Well, I still haven't got Cubase figured out, but I've discovered that a large part of the problem is that the sound system isn't working. Every diagnostic says it's working. The speakers work when I plug them into other machines. The mixer says it's getting signal, and sending it out. But all I get is silence.
Once I get it figured out, I'm sure it will be nice. But in the meantime, I'm wishing it was a Mac. You just plug in stuff, and it works.
But I'm still able to cruise the 'net much better than I was. I'm figuring things out, and am planning on how to upgrade my website.
It's been rather pleasant having several days off. I goofed off a little bit. Practiced a little bit. Read a little bit. Talked on the phone a little bit. Ran a few errands. Even played a video game (Masters of Orion 3, which is a serious let-down - nowhere near as fun and engaging as MoO2, which is still one of my all-time favs). And I never felt pressed for time. Still, I'm glad I'm working tomorrow night.
I've been listening to the Beatles a lot. When I was in college, all four of my favorite professors (Drs. Beatty and Parr, Mr. McDaniel and Mr. Holt) were Beatles fanatics (though McDaniel more than the others). I didn't understand it; my knowledge of them was mainly of things like "A Hard Day's Night" and "Eight Days a Week" - pop fluff. But the more I listen, the more I realize - those guys really WERE geniuses. The songwriting is just superb, and the performances brilliant. The only thing I don't always care for is the orchestration (the obnoxious brass and choir in "The Long and Winding Road," for instance). But that's not their fault, it's a record label thing.
And man, for his day, Ringo Starr was such a bad-ass drummer. The more I listen, the more I love his drumming. Instrumentally, I think he was the most advanced of the four.
Oh, and I've been introduced to the band "Muse." It's like Goth/Rock performed by classically trained musicians. It's NOT classical, it's definitely rock, performed almost unrelentingly in minor keys. But it's technically impressive, and still fun to head-bang to.
Okay, soap-box time. Stepping on, getting ready to rant.
I've realized that a large part of the debate over ID (Intelligent Design) is that your average person doesn't know what a theory IS in scientific terms, and therefore doesn't realize that by its very definition, ID CAN'T be a scientific theory. I was thinking that all the people arguing for it were simply idiots, but now I see that the vast majority are simply uninformed, and therefore ignorant.
What is sad is what that says about our educational system. Even people that are informed about other things seem to be lacking in this one... I was reading (Dilbert Creator) Scott Adams' blog, and he goes off on how both sides are lacking credibility, simply because he says he doesn't believe either one. But he doesn't bother to research it.
The press is trying to be impartial, and give "both sides" of the discussion equal say. But in science, there sometimes AREN'T two valid sides. Gravity is a theory, with about the same amount of evidence as evolution. What's the other side of THAT debate? Quantum physics is theoretical. Where's the other side? Einstein's infamous equation of E=MC2 is theoretical (though you'll always hear somebody who knows somebody who has disproven it). But these theories are what we base all our scientific knowledge on. In the scientific community, there is no debate over evolution as a possibility. The exact nature of it? Yes.
Intelligent Design is a fine belief. In fact, it's what I believe. BUT IT'S NOT SCIENCE. And if it's going to be given "equal time" in a classroom, just because some people believe it, you have to give equal time to every belief that exists, no matter how absurd they seem. Hopi creation stories? Greek Mythology? Flying Spaghetti Monsterism (yes, there is such a thing)? All have just as much scientific support as Intelligent Design (that is to say, none). I don't want belief without evidence brought into the science arena. People marvel that it took the Catholic Church centuries to admit it was wrong about Galileo's theories, but then they support equally fallacious arguments when it interferes with their own beliefs.
Oh well. We've been more conditioned to care about sensitivity, tolerance and equality more than we do about truth, fact, and logic.
This ironically seems to extend into our political arena, as well. Universal Health Care? Of course! A rich man's life shouldn't be worth more than mine - that wouldn't be fair! (Never mind the fairness of paying for other people's bad habits, which is what the majority of health care is). Did we invade Iraq under false pretenses? Of course not! We were wrong, but that doesn't mean we were wrong! (No, I don't understand that argument, but it's basically what the Republicans are saying). Or, if you're a Democrat, of course we invaded under false pretenses! I knew all along that it was a bad idea, but Bush lied to me and I believed him, so I thought it was a good idea at the time (No, this argument isn't much better).
To quote one of my favorite Authors, Steven Brust, "... I suddenly got an image of Harry Reid dressed as a French police captain, telling Bush, 'I am shocked, shocked to find there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.' Not that Bush deserves to be in a Bogart role, even in jest. And I doubt Cheney can play the piano."
Ah, what could possibly make me more cynical about people than politics? Oh, yeah, relationships.
You know, I wish people were incapable of any falsehood. Would it suck sometimes? Yes.
"Does this dress make me look fat?" "Yes, it does. But that 15 lbs you gained doesn't help."
"Do I sing well?" "Well, there was that one note that sounded good, but in general, my ass makes prettier sounds..."
"Do you love me?" "No, but I'm really horny right now, and you've got the right number of holes... I just hope you're not clingy later."
"Will you be mine?" "Well, for a while, because you've got money, and that means security. But eventually, I'm going to spend a few nights with a guy that has a larger penis, and knows what foreplay is. Don't worry, I'll never tell you"
Yeah, sometimes the truth would hurt. But in the long run, I think it would be healthier, and would make politics much more fun. Just think of the slogans!
"Vote for __________ - he doesn't give a shit about you, but he loves the power, and thinks banging interns is a great perk!"
"Vote for __________ - he's a socialist who doesn't believe in your civil liberties, but he has great hair!"
"Vote for __________ - 'cause... Why not?"
End of soap box rant. We now return to our regularly scheduled program.
China and Rome
1 hour ago