Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Friday, September 21, 2012
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Nature™
I wrote this awhile ago, but I think it fits in well with the blog.
I went for a walk at twilight. The sun had been setting for about an
hour, and the reds and oranges of refracting beams of light began to
pierce through the blue veil of grey clouds. "Nature", I thought; pure,
simple, and radiant. A moment passed as the street lights began to
flicker into life, taking up the mantel that the sun had just set down.
I found this to be quite a curious thing; as the ensuing artificiality
of my surroundings began to consume my thoughts, and the reality of my
domain began to invade the beaches of my mind. Nature is that thing
that we see outside of our living-room window, the blur that passes by
us as we commute to school or work in the morning; to most of us, it is
that magical place that is contained outside our walls and barriers. If
you were to ask any stranger to describe to you a part of nature, they
would probably point to the tree in front of their house, or their
meticulously groomed grass. So, why is it that, during my walk today, I
felt removed from what nature might really be? that even outside of my
glorified cubical, I still felt protected within a wall of illusion and
artificial construct? Is the space that we navigate through, really
nature? or is it a nature that our imaginations have created?
In
art, in depicting the physical, it is said that the artist should
render what they SEE, and not what they think they see; that the artist
should use his or her eyes to translate a scene to paper, and not the
preconceived image that their imagination has classified that object
with. But have we, humanity, created an environment based on what we
view nature to be with our minds eye? That this sudo-nature construct of
our neighborhoods and parks and agricultural centres, is not true
nature, but a false preconception of what we think nature looks like?
That humanity has become so far removed from our birthing environment,
that we can no longer picture it as the disease and death ridden collage
of colour that it truly is? Or are carpets of well manicured flora and
fauna, and the overwhelming sense of security, as natural as the nature
known to this world before the industrial revolution?
Allegory of the Cave, a product of Plato; describes a scene of individuals, who have no concept of the forms that reality has placed around them, being sat in a cave and facing a wall opposite of the entrance. Behind these individuals there is a walkway for objects to be displayed on; behind the walkway, a fire rages, casting the shadows of the displayed objects onto the wall in front of the people in the cave. Now, if a chair (for example) were to be placed in front of the fire, and its shadow cast on the wall, what would the individuals call the shadow displayed in front of them? well they would call it a chair; but in calling the shadow a chair, they are wrong. What they see in front of them is a shadow cast from the object behind them; they have no concept of the objects true nature, unless they turn around to see it. (( http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/cave.htm ) A better description of Platos cave can be found with that link.)Has humanity been staring at a shadow, and claiming it to be nature? Has the neck muscles of the masses atrophied to the point that we can no longer look at the source of the shadow that lays in waiting right behind us? Maybe it's time for us to look up from our paper, and drink-in what we are attempting to draw; to catch a glimpse of the true beauty and terror that is casting that shadow. To reclaim what nature really is, and to foster a new love for our blue spaceship of infinity.
But maybe I'm just crazy. Maybe I had too much caffeine today, or maybe it's the shock of realizing I had only one roll of film left after only an hour of walking into town. Maybe I think too much.
Allegory of the Cave, a product of Plato; describes a scene of individuals, who have no concept of the forms that reality has placed around them, being sat in a cave and facing a wall opposite of the entrance. Behind these individuals there is a walkway for objects to be displayed on; behind the walkway, a fire rages, casting the shadows of the displayed objects onto the wall in front of the people in the cave. Now, if a chair (for example) were to be placed in front of the fire, and its shadow cast on the wall, what would the individuals call the shadow displayed in front of them? well they would call it a chair; but in calling the shadow a chair, they are wrong. What they see in front of them is a shadow cast from the object behind them; they have no concept of the objects true nature, unless they turn around to see it. (( http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/cave.htm ) A better description of Platos cave can be found with that link.)Has humanity been staring at a shadow, and claiming it to be nature? Has the neck muscles of the masses atrophied to the point that we can no longer look at the source of the shadow that lays in waiting right behind us? Maybe it's time for us to look up from our paper, and drink-in what we are attempting to draw; to catch a glimpse of the true beauty and terror that is casting that shadow. To reclaim what nature really is, and to foster a new love for our blue spaceship of infinity.
But maybe I'm just crazy. Maybe I had too much caffeine today, or maybe it's the shock of realizing I had only one roll of film left after only an hour of walking into town. Maybe I think too much.
And Now for Something Completely Different...
This blog was originally about wristbands: Their expressive qualities and how they relate to a persons personality and an onlookers ability to gauge a person by what is placed around their wrist.
But the content of this blog is switching to something deeper:
Questions.
Questions define our existence. They give us the burning desire to know more; they give base to our knowledge of things as expansive as the universe, or something as simple as our understanding of families.
Yes, an answer defines these same things; but only for a certain period. See, as an individuals knowledge of matters evolve, so do their understandings and ponderings of those matters that are intertwined with their preconceived understandings. Their knowledge and inteligence is ever evolving, much like their questions; but an answer is inert, and unable to roll with the punches of an evolving consciousness. One doesn't live their life believing their parents answer that, 'babies are being delivered by an avian animal' their entire lives; no, they dispose of that answer once they mature and take in more information.
http://i.imgur.com/TQSNe.jpg
There's an image at the end of that link that does a really good job of explaining the concept behind this new change; not to mention how deep the comic is.
But the content of this blog is switching to something deeper:
Questions.
Questions define our existence. They give us the burning desire to know more; they give base to our knowledge of things as expansive as the universe, or something as simple as our understanding of families.
Yes, an answer defines these same things; but only for a certain period. See, as an individuals knowledge of matters evolve, so do their understandings and ponderings of those matters that are intertwined with their preconceived understandings. Their knowledge and inteligence is ever evolving, much like their questions; but an answer is inert, and unable to roll with the punches of an evolving consciousness. One doesn't live their life believing their parents answer that, 'babies are being delivered by an avian animal' their entire lives; no, they dispose of that answer once they mature and take in more information.
http://i.imgur.com/TQSNe.jpg
There's an image at the end of that link that does a really good job of explaining the concept behind this new change; not to mention how deep the comic is.
Flickr
http://www.flickr.com/photos/85641655@N08/
That's a link to my Flickr stream. I hope...
Do you have a Flickr account?
That's a link to my Flickr stream. I hope...
Do you have a Flickr account?
Monday, September 10, 2012
Music Files and Compression
What's the difference between AAC, AIFF, and MP3 files?
AAC stands for Advanced Audio Coding, but is also better known as an MPEG4.
AAC was designed to be the successor of the MP3; giving a similar file size, but having an all around better quality of sound. There is still some crackling or the occasional cut-out in quality, but all-in-all, a much better format.
An Mp3 is the standard file compression for audio files. Mp3 works by compressing the music file enough to fit on a low-memory storage system, but also retain a form of quality. Although this quality formatting is sub-par (Hissing in the background, crackling, messed up vocals and melody), it is still the most widely used file formatting for music.
In a comparison of an AAC and Mp3 compression of the Rolling Stones song Paint it Black; the AAC file had slightly better audio at only a couple mega bytes of increased memory usage (AAC- 7.3MB and Mp3- 5.2MB).
Moving on, we have the AIFF file. AIFF stands for Audio Interchange File Format; and it is the best file format of the three listed above. AIFF is non-lossy formatting; which means that the file being compressed will not be dilapidated like it would be for other formatting styles.
That being said, AIFF blows AAC and MP3 formatting out of the water quality-wise.
That also being said, AIFF is a space-hoarder...
An AIFF format of Paint it Black by the Rolling Stones is exponentially larger than a file of the same song that was formatted in either AAC or MP3.
The AIFF file was 38.1MB of space, when the AAC was 7.3MB and the MP3 was 5.2MB.
Even though the quality is insanely good, the storage used is increased exponentially. But even then, in a world where smart devices and music players have 64GB memories, does that really matter? Sure, you wouldn't be able to hold eleven-bagillion songs on your device; but who even owns that much music in the first place? let alone listens to it all if they do.
If I had to trade in my entire CD collection for a media player filled with my music, I would definitely go with the AIFF format. Because not only would the quality be outstanding, but you can always upgrade the memory on your device with bigger SD cards. (unless you have an apple product, but even then, you can move your music to something bigger with the help of iTunes).
AAC stands for Advanced Audio Coding, but is also better known as an MPEG4.
AAC was designed to be the successor of the MP3; giving a similar file size, but having an all around better quality of sound. There is still some crackling or the occasional cut-out in quality, but all-in-all, a much better format.
An Mp3 is the standard file compression for audio files. Mp3 works by compressing the music file enough to fit on a low-memory storage system, but also retain a form of quality. Although this quality formatting is sub-par (Hissing in the background, crackling, messed up vocals and melody), it is still the most widely used file formatting for music.
In a comparison of an AAC and Mp3 compression of the Rolling Stones song Paint it Black; the AAC file had slightly better audio at only a couple mega bytes of increased memory usage (AAC- 7.3MB and Mp3- 5.2MB).
Moving on, we have the AIFF file. AIFF stands for Audio Interchange File Format; and it is the best file format of the three listed above. AIFF is non-lossy formatting; which means that the file being compressed will not be dilapidated like it would be for other formatting styles.
That being said, AIFF blows AAC and MP3 formatting out of the water quality-wise.
That also being said, AIFF is a space-hoarder...
An AIFF format of Paint it Black by the Rolling Stones is exponentially larger than a file of the same song that was formatted in either AAC or MP3.
The AIFF file was 38.1MB of space, when the AAC was 7.3MB and the MP3 was 5.2MB.
Even though the quality is insanely good, the storage used is increased exponentially. But even then, in a world where smart devices and music players have 64GB memories, does that really matter? Sure, you wouldn't be able to hold eleven-bagillion songs on your device; but who even owns that much music in the first place? let alone listens to it all if they do.
If I had to trade in my entire CD collection for a media player filled with my music, I would definitely go with the AIFF format. Because not only would the quality be outstanding, but you can always upgrade the memory on your device with bigger SD cards. (unless you have an apple product, but even then, you can move your music to something bigger with the help of iTunes).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)