led in the desert) for some time. Without thinking about 'shared subconscious' or even shared thoughts at all, it seems that these type of general underlying thoughts will always affect the way people think both individually and together. And that thinking of course affect the way rules are made, laid down, and adhered to.
Interestingly, in the foreword, Rupert Sheldrake, whose talks about
'morphogenetic fields', pigeons finding there homes back when
their tills are moves, boiling points decreasing with time, and
the increased capability of learning a certain topic when more people
worldwide have studied the same topic (seems true for humans, but also
for laboratory rats), struck me quite some years ago.
Also, I found that there is mention of the early settlers (trappers),
and there seem to be original sources from those days, the subject
being essential. I also had interest in the (originals!) of dutch sailers
just after the middle ages, it might be interesting to compare.
In legal sense, it is clear enough normally what laws mean, and it is assumed that citizens know the law (what is the 'Nulla poenna' principle in dutch law b.t.w.?), which is doable for the obvious: safety and honesty observed, no stealing, public means available and maintained, justice enforcement of understandable kind, inheritance and business rules, tax arrangements, etc., all compreshensible political issues, know already in ancient greece, and other old societies.
But how do things run on other levels, and what if the general corruptability of man get more than a bit space? What if major religions preach things, such as child abuse, that are illegal under a countries' laws. Or if ultra right wing criminals would actually change the rules into nazism? The latter case currently is doable: they wouldn't ever even nearly get the required majority. The former is historical: seperation of state and church is essential and may result of eve true religions, ans conversely a church may have completely unreasonable, undesireable and in-humane power (against what people amoung eachother could probably agree on as besic rights that are in need of being recognized), that may (again historically) result in wars to break such power. In the Netherlands the catholic spanish oppressors were kicked out because of their abusiveness, and because obviously such religions enriched themselves over the backs of people, during a long (80 years) war, a few centuries ago.
In other, not even 'second world' countries (such as italy) the catholic and other doctrines may still be quite represented in the state laws, such as concerning marriage, the english pornography laws are another example.
It of course is easy to recognize in general that relgion in general and in the western world the 'christian' religions have had and still have major impact on societies formal makeup, though secularisation seems to be a common phenomena, this is still fundamental. Even the 10 commandments, regardless of how they have been intended and translated are still recogniseably present in fundamental rules.
I don't have many problems with the dutch or some other western constitutions (but imagining I'd be born in iran or some other moslim ruled society makes me uneasy), most rules are reasonable and leave space for just and honorable behaviour, if applied right they can easily be a blessing, in a certain type of christian language that could easily be misunderstood. Without question in my mind these rules in historic sense explain significant parts of the welfare in western society for centuries, lets say since reformation/renaissance time. Religeously, it is clear enough that for many subjects addressed in law, religious lives are not impacted much and/or needed in direct visible sense: just don't mess with eachother to much, distribute wealth not too dishonest, keep justice systems bearable, and things should be able to work.
Evidently, this depends on the capability of man to work right, live right, be respectable and respected, obtain the essences of life, etc. Arguably 'real' that is uncorrupted, honest, blissfull christians may be of value in the whole of society to stop it from becoming unbearable and corrupted to the core. That is a matter of dealing with religeous matters, and it might be that these matters are hard to measure, quantify and judge in practice.
I'm certain, that within the bounds of the possible in society, much hidden evil can be both present and breeded in that area, including the concept of (originally) babylonic sacrifical rites and shame-based pyramid systems and more or less hidden maffia types of organisations.
It seems to me that in certain environment such subjects are such inherent parts of the normal operating mode of life, that with some being known, it is almost impossible to ask for the road with getting so much hidden message/ figurative language content that one may wander wether people are seriously deranged, plain stupid (to think I'm taking their religion that is evil seriously as the religion I'd share with), incapable of understanding 'normal life' interaction modes, or just wacko/crazy. Whatch some tv to see some normal bahaviour? Well well. Of course, but when I look at what some seem to want to convey in their films/programs, I'm sure I'm looking at evil babylon, including worshipping and listening to the doctrines of deamons, and adhering to thoughts that either nazism, catholicism in the general (...) broad sense of the false religions word, that is including fake christians, or fundament moslims in one way or another also seek to implement, and which are horrifying to any normal human being.
Can I write all this? Yep. I can even under the duth constitution AND under European Communion offical law make TV programs about it even without being censored, at least not beforehand. Americans call it freedom of speech, the term is not in these laws, but similar rights are constitutionally guaranteed, check it out, I put the constitution on a link on my home page, use the page-search to find the articles. 'Vrijheid' could be a key word. (in favour of progressing job-related activities I've not yet completely translated the whole document).
Not that I otherwise would be affraid of uttering truth that much, but imagine we'd live in the 50's++ russia, with the KGB behind my back doing nothing but trying to make reports on me to put me in the nuthouse as (this time?) political 'dissident' (good word) or something. FAMILIAR PICTURE? Horrible thought.
Then again: suppose societies' effective tissue is one of a bunch of motherf*'s making lives prepared for all those wonderfull little 'christian' abuse victims, threatening them in ways the stasi also 'invented' (I do think Alpha, the spanish catholic leader that was stationed in holland before the 80 years war knew about simular methods, probably on jesuit basis (found some interesting reading onthe subject in that time)), then people may not experience much of the fundamental rigths they have in this western world. Yesterday I actually saw on CNN the term freedom being mentioned in that context by the European Comittee itself. Isn't that something. WOuld be also because of the unrecogniseable protesters downstairs throuwing stones at the building? Donno.
In biblical terms? Revelation, without much question. 'get away from here' about the great whore, picturing such horrible religeous systems, to be free. Not to listen to the doctrines of deamons that will just damn you and prepare you for the or some antichrist, and to become another brick in the wall of some beastly system, and be all to occupied with which janus head is to be replaced with which other. Praying with people in gouvernment places is called for, to lead quiet and peacefull lives, as it is pleasing for God. Jesus himself did mention that some wars must happen though.
A related subject is, that I mentioned in the title: how do things effectively get arranged. Do I become director of my fathers company (reminds me of 'seaside rendez-vous', a nice Queen song about similar things), or does the better manager, or the one ending up the highest in some treasurous babylonic, child abuse based system that through secret messages is appointed by the Pope with aid or counter response of the mob? I wish I would have spanned the range of possibilities roughly by such consideration, but I'm sure I missed some extremes that in practice are way to determining how people (have to) act. Vive le english king?
American history clearly teaches the english king ('rule the waves', satanism included) was very undesirable in terms of the rights desirable for nations and their inhabitants. I only recenty found the paragraph long fermenting about that power system in the bill of rights: no unclearness here. Interesting too is that it is constitutionally possible to overthrow the gouvernment by violence, if such unlikely event should ever be desirable.
Imagine being a german rocket builder in '39, would I be theatened to give my best services to the preparations for the third reich?
The library in an amsterdam university library has some books on computer music, not bad ones in fact, and recently I even found a set of user manuals of the well known Synclavier, one of three or four BIG computer synthesizer systems when that stuff was booming, some 15-20 years ago, others being the Fairlight system, with lightpen monitor, and the PPG system.
The actual manual that is: congratulations on your purchase, this system is fitted with 5 1/4' disks that should be stored in a safe place, start the machine up with the system disk in place, and start the score editor by pressing keys ...
No demo song button it seems, but the technology is definately still relevant today: sampling technology is comparable with current computer based systems, minus that the synth is integrated, the amount of signal processing is considerable, including filtering, multi sampling, analysis, fourier synthesis, even general convoltion filters (though warnings are issued that the machines mips/flops rating isn't up to doing this real time: 'this operation may take...')
In the same building Asterix at some point was an official research object. I wonder where the officially present sonology/music science department is physically located: could be interesting. In that context it is tempting to see what I could do with the things IRCAM (french computer related music institute, Centre Pompidou, Paris) is presenting: web servers with interactive audio manipulations are on the job-request list, as are sound-researchers, also in my active areas. After all I'm official EC resident.
Hewlett Packard has measurement systems with different kind of myth like apearing properties (for engineers that is), some time ago I looked them up, though that does take some effort: how about measuring signal (harmonics) of signals up to 50 GIGA herz with one machine: connect the wire, adjust the knobs and voila: well over 100 dB (I think 140 or so) dynamic range of very high accuracy spectrum peaks in to a frequency range 25 times higher then the latest wirelesses. Ha.
I worked with a lesser (expensive) one at Dutch Telecom long ago, and know these machines take major, major engineering and r&d, interesting machines, pitty they don't make music?
The point here? I did a Tower of Power (the band not the motherf*, @^$*^ cristal chappel greed) song in a workshop: "what is hip" (funky song). Is technology 'hip' ? I could have played the acoustic piano, amped it right (a difficult enogh experiment I've succesfully tried recently with my PPA system, see other pages), and the song might have worked, but without a synthesizer or some other funky key-instrument, a clavinet, maybe a rhodes or hammond, the accompinment may not work too well. Synths plug in easier too, and changing the sounds is nice.
In other words they make it possible to be artistically and practically better of, evidently. That's not the same as saying synths are 'hip' though of course there are not that many musisians that know how to use em extensively. I think the desirability lies in the scarcety and the pleasant properties. But then again: many synths are available, and still more is desirable, and certain ones make it possible to make something either fashionable or particularly interesting or even 'hip'. Two parameters here it would seem: technology, and an artistic/musical measure, that isn't necessarily a fashionable factor: some synths are long term hits. Technology is a given factor in terms of maximum at a certain time: an interesting factor in sound synthesiser world.
I'll be off to the (other) library to read up on various programming subjects. Probably even in the weekend, imagine that. Even user interfaces are in the attention: with the current computer possibilities in the end it is still about how a user is going to use the machine. (As an achievable idea: how about a Linux based/Java interface/19inch/fast DSP enhanced self contained synth?)
I last week finally received the Conrad Electronics catalog, where in the past I've invested in various electronics part such as the PA amp chip, transformers, PCB stuff, a radio remote control system. It's inspiring to read this stuff, makes me think about all the possibilities of doing a good electronics and computer design job. They even have 50cm size electrical remote controlled choppers nowadays (they actually fly of course, about 7-15 minutes), fun stuff. No blimps, though!
A very clear, relevant, and imo. relevant electronics design example is a high quality push-pull end-stage, for instance as (power) amplifier. I lookad at this example on one of my web pages, see the 'engineering projects' and 'highlights' pages on my web site. I've done spice (a well know electronics simulator computer program) simulations with distortion analysis on the page, with good enough results using reasonable parts and very straightforward design logic. Not that a design of this simple enough part complexity (few hands full of parts, as opposed to pages full of diagrams) is simple by nature, hell no, is an expression. Analysing the behaviour of one transistor alone can be very elaborate. Spice models (that is a description file for an electronics part in language which the spice program understands) for the commonly known transistors I used may easily contain dozens of parameters. In mechanical language: sizes so-and-s0, cruising speed so-and-so, accelerations figures so-and-so, maximum speed, type of tires, etc., just example of course, but electronically speaking 20 or 30 of those kinds of figures easily, depending a bit. For each transistor that, is, and then the configuration in the schematic gives them a certain behaviour. Not childs play at all, and in case of an amplifier, the resulting sound quality is directly affected by the quality of the design. In this case, it is predicted how well the amplifier will reproduce a waveform on its input, in terms of the percentage of the error on the output.
I'm not sure I did takeover distortion explicitly, that too would be interesting. Thats when the transistor pulling the output signal up is starting to take over from the transistor pulling the output down. It is a distortion which is relatively bigger for small signals, contrary to most other distortions which increase with larger signals.