Friday, April 27, 2007

Hair plans

It's Friday again, so here's a new post. This seems to be a nice way to unwind after a hard week at work, having a couple of glasses of wine and writing some blog. It's nice at least if I don't overdo it by writing too many glasses of blog. If that should happen, tomorrow morning will be dreary, because the leathery alarm clock is exact. And you can't turn it off.

But oh yeah, on to the topic, if that's any consolation to you. It probably will not get any more interesting after this. But I've been thinking about getting a haircut for a couple of days. It's funny how hair grows. After getting a haircut, it's tidy for a couple of weeks, but then one morning it's suddenly overgrown with all kinds of tufts sticking out. And my hair seems to grow only on the sides and back nowadays, the top of my head stays about the same (thin). The only places on my body where hair is plentiful are nostrils and... erm, should I be writing about this?

(Side note: since when has ctrl-s meant "publish"? I don't like this Blogger function. Why doesn't it mean "save" like it does anywhere else? Now I always accidentally publish unfinished posts.)

I hate getting haircuts. I quite like the actual sitting in a chair, being groomed, reading a paper. But I don't like getting there. I never reserve haircuts beforehand, for some reason I don't just want to do it. I want to walk into a barbershop and get a haircut at once. Sometimes there's a customer, and you have to wait. I don't like that either. I want it to be simple: walk in, sit in a chair for 20 minutes, pay, walk out. I don't like it if lasts longer than 20 minutes. That's why I always go for the cruddy, cheap joints: they do it fast and rough. Also, there's less of a chance that there's a customer in there, or that they're booked full. And I don't want to pay very much for a crappy 20 minute hairjob. And the place should be near my daily route from home to work. It's not easy to fulfill these requirements. Well, actually, there is a barbershop just like this, but the last time I was there, the barber cut my ear, and now I'm kind of afraid to go there again. And the chair was really uncomfortable.

Sigh. I know I'm making it more difficult than it is. But I partially hope that I would already go bald enough so I could just give it up and shave it all off. I think it would be fun, the shaving, I mean. On the other hand, there's still a part of me that doesn't want to become a giant roll-on. But let's face it, it's inevitable. It's going. It's already kind of see-through on top. And I'm not going to be desperate about it, like eat some overpriced nature product that's supposed to restore hair growth but might as well be horse manure as far as I know, let alone get any treatments or transplants. Yecchh. When it goes it goes.

It's hilarious, no, wait, it's tragical, no wait, it's hilariously tragical, I mean, it's both tragical and hilarious how going bald can be such a big thing for some. Covering it up just does not work, yet people try. Yikes! Ok, that does it, I'll get it cut very short tomorrow. I promise.

Hey, I seem to be about finished. And not too many glasses either. Now for an epilogue. Oh, sod it.

Friday, April 20, 2007

Household algorithms

Hi. Today I'd like to talk about algorithms. For the hoi polloi, an algorithm is a set of instructions to solve a problem or accomplish a task of some kind. Because I'm a programmer, I consider myself an expert on algorithms to some degree, because programming is all about the algorithm. Usually it is possible to solve a given problem in eleventy thousand ways, and what separates the good programmer from the bad is the ability to find a sensible solution. Also, what often separates the bad programmer from the good programmer, is the ability to find an astonishingly stupid solution to a simple problem. A solution the good programmer wouldn't even think about, except if they were trying to be creative. Here's an example of a solution to just about everything, in pseudocode, that I really liked (found from this site I generally like):

while(solution isn't correct)

{

solution = Another Randomly Generated Solution;

}

print solution

Sure, eventually it will work, but as a solution to any real problem it is inefficient in astronomical magnitudes. And more specifically, programming is all about the efficient algorithm. Those users are always wanting more speed and efficiency. They don't want to wait. And given that computers have become umpteenillionty times faster in a few decades, it's astonishing that we still have to wait for a few seconds for the browser to start up. I don't understand it either. Why are we constantly battling performance issues, even though the hardware has improved so quickly? Oh, wait a minute, I hear that Windows Vista shows the open program windows in fancy 3D style when you press Alt-Tab, and that is a major selling point. Maybe this is related to the problem somehow.

But to the point. I was going to say something about algorithms used in household keeping. My urge to address the issue was triggered by an algorithm I encountered recently, and that is the one my wife uses to change the bedsheets. And might I say, sorry honey, this is the worst solution ever to changing the bedsheets, which is, by the way, one of my most disliked household tasks. Here's the algorithm (in pseudocode):

remove the old bedsheets // in the morning

while(not bedtime) // this should loop for about 12 hours

{
do nothing (about the situation)
}

ask the husband to put on the new bedsheets

ask the husband, please, to put on the new bedsheets

ask the husband, please (with force), to put on the new bedsheets


while(bedsheets are not changed)

{
try to calm the crying baby
wait while the husband changes the bedsheets
}

if(steam coming out of the husband's ears) {
go to bed
}
else {
complain that the pillowcases do not match the sheets and why did you choose those ugly ones anyway
}

For the non-programmer, here's an explanation of the pseudocode: basically, there are three basic structures in programming (explained by a non-university guy):
1) the program is executed from top to bottom (i.e. 1st line, then 2nd line and so on...)
2) the loop, represented in the examples by while{}: do something repeatedly, until a condition is true
3) the conditional branching, represented in the examples by the if...else structure: if the condition in the brackets is true, do something. If it is false, do some other thing (or do nothing at all).
And the text after the // is a comment, meant only to clarify the purpose of the statement to other programmers. And sometimes, as in this case, supposed to be funny to other programmers.

Well. To be fair, I'm sure I have some silly algorithms too. For instance, the way I wash myself in the sauna has proven to be funny-looking to some (i.e. my wife). And in some social situations, my sense of situation has proven to be inexplicably slow for some reason. Must be some kind of a concurrency issue...

But thanks for reading this again, all three of you. And for the first one to write a non-spam comment, a free banana! Come on, a free banana!

Saturday, April 14, 2007

Playing the bass

You know, I play the bass in a band. I like it because it's fun and the bass is the manliest instrument known to... man.

Today I thought I'd share my insights on being an excellent bass player in a handy do's and dont's form. I consider myself an excellent bass player, even though technically I'm probably relatively rubbish. That's mostly because of lack of practice. But I've given quite a lot of thought to what makes bass playing excellent and what sucks. And around here I'm the authority (when my wife's not around), so sit down and listen.

1) Do play with your fingers. Most excellent bass players use their fingers instead of a plectrum. It is more difficult, at least in the beginning, and especially if you're used to playing the guitar (with a plectrum), but it's way cool and it enables a more rhythmic playing style and all kind of neat tricks like slapping and popping, eventually. But there's no need to be phanatic, using a plectrum is ok, if the song requires it. Some rhythms just are more natural with a plectrum. Examples of players who use their fingers: Geddy Lee (Rush), Steve Harris (Iron Maiden). And Fieldy (Korn). The bass is a percussive instrument.

2) Do improve your sound. This means investing on equipment, experimenting with settings to find great sounds, and fighting other members of the band and the producer when mixing recordings, to make them understand that the bass should get the main role. Well, not always, but sometimes you need to take a stand to prevent the guitarist from burying the bass under ten guitar tracks. Usually, excellent bass sound has some (but not much) distortion, and enough treble. Examples of a great bass sound: Andy Rourke of The Smiths. Man, what a guru bass player! And Geddy Lee again, especially on Moving Pictures.

3) Do play interesting stuff. The boring way to play bass: do what the rhythm guitarist does, i.e. play the main notes of the chords (with a plectrum). The excellent way to play bass: invent your own melodies, and always think of something interesting. If you play the main notes, then at least make it rhythmically interesting. Examples: Peter Hook (New Order), a true Bass Hero. And Geddy Lee again.

4) Do have a lengthy shoulder strap. The bass looks cool when it hangs low, and it looks silly if you have it under your chin. All great bass players have lengthy straps. Examples: Paul Simonon (The Clash), Peter Hook again.

5) Don't be the boring one in the band. The bass player is stereotypically the dumbest member of the band. And people who are not music enthusiasts probably aren't really aware what the bass player actually does, except there seems to be a kind of a low, thumping noise in the background, but that might be just the bass drum. When used properly, the bass is an equal instrument in the band. And don't let the guitarist step on your turf. Demand an equal number of tracks on recordings. Examples: well... the guy... in the band... you know, the boring one. Actually, most great bands have great bassists. You can't have a truly great band without a great bass player.

6) Don't overdo it, and do have style. It's okay to have great technique, sure. But it's not required. Examples: Peter Hook, Paul Simonon. There are hundreds of tens of thousands of videos of super-fast slap bass players in YouTube, but who cares about these nobodies. You've got to have style. You must know when to play, and when not to play. You must make it matter. Fast technique is irrelevant to music. Sure, it can be a fun part of it sometimes, but not without a song. Example of great technical playing: Yyz (a song by Rush, Geddy Lee again).

Ok, this should do it. Now go out and be excellent bass players. Not better than me, though. And here's a picture of Hooky for you to enjoy:

Thursday, April 05, 2007

Exciting post

...zzzzzzzzzz What?

Oh, I seem to have fallen asleep in the previous post, it was that boring. Must think of something exciting for this one. Hmmm... well, revealing personal stuff usually seems to work. Opening up publicly to you like this is hard, but I might do it anyway. This feels quite abstract in the sense that there is no "you", as nobody, excluding my wife, seems to have found my blog (must remember to add a counter). And, even though if somebody read this, they would have no way of proving that it is written by me. Except twisting my arm behind my back until I admitted. But still, here I'm writing for all the world. Hi, mom!

Ok, what could I reveal? The weird dreams? That might be impossible to put to words. My dark side? I'm afraid there really isn't one. Honestly. The time I killed... ha ha ha, let's just forget about that. Kidding! Ha, ha. Ha.

Maybe I should just write what I was originally thinking. Here comes the shocking revelation: I'm happy. I just wanted to say that I'm really satisfied with my life today. No irony. I just thought that it would be nice to honestly admit that I'm basically a very happy person, even though it might not show. I love my wife, I love my kid, I like my work. I have great friends and I love them too, even though I haven't much time for them. There's nothing wrong with my life. Sure, it's hard and stressful every now and then, and there is the mortgage to pay off. But I love that too, in a way. It's great to have purposes in life. It hasn't always been so, and I remember how unhappy I've been. I'm getting older and balder, but so what, today I can enjoy the small things in life. Like this, having a moment to myself late at night, listening to music on the headphones, having a couple of glasses of wine, writing this.

New car

One thing I like to fantasize about is getting a newer car. When I push my kid around the neighbourhood in the baby carrier, I usually look at parked cars and think about what make and model I would like. There is little else to do when daily walking up and down the same streets.

I'm not going to get a newer car anytime soon, because I'm sensible. I already have the perfectly suitable car for my humble needs. It's a 1989 Toyota Carina II, which is, in a way, the culmination of car technology. I'll explain this bold statement soon. It's just that it's not glamorous in any way, it does not raise my status, it's just a 18 year old boring automobile that gets me from point A to point B whenever I need to, relatively rarely that is. Besides this, and therefore, I have a senseless desire to own a flashy car. Something that might cause envy in other people.

But when I think about it sensibly, I don't want to get a new car. Mostly my car just sits in the curb, rusting. I don't even drive it every week. I'm an urban person, and I could very well survive without owning a car at all. I just bought it for 1k € when me and my wife got pregnant, in order to be able to get around with the baby and visit our parents conveniently. And when I said that 1989 Toyota Carina II is the culmination of car technology, I meant that it's the cheapest car to maintain in existence today. It's very common, so spare parts are cheap. It's very durable. It's manufactured before catalyzers became obligatory in Finland in 1992 (in effect causing fuel injection replace carburettors), and before they began to stuff cars full of electronics, so its technology is relatively simple. Therefore it is feasible to repair by yourself, without software updates.

There's just one problem. Very few people seem to understand this point. I've very rarely been congratulated on my sensible choice of automobile. Hey, come to think of it, I don't actually remember ever being congratulated on owning a 1989 Toyota Carina II. Instead, most people seem to be in awe of people who own unpractical, expensive new cars.

I realize that new cars may be more safe and ecological. The technology has advanced since 1989 considerably. However, I don't see this as a good thing. Cars are full of computers now, making them much more complex than before, and therefore more unreliable. And I'm a software engineer myself. Shows how much I trust other programmers. Sure, had I programmed the car by myself, I'd have no problem in trusting it. But I've seen myself that there are people in the profession posing as programmers without actually being capable of one. So when I hear of advancements in car technology like brakes that are controlled electronically, I find it scary. Mechanical brake systems just seem more trustworthy, even though I know that they can fail too. But at least afterwards it's possible to tell why it failed, provided that there are big enough pieces of the car left.

So far, I have found two reasons for getting a new car. Besides the status value, obviously. Safety and less pollution. If you consider the fact that manufacturing a new car is much more heavy on natural resources than using the old car longer, then the ecology point fails too. Safety is important, but should I be cost-effective when evaluating the weight of safety? Is a new car really 20 times as safe as a 1989 Toyota Carina II? I doubt it.

And I don't even want a NEW car. It would just seem very boring to have a car without a history. The rich and clueless get new cars, I don't. And the value of a new car diminishes very quickly, I hear. But a few year old car, sure. That I'd like. Even though it costs money. And I don't need one. And so on. If this doesn't count as boring, then I don't know what does. I'm even getting sleepy myselzzzzzzz....