Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Sometimes music sounds SO good

Ever have one of those days where you just get thrilled and excited by everything you hear? I set last.fm to play "Jesus Lizard radio" and have been enjoying the hell out of everything. Pissed Jeans are a really good band? Who knew? They sound kind of like a cross between the Jesus Lizard (of course?) and the New Flesh.

Karp effing rock. Is everything by the Unsane this good? I'm even seriously digging this song by Girls Against Boys and it's from their major label sell-out album "Freakonica." This Drive Like Jehu song is kicking my ass. And now "Cheeba" by the Boredoms is literally giving me chills. Damn, that song is amazing! That whole album, "Pop Tatari," is unbelievably good.

It could be partly because I didn't sleep at all the night before last then went straight to a new job assignment and worked until 8:30pm on almost no food - and now I've had a night's rest, am home for the day, have a cup of coffee and bagel, and sun's coming through the windows. I feel like exercising!

Maybe it's also because I haven't listened to ROCK music much these days and have forgotten how it can actually be awesome. Mostly been jamming noise, no-wave, and death metal for a long time.

In any case, it's a very good music day. Really enjoying this mellow Oneida song too. Strangely I haven't heard any Jesus Lizard yet.

Here's me on last.fm:


http://www.last.fm/user/mplockwood

Thursday, October 29, 2009

the Top Ten things humans want to know HOW TO do...

Google will auto-complete search requests as you type them in. I assume this is based on the most popular search phrases, and so it makes for some kind of gauge of what humanity (at least the part with internet access) is interested in. I just started a search request with "How to" and Google popped up a list of the most common things people have sought instruction on. The list is an intriguing look into human priorities in the year 2009.

I now present, THE TOP TEN THINGS HUMANS WANT TO KNOW HOW TO DO:

1. tie a tie
2. kiss
3. get pregnant
4. lose weight
5. lose weight fast
6. make a website
7. write a resume
8. solve a rubix cube
9. get rid of fruit flies
10. draw

Some of these are encouraging, some are surprising, some very unsurprising. I can say with certainty that I know how to do 5 of the things on this list. I am pretty sure I know how to do 2 more. 2 others are very difficult and 1 is probably impossible.*


* certain: 1,3,4,6,10
pretty sure: 2,7
difficult: 5,8
impossible?: 9

Thursday, October 22, 2009

How to make your own instant coffee that tastes just like real fresh-brewed coffee

I tried that new Starbucks instant coffee they call "Via." They were doing a taste test thing where if you guess correctly you get a coupon and a free cup of coffee. They've been advertising this stuff as instant coffee that actually tastes just like real coffee. I was incredibly skeptical.

So, does it really taste like brewed coffee? Short answer: NO.

However... I was in a group of 4 people who tried it and all 3 of the others got it wrong. I picked the instant one, but to be honest, I used probability and logic as much as my tastebuds. I tried sample 1 and it tasted like a real cup of coffee. I tried sample 2 and it was too weak to be sure, so I said sample 2 was instant and I was right.

I got a free sample so I got to try it again later. It is not exactly the same as brewed coffee, but it is about a hundred times closer than anything else called instant. In fact, if they had just switched the regular stuff for this Via, I probably wouldn't have seriously doubted it. I might have thought "they using some kind of different roast?" or maybe "did I get decaf?" I started thinking maybe it would be a good idea to have some of this on hand for emergency situations. You know, driving through the night, getting sleepy, and the only stop is a gas station with some vile brown stuff simmering on the burner... You could just grab some hot water (usually free) and have a decent coffee to keep you going.

So how does Starbucks do it??? I guess they just grind up real coffee super-fine, which makes one wonder why no one else has done that before. But the Via stuff costs $1 per shot, which makes 8 oz. of coffee, the same price as real coffee in a Starbucks! So I got to thinking, which brings me to the point of this post:

YOU CAN MAKE YOUR OWN INSTANT COFFEE THAT TASTES JUST LIKE FRESH-BREWED COFFEE.

Because... it IS fresh-brewed coffee. It's this simple: 1.Grind some coffee beans. You can do this in advance, maybe keep them in a ziplock bag. 2.Put one teaspoonful of grounds into a cup or mug. Then add a teaspoonful per 8 oz. of water. 3.Pour hot water in with the grounds. Hotter will work better. 4.Wait. Maybe give it a little stir. When the grounds sink, your coffee is ready.

Seriously, it works. It's basically the same as a french press, you just don't press it. You may worry that you will get a mouthful of grounds, but you won't. Just don't drink that last swallow with all the coffee grounds at the bottom. They sink once they're brewed. Try it. You'll get a cup of coffee that's just as good as the Starbucks instant (provided your grounds are reasonably fresh) and about 100 times better than any other instant coffee.

By the way, you can use the same method with tea leaves to make tea. It's actually the recommended method.

UPDATE: I just tried this on my job last week and the results were - eh - not amazing. It involved more stirring and waiting than I remember. I think boiling water works much better than water-cooler-hot water. Some of the bigger pieces of coffee bean never sank. I was sad that it actually turned out inferior to the Starbucks Instant, but I think with better grinding and real boiling I could pull off a great cup this way.

Friday, September 4, 2009

How can brilliant people think really dumb things? PART 1

I'm a physics groupie. I follow ideas and developments in theoretical physics, I read physics books (for the layman - or for the advanced layman if I can) and I follow some physicist bloggers.

One of these bloggers whom I've come across is the rather notorious Lubos Motl from the Czech Republic. He is a legit String Theorist who has taught at Harvard and is, in many ways, a very smart physicist. I'm not a physicist, but this is what I gather. He also appears to be full-blown, mad-scientist insane.

For a while I took his strange and sometimes off-putting writing as a combination of English-as-second-language and poor internet etiquette. Surely when he casually dropped terms like "feminist bitches" followed by a ;) emoticon, he was just painfully unaware that this language could be considered highly offensive, right? He consistently refers to anyone who disagrees or even questions him as a "crackpot" or "stupid." In an example of  borderline self-parody, Motl regularly uses terms like "isomorphic" instead of "the same," "unity" instead of "one," etc. Rumor has it that a character on the sit-com The Big Bang Theory is based on Motl.

Oh, and he also denies that global warming is real or anything to worry about, proudly trumpeting the discovery of anyone who agrees with this position, which is, of course, given greater weight than the 99.9% of climatologists who disagree. This fact alone had earned him a place in my internal musings on "how brilliant people can think really dumb things."

Still, one could just barely write it all off as the idiosyncracies of an eccentric scientist with an awkward grasp of English and social conduct. Just barely... But a recent blog posting of his takes things WAY over the top. I will link to it HERE - However, I would encourage others to follow my example and NOT give his blog any more traffic than necessary. I am now unsubscribing myself.

Motl's post is entitled "Why Lee Smolin is an immoral double-faced fraudster and liar." Okay, really? REALLY?

This doesn't need a rebuttal at all. Even without knowing anything about the people named, or the physics being discussed, any sane reader could deduce from the writing itself that Motl is bonkers. In fact, the people mentioned in his posting have - wisely - completely ignored this. At least a couple of them maintain their own blogs and they have not mentioned it. There's no need because it speaks for itself. So why am I taking the time to write about this? Well, it made me think. Besides, I am not a physicist and no one reads this anyway, so I can vent my thoughts without stirring up the situation any further.

Lee Smolin is another physicist who has written some books for the general public. He also happens to be very critical of String Theory and has made a public case in one of his books that its domination over physics' marketplace of ideas is hindering progress. He works on a rival theory called Loop Quantum Gravity, but he has also done work on String Theory. I have read his books and enjoyed them all. I think his motivations and guidng principles are well-founded, although I do think some of his scientific theories and hunches are very wrong-headed. (A post for another time)

So what is the great crime which Motl accuses him of? If any casual observer were to read Motl's writing, which includes the lengthy "incriminating" quotes from Smolin, they would probably be baffled. They would certainly be hard-pressed to find anything "immoral" within. To summarize, a decade ago, Smolin suggested that his pet theory, Loop Quantum Gravity, had some real testable predictions - unlike String Theory (according to Smolin). Specifically, different energies of light might travel at very slightly different speeds through the vacuum of space. This very slight difference might accumulate as light travels through space and it could be detectable in light from distant supernova explosions or similar events. Well, just recently there WAS a rather clear observation of just that, a distant gamma ray burst - and it would appear that the energies of light in fact arrived at the same time - and thus traveled at the same speed. Bad news for Loop Quantum Gravity? Maybe - but now Smolin says that prediction was not definitive and the theory is not absolutely ruled out.

Fraudster! Liar! ... Wouldn't you say that "Smolin is the ultimate symbol of the complete absence of the scientific integrity and, indeed, the very basic human ethical values."?

No? You wouldn't? Me neither, but apparently Motl would. If I were to be particularly hard on Smolin I might say that he is "waffling" or that his previous statements were "misleading." Motl however, says of Smolin that "what he's doing and saying ... simply exceeds all the limits that could be tolerable for a person who should be allowed to freely walk on the street." If Obama were guilty of a similar transgression, I think even his harshest critics would, at worst, accuse him of "flip-flopping," not representing the absence of basic human ethical values! (okay, maybe Rush Limbaugh would)

I should point out that making claims of testable predictions, then changing or retracting those predictions, is something that String Theory has been widely accused of for a long time. In fact, that was one of the points Smolin had made in his book. ("The Trouble with Physics") So this criticism of Smolin is especially rich coming from a hard-line String Theorist. It seems to me that the worst thing you might be able to say about Loop Quantum Gravity is that it now looks "no better than String Theory."

I would also like to point out that what all of these physicists are trying to do, develop a Grand Unified Theory, is really hard. Really, really hard. No one on Earth can be certain about how to proceed. It would be insane to demand that any physicist should be able to avoid all wrong ideas or never need to revise their theories.

But wait, Motl goes on: "Everyone who tolerates this disgraceful liar and demagogue as a part of the scientific community is an immoral bastard. ... the internet crackpots - the likes of 'Marcus', 'Peter Woit', 'Sabine Hossenfelder', and similar subjects from the moral dumping ground of science"

In the interest of full disclosure, I should mention that Sabine Hossenfelder helped me get some freelance web-combing and data entry work on a project of hers. This gives me neither insight into her moral character, nor her abilities as a physicist. I invite you to judge for yourself based on her blog, Backreaction, which I do personally recommend. (in fact, reading it is how I found out she needed some data entry help) She has also weighed in on that gamma ray burst observation with a post here, which seems very sober and sensible to me. I also hadn't spotted this before now, but Hossenfelder has also written a post on Lubos Motl here, which explains her experiences in dealing with him, and why she discourages giving him more web traffic.

Peter Woit also maintains a blog which I read, entitled Not Even Wrong, found here. He is also a String Theory skeptic, and in fact plays the role of general physics skeptic in his blog. From what I gather he is also opposed to reasoning that invokes a multiverse, although I personally tend to believe that some form of multiverse must logically exist. (another topic for another post) Still, I think his viewpoint is necessary and refreshing, and though occasionally sarcastic, I've never noticed his writing to be personally insulting to anyone. He has several times mentioned Motl's objections in a very calm and charitable tone.

To sum up.

Backreaction and Not Even Wrong are recommended physics-related blogs that are readable by the layman. Lubos Motl also writes a physics blog, but may be insane. Please don't take his criticisms of other people seriously. More physics reading recommendations in future blog posts...

-M.P.

Tuesday, August 4, 2009

more band name pronunciation explanations

Would you believe in that previous post I actually misspelled one of the band names?

Wzt Hearts (the pronunciation "Waxed Hearts" is still acceptable, but I'm now leaning toward "Whazzit Hearts.")

and I'm adding one more

3OH!3 (this band name is pronounced "Eee - I - Eee - I - Oh")

any other band names people are curious about?

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

Bands I hope I never, ever have to listen to, just based on their names.

Cute Is What We Aim For
(steering clear, just in case they succeed... or fail)

Clap Your Hands Say Yeah
(got it. pass.)

The Pains of Being Pure at Heart
(the LAST thing in the world I want to hear about)

But at least these bands come with clear warning labels, which I appreciate. As a counter-example, consider this band name that might make you THINK you want to hear this band, but you will be so sad and disappointed if you do:

The Eagles of Death Metal
(so misleading, UNLESS they are referring to the band, The Eagles)

Friday, May 1, 2009

How to pronounce those modern band names

As you all know, bands ran out of name ideas several years ago and have had to resort to nonsensical jumbles of letters and numbers to use as band names. I refuse to follow these bands' "official pronunciations," or even pay attention to them at all, and say these band names the way I choose. What are they anyway, pronunciation nazis? I encourage everyone to follow my example. Here's how I think these band names should be said.

MGMT: pronounced "Mudgemutt"

DD/MM/YYYY: pronounced "Duh-Dummy-Yah-Yah-Yah."

Wxt Hearts: pronounced "Waxed Hearts"

Xrin Arms: pronounced "Christian Arms"

!!!: not pronounced at all, just silently raise eyebrows 3 times.

Wooden Shjips: pronounced "Wooden Shih-jips"

more to come I'm sure...

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

The Watchmen Saturday morning cartoon

What, you didn't know about the Watchmen Saturday morning pilot episode from 1988 or so? This video is AMAZING (if you are also a comic book nerd like me).





P.S. - not real, but really well done.

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

CDs found in Bedford Ave Salvation Army

On a recent visit to the Salvation Army thrift store on Bedford Avenue, ground zero for Brooklyn hipster "cool," I thought it might be fun to browse the CDs. What CDs are the coolest hipsters who have moved from Europe and California to live in Brooklyn sick of? What music have they outgrown and been unable to sell back to one of the CD stores on the Bedford strip? Or perhaps, what were they giving a try but just couldn't get into?

This is a very incomplete list of some of the used CDs I found. The normal assortment of generic holiday compilations and complete unknowns were present also, I only jotted down some which seemed interesting.

Pretty Girls Make Graves
Q and Not U
Friends soundtrack
Ween "The Pod" (burned on CDR)
Times New Viking "Paisley Reich" (still in shrinkwrap!)
Jessica Simpson
Marilyn Manson "Best Of"
Britney Spears "Hits" (burned on CDR)
Smashing Pumpkins "Siamese Dream"
Calla
Morningwood "Promo disc"
Need New Body "UFO"
Mindflayer "Take Your Skin Off" (If I didn't already own this, I definitely would have grabbed it! Also, the disc was missing, only the case was there.)
In-Bulbophonic Sound (Bulb Records sampler - ?!?! - I also already own this.)
Cherry Poppin Daddies "Zoot Suit Riot"
Sugar Ray "Floored"
Modest Mouse "Sad Sappy Sucker"
Red Red Meat "Bunny Gets Paid"

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

how to tell the difference between death metal and "deathcore"

I listen to some death metal. I make absolutely no claims to be an expert, but I can tell the difference between melodic death metal, technical death metal, and brutal death metal by ear. So I'm not a total noob, right? Sometimes I browse for new bands to listen to and have recently been seeing more and more bands described as "deathcore." Initially I avoided these, but after seeing the tag multiple times, I started to wonder what it described. From listening to the music, I am still very unclear on what the difference is between "deathcore" and plain "death metal" but I think I have found a few differences.

From briefly browsing the bands considered "deathcore" on last.fm - these are the differences I have found. Please note that these are only general guidelines and I am still learning! Suggestions may be added in the comments.

1. Deathcore is made by Americans with short hair in black hoodies. Death Metal is made by people from anywhere else with long hair in black T-shirts.

1a. A Deathcore band may have a member with anime hair (aka emo hair). A Death Metal band will never have a member with anime hair, but may have a member with no hair (and a goatee).

2. Death Metal bands have symmetrical band name logos, Deathcore bands have asymmetrical logos.

3. Death Metal band names derive from diseases, causes of death, or something blasphemous, and generally end in "tion" or "ssion." Deathcore band names resemble post-hardcore/emo band names and generally sound like an X-Men name ("Whitechapel") or a sentence fragment from high school poetry ("A Black Rose Burial").

Examples

Deathcore:

Death Metal:
 

Deathcore:

Death Metal:

You may note that while nationality may have something to do with the distinction, ethnicity does not. However, age and BMI might?  I have also just noticed that Deathcore bands sometimes wear baseball caps.

However, none of these distinguishing features say anything about the sound of the music. I read last.fm's definition of the Deathcore tag. It explains that... "Though a sub-genre of metalcore, deathcore is heavily influenced by modern death metal in its speed, heaviness, and approach to chromatic, heavily palm muted riffing and dissonance. Lyrics may not always be in the death metal vein, but traditional growls, and screaming are prevalent, often combined with metalcore shouting or yelling vocals. Much of deathcore features breakdowns and heavy use of blasting."

Okay, what this seems to be saying to me is that, unlike Metalcore, which takes SOME elements from Death Metal (but otherwise might sound a little like Limp Bizkit), Deathcore takes ALL elements from Death Metal. Except for the lyrics. That should make it easy to tell them apart ... oh, wait... um...

I remember back in 1998 or so I really wanted to form a death metal band, specifically because it seemed like the only remaining underground music genre that was in no way trendy or fashionable. Sigh. Oh well. I guess there's still polka.