Gio

RAD10HEAD

2012.04.30 09:24:00 +0200

Today, I'm going to talk about Radiohead's secret album. The albums in concern are: OK, Computer (1997) and In Rainbows (10/10/2007), the time difference between them is 10 years and they both have 10 letters. The original title for OK, Computer was Zeroes And Ones something like 01 and if you put it in a mirror will definitely look even better. On the other hand In Rainbows in the cover presents 10; so the particular number must have some importance. Our aim will be to produce a new album of 10 songs and to achieve this will interchange the songs of the two albums in the following order:


01. Radiohead - OK Computer - Airbag (4:46)


02. Radiohead - In Rainbows - 15 Step (3:58)


03. Radiohead - OK Computer - Paranoid Android (6:24)


04. Radiohead - In Rainbows - Bodysnatchers (4:02)


05. Radiohead - OK Computer - Subterranean Homesick Alien (4:28)


06. Radiohead - In Rainbows - Nude (4:15)


07. Radiohead - OK Computer - Exit Music (For A Film) (4:27)


08. Radiohead - In Rainbows - Weird Fishes/Arpeggi (5:18)


09. Radiohead - OK Computer - Let Down (5:00)


10. Radiohead - In Rainbows - All I Need (3:48)

Here you have it; this is your new album. For the playback I used Winamp. If you try it do not forget to set cross fade at 10s. Enjoy the listening, the overall mix achieves almost perfection and it just makes sense...

TOOL

2012.04.13 08:22:00 +0200

If you're a fan of TOOL I bet that you have spend hefty amounts of time hearing the album 10'000 Days. Here's another way to enjoy the song 10'000 Days (Wings Pt 2). In order to create the new 10'000 days song you will need the following three songs from the album:

1) 10'000 Days (Wings Pt 2) - 11.13

2) Wings For Marie (Pt 1) - 6.11

3) Viginti Tres - 5.02

You will notice that the length of song 2 & 3 is equivalent to the 1st one. Instead of playing them sequential, try play them in parallel, in the following order:

2 + 3

Enjoy!

The restart page

2012.01.08 19:25:00 +0100

A very neat reboot experience from vintage operating systems can be found here. You should give it a try.

Software exoskeletons, robots etc

2011.07.25 01:29:00 +0200

John D. Cook points out there's a major divide between the way scientists and programmers view the software they write.

Scientists see their software as a kind of exoskeleton, an extension of themselves. Think Dr. Octopus. The software may do heavy lifting, but the scientists remain actively involved in its use. The software is a tool, not a self-contained product.
Programmers see their software as something they will hand over to someone else, more like building a robot than an exoskeleton. Programmers believe it�s their job to encapsulate intelligence in software. If users have to depend on programmers after the software is written, the programmers didn�t finish their job.
One point of tension is defining when a project is done. To a scientist, the software is done when they get what they want out of it, such as a table of numbers for a paper. Professional programmers give more thought to reproducibility, maintainability, and correctness. Scientists think programmers are anal retentive. Programmers think scientists are cowboys.
Programmers need to understand that sometimes a program really only needs to run once, on one set of input, with expert supervision. Scientists need to understand that prototype code may need a complete rewrite before it can be used in production.
The real tension comes when a piece of research software is suddenly expected to be ready for production. The scientist will say �the code has already been written� and can�t imagine it would take much work, if any, to prepare the software for its new responsibilities. They don�t understand how hard it is for an engineer to turn an exoskeleton into a self-sufficient robot.

Deus Ex

2011.07.25 01:14:00 +0200

Cool zone

2011.07.07 20:12:00 +0200

Puscifer

2011.06.07 02:05:00 +0200

I love the work of Maynard Keenan. I hope for a live sometime soon...

The cloud

2011.06.07 00:49:00 +0200

PanicStation

2011.05.13 01:19:00 +0200

Tadhg Kelly writes:

Sony has become my go-to example of how not to behave if you are the kingpin. Of all the major platforms PlayStation is the most branding- and marketing-led, and yet it is the least well regarded. Developers, journalists and many fans like some of the games on the PS3, but Sony PlayStation the entity? Not so much.
Sony's big mistake was to develop the most recognisable game platform in the world and then decide to strip mine it for profit. It acted as though its position was unassailable, that authenticity and branding were the same thing, and so it could do as it pleased. In so doing it sacrificed execution in software, hardware and even its fabled design standards, and so lost trust.
Trust is an essential part of succeeding in the viral economy because relying on advertising in prime time is not that effective any more. Given that the future is going to be about more platforms rather than less, and you may one day end up running your own, you would do well to take heed of Sony's slowly unfurling demise.
[...]
Gatekeepers sit in a position where the customers need them more than they need the customers, and the incumbent advantage that that brings is very profitable even if the execution is merely competent. Gatekeepers don't especially care about maintaining a relationship with their customers as long as they pay. Trust is only a requirement to the extent of legal obligations and anything beyond that is generally more of a branding statement than a genuine part of the company and its products.
In non-toll industries there are really only two business models: Make a commodity or build a relationship. If you go into any electronics store, for example, you will see banks of identical cheap laptops. They are commodities, all much the same, and the companies that make them operate on thin margins. They too are not especially interested in the relationship with their customers beyond a cursory nod to whatever the competition is doing because they rely on prominence at retail. You only ever see about half a dozen PC manufacturers in any branch of the UK chain PC World, for example, because those are the manufacturers that have partnerships with PC World to get prominence on the shelves.
[...]
The difference between the relationship company and the commodity company is that customers care, and even evangelise, on the company's behalf.

Headshot

2011.05.13 01:13:00 +0200

Rachel Swaby explains what happens when you shot in the head (WARNING: Graphic)

You may or may or may not see it coming, but it doesn't really matter. You're not going to have time to react. Because a bullet can travel at speeds exceeding 3200 feet per second, which is too fast to duck or yell or plead. Hang in there. Taking a cap to the dome means that it will be over faster than a fatal wound anywhere else.
The bullet with your name on it slides past hair, skin and muscle before it smashes into one of eight cranial bones engineered to keep your brain safe. Unfortunately, it's too late for that now. Bullets beat bones. The projectile's entrance into your skull makes easy shrapnel of your calcium, phosphorus, sodium, and collagen case. As a souvenir of the opening, you gain a circular hole rimmed with abraded skin. Distance matters, too: The closer you are to the bullet, the more the gun's smoke and powder could burn your flesh.
But enough about the blemish; the real work happens deeper. The connective tissue and fibrous membranes that act as internal cushioning are split open just before the bullet dives into your cerebrospinal fluid. This fluid serves as a shock absorber. It, with some other structures, allows you to ride roller coasters and join mosh pits without injury. But again, because your 3.4-pound control system is being taken out, this will be your last head bang.
The bullet travels through your brain faster than the speed at which your tissues tear. This means that it's actually pushing tissues out of the way, stretching them beyond their breaking points. When high velocity long arms are responsible, bullets traveling at thousands of feet per second will exit your body before your tissues have a chance to rip.
The ability to process information and solve problems? All gone when the bullet shoves its way through your prefrontal cortex. Your ability to index memories? Gone with your hippocampus. In the bullet's wake, a long temporary cavity is left. When the tearing finally does happen, your tissues will snap back toward the initial opening and overshoot their original position. You know that back and forth thing that happens when you kick one of those springy door stops? Well that's what your tissues do when the shock waves kick them.
Then the passage collapses. The high-speed firearm that produced the bullet created a disruption in your brain 10 times its diameter.
But you're lucky, relatively speaking. If you were shot in the heart, your blood pressure would quickly drop, but it would take 10 to 15 seconds to lose brain function. In that time you could draw your gun, utter last words, or spend some time thinking about your unfortunate situation. But a shot to the brain is different. Your brain stops functioning almost immediately. In just a fraction of a second, you're gone.

Zombies

2011.05.13 01:00:00 +0200

Predator: A smart camera that learns

2011.04.05 00:36:00 +0200