Barnson.org

Like many people, I set New Years Resolutions this year. One of my primary ones is to lose the weight I’ve put on since August of 2009.

Those who’ve been around a while know that for about two years (2007-2009) I was really into health & fitness. I worked out at the gym every day, lost about thirty pounds, and felt great. Unfortunately, January through August of 2009 I lived through the most painful time ever in my life, and it became increasingly difficult to motivate myself to keep working out and staying healthy in the face of my overwhelming depression. By September, I’d fallen off the wagon completely, and had actually developed an aversion to the gym.

I stand today having gained all that weight back, plus a bit more.

So this morning I’m starting over. Every morning I’m taking photos, with the goal of creating a one-year composite video of my transformation. I’m also taking daily measurements, and critical to my goal is to record every bite of food I eat, even on my planned days off.

I know from experience that in one year I can drop a lot of weight. I can also put on a lot of muscle. I have the gym equipment in the basement that I picked up last year — thus avoiding the gym aversion — and I’m pretending I’m a weightlifting newbie again: just the bar, please, to start off, and I’ll work my way up from there.

I have created a Google Spreadsheet to track my macro-nutrients, weight, and fat percentages. It’s very helpful to me to have this kind of exacting statistics-tracking; it keeps me motivated.

I found last time that following the programs from Musclehack.com | The Home of Muscle Growth helped me a lot. Mark has several sensible, carbohydrate-restricted eating programs and a muscle-building program that helped me pack on fifteen pounds of muscle in a pretty short time last time around. I’ll be giving that a try again.

Wish me luck!

(I’m working on making the photos easy to post. Gotta do a few tweaks to the web site.)

People often wonder “why should I record a signal as loudly as possible when it risks clipping above 0dB?” Here’s your answer. It all boils down to RESOLUTION, and that’s why 24-bit recording — and soon, IMHO, 32-bit recording and even higher — are all the rage. A friend who is a professional storyteller is trying to engineer his own CD. He started out with GarageBand. It’s an excellent tool for general-purpose dorking around on a Mac, particularly if you’re just getting started. But if you really want excellent voice or other audio recording, not just MIDI stuff, you have to step into the realm of built-for-purpose audio tools. Pro Tools and others are great, but at $250 and up they are not in everybody’s budget.

To start with, I think Audacity might be right up your alley. Free and I think you can run standard plugins with it. The only real thing you need is to monitor for clipping. Talk at your maximum volume into the mic, then adjust your gain on the mic until the clipping monitor goes off. Clear the red clipping light in Audacity, and drop the gain just a little bit. Keep at it until at your maximum speaking voice volume doesn’t trip the clipping light on the track monitor.

You’re a bit of a geek, so I’ll explain the science behind why you want to do this. On an analog tape, you want to use as much of the tape as possible with your voice signal. Any bit of the tape that isn’t used by the waveform is background hiss.

Similarly, you only have 16 or maybe 24 bits of amplitude resolution in the digital realm. The waveform’s sampling rate is the resolution of the horizontal axis of the waveform (with total length of your piece as the total length of that X axis), while the bits are the vertical Y-axis. You want to use as many bits as possible to store amplitude data. When your waveform is too “quiet” (not as tall as it could be), you’re sacrificing thousands or millions of bits to storing silence above the top and below the bottom of the waveform. And if you apply a compressor or hard limiter, you’re “stretching” the waveform vertically, and your resolution doesn’t actually change. Just the volume.

So that means that you lose volume resolution, which with spoken works mainly affects the attack and decay of your voice. It’s part of why CDs sound so “cold” to many people (including me): they lose the high end due to sampling error (44.1KHz sampling rate), and they lose volume distinction (attack and decay are where the human ear can notice it) because there are only 65,536 distinct levels of volume in the waveform. 24-bit gives you over 16 million distinct levels. So if you record a waveform like the sample you showed me earlier that uses perhaps 1/20th of the dynamic range available, you still have as much dynamic range as you would recording in 16-bit in the first place.

Which most people will never notice.

But why put yourself in that situation when it’s so easy to do it right in the first place?

Ultimately, “how it sounds” is most important. And for many types of music where the attack and decay of sounds are not a huge deal, the loss of amplitude resolution recording the track “quietly” or with a low level of resolution isn’t that big a deal. 16 bits is OK for loud rock music, for instance.

But in my opinion, the human voice is one that is incredibly hard to reproduce accurately. Humans are attuned to the sounds of voices, just as we are to people’s faces. We already fight the battle of telling a story through a loudspeaker. A round, vibrating paper plate in a cabinet does not accurately simulate air passing over vocal folds vibrating chest and nasal cavities. Humans can clearly hear the difference between someone speaking near us and a recording of someone speaking near us. Higher sample rates and bit rates take us only so far; a vibrating plate is what captures the sound of the voice anyway. The loss of attack and decay resolution by recording a track “too quietly” just compounds this issue.

Want to know why I won’t vote Constitution party? Well, I believe our nation is a grand experiment in a secular democracy: a Republic founded upon Enlightenment principles. Ours was the first Western nation to believe — and embody in its founding documents — that the power of government springs from the consent of the governed, not from God or earthly institutions claiming to speak for God.

Here’s the preamble to the 2010 Constitution Party Platform:

The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.

This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.

The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.

The Constitution of these United States provides that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” The Constitution Party supports the original intent of this language. Therefore, the Constitution Party calls on all those who love liberty and value their inherent rights to join with us in the pursuit of these goals and in the restoration of these founding principles.

The U.S. Constitution established a Republic rooted in Biblical law, administered by representatives who are Constitutionally elected by the citizens. In such a Republic all Life, Liberty and Property are protected because law rules.

It’s hard to figure out where to start. So I’ll leave it there. What room is there for a non-Christian under a system ruled by the Constitution Party? I’m not an equal partner. I’m a person of some “other” faith granted “asylum” in the land of my birth.

No thanks. Go jump in a lake, Constitution Party. You are on my “Never voting for any of your candidates, EVER” list.

Look, I don’t want to be the a*s*ole here, but I just wanted to review the facts and make sure I understand what I believe to be a misconstrued misplacement of national attention.

Last week, at Rutgers, a college freshman surreptitiously filmed his gay roommate on video making out with another guy and streamed the video online. Several days later the gay subject of the filming committed suicide. Charges were brought against the filming roommate for tampering of privacy.

Unless I missed something, I haven’t seen anything that gives the definitive reason this kid committed suicide. It could have been for any reason. It sure could have been for being ‘outed’ by his roommate in an embarrassing manner. It could have also been for unrequited love. It could have been because he was depressed. The national reaction has been a wave of ‘gay suicide’ rants; pleas about how teasing gay people leads to gay suicide. Hey USA: suicide is a matter for all teens. What is the annual number of gay teens committing suicide compared to the number of teens committing suicide? How many other teens commit suicide for being teased, regardless of their sexuality, eating disorder, etc.?

If we want to use this awful, particular circumstance to refocus the light on the heinous, perennial nature of teen suicide, then I hope the light delivers a harsh unveiling on a subject under-discussed in our daily stream of dialog. But given the lack of facts above, people are jumping to a conclusion to fit the en vogue nature of the gay culture issue, and micro-focusing that light only on a subset of teen troubles. It’s unfortunate because we’re talking about teen suicide.

My problem with organized religion is illustrated by a small slice of a speech being given by some dude with an accent on the TV in Utah right now. He used an urban legend as if it were truth to prove a doctrinal point. Religions are based on legends formed from half-truths and inaccurate memories accepted as fact and given a veneer of respectability by the passage of time.

The specific legend he referenced is the “Nasa Space Pen” legend, in an attempt to recommend that people simplify their lives: http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp . The “simple” solution of using a pencil results in sharp pi…eces of conductive graphite floating around the cabin getting into astronaut eyes, nose, ears, as well as the spacecraft’s electrical circuitry. Additionally, a pencil is very flammable in a 100% oxygen atmosphere which is a profound safety hazard… which is the reason astronauts today don’t use them.

Meanwhile, the “space pen” — research paid for by a capitalist company, not the government — is safe, effective, non-flammable, and a near-perfect solution to the problem of writing in space. But it is a very complicated writing instrument, used for its safety and versatility over the hazardous but “simple” pencil. And one in use by all astronauts everywhere because it does the job without a safety hazard.

I understand the desire to encourage people to simplify their lives. I agree with the sentiment. But using falsehoods to prove a point poisons the well of one’s entire store of wisdom.

So, unless you’ve been hiding under a facebooky rock, you know that my film (in that I wrote, directed, cut, scored, and financed it) NINJAS VS ZOMBIES is finally out on DVD. Yup.. you can get it on Netflix, buy it from walmart.com or bestbuy.com (or a host of other places – just go to www.nvzmovie.com and click the DVD), you can watch it on demand with AMAZON VOD (if you have TiVO I think that is part of the deal), you can see trailers on youtube, read reviews at aintitcool, order our comic book, and basically bathe in NVZ goodness all over the intertubes.

And please do.. cuz it really helps me a lot, even if you just put it in your queue. That being said.. what a ride. We are currently in post production on the sequel “NINJAS VS VAMPIRES”, which is taking a crazy long time. Its a better, more complex film.. but it is WAY harder to make. We’ve been shooting since May, and ar eabout to go into reshoots in 10 days. (Thats all the time I have to get my sh*t together and get a rough cut assembled). Combine that with the publicity I’m doing on NvZ, and basically I never stop. Its kind of killing me (Although shares in wine and fast food are coincidentally up).

I don’t mean to complain. Its an amazing ride.. one that I am really proud of.. but its nearly time for a break. The worst of it is the “business part” – I used to laugh at the “I love the show – hate the business” line. What a load of crap, right? No.. its true.. the distribution stuff is murder. Contract negotiations and occasional shadiness – but also some really cool, honest folks there too. (Our Rep is really down to earth, despite having real Hollywood “ins” – her husband is a main character on a well known TV show).

There are stories I can’t tell, wish I could (will one day) – but meantime, clear your Halloween weekend for Ninjas Vs Vampires (probably in Leesburg.. BE THERE) – and grab NvZ on DVD. And drink one for me.. cuz I will likely be having two.

Friends of the netherweb,

I’m looking for tried-and-true processes for enabling a new potential tech vendor access to my website without providing access at the web server level.

In the past, whenever getting first acquainted with a potential vendor, the need always arises for the potential vendor to actually look at the website before committing to a price or workload schedule. Also, a vendor is interested in seeing the site to ensure that they are familiar with the current systems and that their skill set is capable of executing the work.

Historically, I’ve given the vendor ‘root command’ access to the webserver. Once they’ve gone in and grabbed what they needed I’ve changed the primary password. Finally, when the vendor and I agree on terms and I feel comfortable with that particular vendor, I give them the new password. This is kind of silly on multiple levels.

Thus, I’m looking for process suggestions for how to get the website, in its entirety, to a potential vendor’s possession without opening up the full mothership treasure chest at the webserver host level.

Gracias Muchas.

So it turns out that the worst environmental disaster in US history — the Deepwater Horizon explosion and subsequent spill — may be, in part, due to Microsoft Windows systems crashing. Now, I’m not going to straight-up blame Windows for this. Traditionally, BSODs (Blue Screens Of Death) are caused by malfunctioning drivers more than a malfunctioning operating system. But at the same time, to learn that the entire fleet routinely disables these Windows systems due to false-positive alerts and crashes is very, very concerning. Since when is Windows the preferred platform for mission-critical, life-saving, and possibly avoiding-the-extermination-of-all-humanity purposes?

Maybe I’m just being hyperbolic here, but give that massive methane explosions have repeatedly killed almost all life on earth before, just because it’s a 1-in-55-million chance I wish the engineers writing the software for the failsafe alarms had done a more thorough job.

Humanity killed by bad programming practices.

That would be a bad day.

Recently, a friend approached me with a short question that has a much longer answer.

“Do you think it’s really worth it to upgrade to the i3 Core processor?”

The computing industry has really stabilized over the past 5-6 years. We (collectively, humanity-wide) have bumped up against some really hard-limits in computing recently with heat management and silicon manufacturing techniques, resulting in the push to parallelize processing more: more cores, lower clock speeds, bigger caches, extracting more per clock cycle with less waste, reducing heat output and power requirements, etc. It’s been a boon for data centers, as the average cost of running these things has actually flattened out. Power requirements, while not going down, are not going up exponentially just like CPU speeds were for a while. And the power cost per GHz of CPU speed, and per GB of storage, is of course going down as we squeeze more performance per kilowatt-hour out of the systems.

So really, over the past four years, that has been the #1 improvement in CPU tech: extracting more performance for the same amount of power. Not extracting more performance as an absolute measure. Also there’s been a push to integrate Graphics Processing Units into the CPU core to enhance performance. As a result, it’s brought 3D gaming capabilities into the mainstream of computing, with lots of applications in real life that most of us rarely explored before. In addition, virtualization of operating systems has taken off like never before, as we can stuff more and more CPUs into the same form factor with similar power requirements. Even desktop users are very commonly virtualizing entire operating systems on their laptops these days. I know I do; I’m running a Solaris VM and a Linux VM on my Windows laptop at this very moment.

For the home user, though, if faster integrated graphics and extracting more work per clock cycle with better battery life tickles your fancy, then yes, an upgrade to a Core i3 (mobile), Core i5 (Desktop Mainstream), or Core i7 (high-end computing) processor is on your radar. Also, niche markets like audio-visual recording and real-time processing can take advantage of this sort of parallelized-power, if you will, driving innovation in the computing industry today. If power consumption isn’t much of a concern and you prefer discrete graphics, or if you aren’t running applications that can take advantage of symmetric multi-processing, then the i3 may not be worth the upgrade for you.

Keep smiling!

–Matt B.

Chanced across an article guaranteed to create some controversy: Women who are carrying more body fat have worse memory than those who carry less.