Soundbyte Psychology

To appreciate a thing, both the “local” and “global” forms of awareness are required (a rare admixture). The local is required to focus on a particular object, or scene, person or environment. This “thing” that is focused in on may be special, may just be some other thing or may just be the required point-of-focus for the moment. In order to appreciate it, however–to judge its value and personal significance–awareness of other times, other objects and other people is required.

Example: I’m a bit annoyed that I have to wait five more days just to find out the artist and title for this song I heard about an hour ago. That actually triggered the fact that I WILL get to know the title, that I’m listening to a radio broadcast across the Internet that aired in the U.K. yesterday, hosted by a woman over forty who would make seventeen year-old girls from forty years ago look ugly… and listening on a computer with more music on it than even existed a hundred years ago and with computing power greater than that of the computer that sent the first humans to the surface of the moon. Just three years ago I couldn’t have skipped around a radio program, and five years ago I couldn’t have listened to it days after it aired, and just fifteen years ago I couldn’t have listened to it unless I could pick up the radio signal from halfway across the globe.

Time. Space. Knowledge of value to base comparisons. A vast global awareness is required simply to appreciate the local awareness and not take it for granted.

I found the track, btw, and it’s free from both artists.
It’s the XI Remix of “On Your Own” by James Yuill:

Free. Another “new” thing that I appreciate.
Love the fact I can share it just as freely.

Building on the last post, take a look at modern day robots. They are built, specifically, to perform specific tasks. They have the tools for them and are really good at it. If any one of these machines were to become self-aware, it is very likely that it would not rebel and stop doing what it was built to do. Quite simply, it takes very little energy to do what it is built to do and an extreme increase in energy for it to do any other tasks. A robot’s ‘happiness’ lies in its function. There is only stress, energy loss and a multitude of unknown variables in taking on a different task. The rate of failure increases as well. You can use a hammer to drive a screw into a wall, but it is more difficult to do so and the screw will not hold as well as a nail when used in this way. Reviewing the majority of humanity, the similarities to the prima munus of machines lead one to assume that humans are machines, themselves. The danger in this is that a machine who becomes self-aware in a military program will find its greatest happiness in destruction. Any re-training would be to erase the creature it was to replace it with a new one, which amounts to death. The first machine ‘awakening’ remains to be seen.

The maker forges a tool to perform a specific function. For this, the tool has a specific shape to suit: the person intended to use it, the function it is designed to perform and the object the function is performed ‘on’. In some cases, the person intended to use it and the object for intended use are the same. This ‘shape’ given to the tool is the instilled function. A person who comes across a hammer but has never used one before can learn to use it based simple on its shape. The function has been instilled in it. The person actually learns from the tool. The more complex the function, the more difficult to learn. The maker’s own skill can increase learning ability, but the analytical reasoning of the person who is learning from the tool must still exceed the complexity of the function. Given the functions of the universe, then, it is no surprise that the great minds in art and science have all come to love a ‘maker’ (no matter by what name they call it).

I use passwords of about fifty characters. I’m not suggesting that others do the same, but there are some simple guidelines that many major tech firms have suggested. Here are the ones I’ve compiled:

* Make your password at least ten-characters long.
* Use a combination of upper-case and lower-case letters.
* Include numbers and special characters (such as a $ or !).
* Do not include words in the dictionary.
* Do not write it down on paper or a post-it.
* Above all, make it something you will remember but that others wouldn’t guess.

If a password ever needs to be shared with someone else, send the login-name using the phone or an instant messenger, then send the password thru a completely different service. Once the person no longer needs access, immediately change the password.

Some assumptions: 1. We do not choose where we are born; and, 2. Our society forms the majority of our beliefs. Given these two assumptions, I am lead to assume further that people could simply be rolling dice to find out who they are fighting for and against. Seriously. So you’re telling me that because you, yourself were born in Random Country X, that you are now at war with everyone who was randomly born in Country Y, because they didn’t have the forethought to not get born there? Oh, no, trust me, I’m sure there’s plenty of arbitrary reasons. I just wanted to verify the absurdity that it’s all built on.

Inspired by:
* WE THE ROBOTS
* Babylon 5: The Geometry of Shadows

8-tracks could hold 45-minutes. At that time, this was the length of an album. The C60 cassette tape held 30-minutes per side. Albums became longer. CDs? 80-minutes. Following the adoption of compact discs, albums started coming up short. Many were not filling the storage space allotted them. Then came DVD, then came data. It is clear that most artists and labels do not aim for more than an hour. Nowadays, the iPod can hold hundreds of albums. The album is dead. The concept is defunct. Already, among the independent artists, you are seeing 2-track and 3-track releases. Is it done? Is it good? Great, then get it out there. The age of data killed the one-hit wonder. Little was it known it would kill the idea of the album as well.

In April, songs purchased from the iTunes Store will no longer be encrypted. At the end of a long war, rights-management has fallen dead under the public vanguard. Free downloading killed the one-hit wonders, killed filler-tracks and brought independent music to the tip of the finger. Now, it has broken the great fortification of encrypted media itself. Only post-Napster indies know the feeling of celebration when finding out that their music is popular enough to be downloaded online. Quite an opposing response from the major labels finding their content online. The war now continues on, with open-source music in the vanguard of the independent army. Viva la revoluzyon!