Tag Archive for 'i hate everything'

#OccupyNoir – Flashmob Filmmaking at Occupy Wall Street (Also: Why Final Cut X is the Worst Thing That Has Ever Happened in the History of Anything)

Remember when I did this thing about zombies? Well, now I did it again, but with complete strangers at an Occupy event. And in 20 minutes instead of two hours.

Okay, well, the writing and shooting took 20 minutes. The editing ended up taking a lot longer. None of the participants were able to stick around to watch me edit after we wrapped the shoot, so I started working on the train home.

The extended length of time I spent editing was only minimally related to the fact that I had the luxury of more time. It was predominantly related to the fact that I was editing on Final Cut X.

Believe the hype. It is that bad.

Continue reading ‘#OccupyNoir – Flashmob Filmmaking at Occupy Wall Street (Also: Why Final Cut X is the Worst Thing That Has Ever Happened in the History of Anything)’

    Let’s Talk About Steve Jobs, Because Everyone Else Is

    I told myself that I wasn’t going to comment on the latest Steve-job that humanity as a whole is giving itself. Sadly, I was unable to resist. Hence, my latest post on Falkvinge on Infopolicy.

    I, like every single freaking person on the planet, have an about Steve Jobs, and the things he has done in his life. I’m not going to share it with you right now, because it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter at all.

    When most people blabber about Steve Jobs, they’re rarely flapping their lips about him, personally. After all, most people in the world don’t actually know Steve Jobs, nor have they ever even met him in passing. The things about which most people yammer are the effects and consequences of Apple, Inc.’s product releases and business practices.
    [...]
    It’s those trends and issues that matter. But the fact that Apple, specifically, was the company to catalyze all of them doesn’t. And it especially doesn’t matter that His Holiness Dalai Lama Steve Motherfucking Jobs happened to be the CEO and founder of the company that did all of these things.

    Continue reading at Falkvinge on Infopolicy

      Apple Motion is a Poorly-Coded Piece of Shit

      About halfway through my work today, Motion started to slow to a crawl. Even when I turned off the rendering of every single object in the scene, there were some areas that inexplicably played at five frames per second. Half the time the audio would come out garbled and choppy, making it difficult to tell whether anything I was doing was syncing up properly.

      I imagine that this is because I have over 3000 frames of animation occurring from multiple camera angles with several different audio clips in one single project file. This is a different approach from the one I took with the very first scene I animated, in which I created different project files for each “shot”. Unfortunately, that meant if I tweaked a piece of the background in one project, I’d have to go back to all the others and make the same change. Oh, and also that didn’t do jack shit to prevent Motion from behaving like a snail. Anyway, I was hoping that I’d just be able to animate the entire scene in one project file, render each camera angle separately, and not have to deal with any hassle.

      In fact, I’m even animating the characters in a separate project file from the 3D background. The walls, windows, and city graphics are in a completely different project this time.

      And yet, despite my best efforts, Motion still manages to choke. Dear god. I may not have the most state-of-the-art hardware, but really? I’m not even doing anything all that complicated. What a terribly optimized piece of software.

      As a consequence, I wasn’t able to make up for yesterday’s lack of productivity, and could only eke out another script page’s worth today.

      I think I only have one page to go, but I have some things I need to take care of tomorrow that will limit my working hours. Perhaps this scene won’t be finished this week.

      In any case, I’ll use a new project file for the remainder of this scene.

        Stuff Is Too Complicated; Case In Point: Music Theory

        It is never, ever, ever, ever, ever a good thing for anything at all, under any circumstances, to be even one single Planck unit more complicated than absolutely necessary. Needless complexity decreases the number of people who can understand something and contribute to or use it effectively, and adds extra hoops to jump through for people who are capable of understanding it.

        Take music theory, for example. The other day, I was trying to write down the chords for a song I’d accidentally banged out on the piano, and I’d hit a roadblock with one in particular.

        Musical notes, as you may be aware, are represented by the letters A through G, with sharps (♯) or flats (♭) representing the notes in between the letters (except for E and F, B and C, which don’t have anything in between them). They’re arranged in a variety of scales, which are structured based on whether you jump one note (“half step”) or two (“whole step”) at a particular time, but realistically, at least with the well-known Major and Minor scales, most people just figure them out by their distinctive sounds.

        So, it’s pretty easy to figure out several chords. An E Major (or just “E”) chord consists of the first, third, and fifth notes in the E Major scale, which are E, G♯, and B; E Minor is E, G, and B. Then you can throw in other notes from the scale to make things like E2 with the 2nd note, (E, F♯, G♯, B) or E7 with the 7th note (E, G♯, B, D (in 7th chords, the minor 7th is usually used because it sounds better; if you used D♯ you’d call it E Major major 7th)), or play with “suspended” chords which replace the third note with others — for example, Esus2 (E, F♯, B).

        It starts to get a bit complicated as the chords get less common. For example, if you wanted to merge E2 and E7 to create an E, F♯, G♯, B, D chord, the chord is called E9. Is that because 2 + 7 = 9? No, that’s a complete coincidence. The actual reason is that this kind of chord is normally expressed E, G♯, B, D, F♯ — the F♯ is higher now, so that makes it the 9th note instead of the 2nd. However, *9 chords always include the 7th note, a concept which may not be immediately intuitive. In order to include just the 9th note with no 7th (E, G♯, B, F♯), you call the chord Eadd9. Which is totally not the same thing as E2 this time for some reason. But that’s not too difficult to figure out, at least. It may not be 100% obvious, but it sorta works.

        So, anyway, about that roadblock I hit: what if you wanted to make a chord that consisted of A, C, D, and E? Well, A, C, E is an A minor chord. So if you add D, which is the 4th note in the A minor scale, it follows that the chord would be called “A minor 4″, right?

        Well, no, because there’s no such thing as a 4 chord. There’s a sus4 (suspended 4) chord. But no just plain 4 chord. You can’t even say “add4″. Well, you could, but it would be wrong. A 4 chord, according to music theory, does not exist at all.

        So, what’s the name of a chord consisting of A, C, D, and E? Well, that’s simple. It’s called “E7sus4♯5″, of course.

        You see, E7 is E, G♯, B, D. Add a suspended 4 to that, and you replace the G♯ with an A. And since there’s no such thing as B♯, if you sharpened the B you’d jump right to C. So now you’ve got E, A, C, and D, and all you have to do is play the E on top to get the chord you’re looking for.

        I mean, like, duh.

        Now, that makes sense and all, except for the fact that it makes no fucking sense whatsoever. It would save so much trouble and produce a much more comprehensible-looking chord to just write “Am4″ (“m” is shorthand for Minor), but that’s not allowed, because the chord doesn’t exist.

        My brother, Alex Green, explained to me exactly why this is the case:

        It’s all about function. Am4 means nothing in the key of A Major.

        Actually, yes, it’s true that in my particular case, the song I was writing was in the key of E Minor, so Am4 wouldn’t mean anything in the key of A Major unless I happened to be writing a song that was in the key of A Major with a random A, C, D, E chord thrown in somewhere. However, this E Minor-based song also uses chords such as “D Major”, which is, interestingly enough, not referred to as “E7add2sus4 without the E” in this particular context.

        Providing to the vast majority of songwriters a logical explanation for exactly why chords such as “Am4″ do not exist would be about as useful as explaining to your 90-year-old grandmother the countless advantages of being able to make kernel modifications to your installation of Ubuntu versus the proprietary, locked-down nature of Windows, when all she wants to do is get to her email. Songwriters want to write things that sound good, and as soon as the theoretical stuff stops being in service of that goal and begins to make it needlessly harder, it only causes problems.

          The iPad Might Mean the End of Intel Macs, and That Scares Me

          Yeah, yeah, the iPad wasn’t all that great, and it’s underwhelming, and it won’t cure cancer like we thought it would, blahdeblahdeblah. We all know that, and that’s not what I’m going to rant about right now.

          The iPad is the first device to use an Apple-designed processor. This is something one could easily have predicted when Apple bought PA Semi in 2008, but now that Apple’s finally gone and used their newly acquired chipmaker to actually make their own chip, the potential ramifications begin to sink in. Now that Apple makes their own processors, what’s to say they’ll still be putting Intel’s in their Macs?

          One can see why they wouldn’t want to. Continue reading ‘The iPad Might Mean the End of Intel Macs, and That Scares Me’