Subject: MAX Digest - 22 Jul 1998 to 23 Jul 1998
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 00:00:00 -0400
From: Automatic digest processor 
Reply-To: MAX - Interactive Music/Multimedia Standard Environments
     
To: Recipients of MAX digests 

There are 10 messages totalling 524 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:

  1. Nick Longo was re-posted (2)
  2. c9866cl6 (2)
  3. motion/position sensor input (fwd)
  4. MAX Digest - 18 Jul 1998 to 19 Jul 1998
  5. Part 2 of - The EXACT Timing/Order in which messages pass through MAX.
(2)
  6. Dual MAX inquires:
  7. Morella:concerts+workshops

Email to MAX should now be sent to MAX@lists.mcgill.ca
LISTSERV commands should be sent to listserv@lists.mcgill.ca
Information is available on the WEB at http://www.mcgill.ca/cc/listserv

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:    Wed, 22 Jul 1998 22:08:51 -0800
From:    Gene Schwartz 
Subject: Re: Nick Longo was re-posted

>Gene wrote:
>>I would disagree, however, that
>>someone who sends what sounds to me like a pretty explicit threat is
>>entitled to privacy. You seem to be claiming that Nick threatening antiorp
>>is more benign than antiorp re-posting the threat to the list.
>
>Read it again, Gene.  I made no such claim nor any such implication and I
>made no judgment about the content of Nick's post.

Well, I read it again. It seems to me that complaining about antiorp's
'trick' of reposting private email carries very little weight if the
so-called private post is far more outrageous than the act of re-posting
it. Why is it somehow unethical to re-post an explicit threat? Or what are
you saying the problem is anyway?

As I recall, when he applied this 'trick' to you, you thought it was an
invasion of your privacy. I assumed you were applying similar reasoning
here.

Yours in logical confusion,

Gene

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 23 Jul 1998 00:15:14 -0600
From:    =cw4t7abs 
Subject: c9866cl6

>From:    Nicholas Longo <71477.2332@COMPUSERVE.COM>

>Don't be naive.  The Net is crawling with Nazis - nazis too.

antiorp, or =cw4t7abs - s/he wants to remain anonymous - is an extremely
fresh
and radical appearance in todays internet art scene, which for the rest
seems
to be flooded by a huge amount of mediocre projects, mostly commissioned by
smaller or larger institutions - thus entirely bypassing, among others, the
rather evident opportunity of increasing autonomy and necessary change of
the
social role of the artist.

=cw4t7abs, as a refreshing alternative to this, is a troublemaker. working
independently ever since s/he started on the net (and when was that
precisely?
no-one really knows, for s/he never used the usual self-promotion channels),
antiorp makes cd-roms, director applications, electronic music in mp3
compression format, video experiments and very scary webwork. her/his works
can be downloaded on some of the many distributed web pages s/he worked on
meticulously, but finding them is not an easy job; it takes patience and a
low
frustration level. antiorp is not easy, not a piece of sliced bread.

apart from that, =cw4t7abs is a notable appearance on a number of
white-male-
protestant-american-centered mailing lists that deal with technical matters
related to electronic music. antiorps critical, elaborated, mostly highly
intelligent and well-informed interferences - written in a consistent, at
first sight illegible, techy manner - have evoked hatred, threats,
breakdowns;
they radically ridiculize these lists as social spaces with very strong
unwritten rules of inclusion and exclusion, nerdism and expertise; =cw4t7abs
(ab)uses email as a grotesque, powerful, anonymizing tool. a few weeks ago
an
interesting discussion regarding fascism on the net has emerged on one of
those lists; part of that thread can be retraced from the 7-11 mailing list
archive.

i will not say much more about this - for i trust your ability to judge for
yourself. part of antiorps stuff can be found from
http://www.tezcat.com/~antiorp/
you can read quite a lot of her/his mailing list postings and writing in the
7-11 list archive at http://king.dom.de/7-11/
s/he didn't seem to like this very much, but antiorps work was hell.com's
special exhibit this month - http://www.hell.com/
antiorp@tezcat.com for more info

---------------------------------------------------

-> RHIZOME COMMUNICATIONS

-> post: list@rhizome.org

-> questions: info@rhizome.org

-> answers: http://www.rhizome.org

>Don't be naive.  The Net is crawling with Nazis - nazis too.

!ntrodusz urccelv 2 1 med!k

>By way of helpful information, Yoga breathing is very effective for
>reducing hypertension.

u ma! beg!n ur d33p b[re]ath!ng nou

>betrayed his tendencies.

!tz tendencies.

-Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
-Content-disposition: inline

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 23 Jul 1998 03:32:16 -0400
From:    Stephen Kay 
Subject: c9866cl6

>antiorp, or =3Dcw4t7abs - s/he wants to remain anonymous - is an extreme=
ly
fresh
>and radical appearance in todays internet art scene, which for the rest
seems

[snip]  long propoganda reprint

This is really sad.  Here I was, just about to think that
antiorp was a GOD, and s/he/it (pronounce that quickly) had
to dump this pile of excreta on us.

Folks, I've tried for the last week to ignore this krap and
only concentrate on Max related issues.  It's increasingly
difficult to keep quiet when these _huge_ *commercial* reprints
get dumped on the list.

Stephen Kay

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 23 Jul 1998 03:32:19 -0400
From:    Stephen Kay 
Subject: Re: Nick Longo was re-posted

>Gene Schwartz:
>Well, I read it again. It seems to me that complaining about antiorp's
>'trick' of reposting private email carries very little weight if the
>so-called private post is far more outrageous than the act of re-posting=

>it. Why is it somehow unethical to re-post an explicit threat? Or what a=
re
>you saying the problem is anyway?

Sorry, it's one of the basic "unwritten rules" of internet etiquette
that you don't make private communications public.

I guess what you are saying is that it's OK for someone to make
that decision based on their own interpretation of what is a threat
and what isn't.  =

Similar to the kind of thinking that nazis or gestapo or KGB or
CIA or FBI or etc. employ: the individual has no rights if we
deem it so:

_Ve vill make publik all privat komunikashunz if ve so dezire._

I have in my posession several private communiques from antiorp
which I do not feel paints him/her/it in the light that s/he/it
might desire - but they were *private*, so therefore I will not
quote them or make fun of them as part of my public arguments.

Stephen Kay

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 23 Jul 1998 10:37:51 -0400
From:    Jeff Mann 
Subject: Re: motion/position sensor input (fwd)

David Crandall  wrote:
> Is anyone else trying this approach? or are there other net forums where
> questions about sensors, triggers, installation, etc., are discussed?

I run a mailing list for the Art & Robotics Group in Toronto. There's a
web archive at:
http://www.interaccess.org/arg/arg-list.html
...and there are a bunch of links on the site to other resources.

Also look for the Dance and Technology Zone:
http://www.art.net/Resources/dtz/


mailto:jefman@utcc.utoronto.ca ||   http://www.interlog.com/~jefman
Visit the Art & Robotics Group site: http://www.interaccess.org/arg

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 23 Jul 1998 10:50:35 -0400
From:    Don Malone 
Subject: Re: MAX Digest - 18 Jul 1998 to 19 Jul 1998

>>I'd like to create a patch that will mimic an LFO by sending a stream of=
>
>>controller values (e.g. 0 to 127 to 0 repeating) Has anyone created an
>>object or  patch that will do this? I figured that I'd check before
>>digging in..
>
try this one
max v2;
#N vpatcher 3 42 433 401;
#P comment 40 38 51 196617 StartStop;
#N comlet StartStop;
#P inlet 53 52 15 0;
#P newex 53 85 56 196617 metro 50;
#P newex 53 172 81 196617 counter 0 0 127;
#P comment 191 38 16 196617 hi;
#N comlet High;
#P inlet 191 52 15 0;
#P comment 158 38 16 196617 lo;
#N comlet Low;
#P inlet 163 52 15 0;
#N comlet resolution;
#P inlet 219 52 15 0;
#P comment 212 38 52 196617 Resolution;
#P newex 219 85 27 196617 i $3;
#P newex 191 85 27 196617 i $2;
#P newex 219 113 27 196617 - 1;
#P newex 163 173 111 196617 expr ($f2 - $f1) / $f3;
#P newex 163 85 27 196617 i $1;
#P newex 163 138 66 196617 bondo 3;
#P newex 122 229 27 196617 * 0.;
#N comlet sample;
#P outlet 122 310 15 0;
#P newex 122 286 27 196617 + 0;
#P newex 122 257 34 196617 + 0.5;
#P comment 109 326 38 196617 sample;
#P newex 0 21 52 196617 loadbang;
#P comment 253 86 152 196617 arguments low \, high \, resolution;
#N comlet oscillator;
#P outlet 53 310 15 0;
#P comment 40 326 50 196617 oscillator;
#N comlet do it;
#P inlet 3 52 15 0;
#P comment 0 38 38 196617 sample;
#N comlet period;
#P inlet 99 52 15 0;
#P comment 101 38 15 196617 fq;
#N comlet 0=up \; 1=down \; 2=back&forth;
#P inlet 128 52 15 0;
#P comment 121 38 31 196617 form;
#P newex 26 197 27 196617 i;
#P button 26 172 15 0;
#P connect 31 0 30 0;
#P connect 30 0 29 0;
#P connect 7 0 0 0;
#P connect 29 0 1 1;
#P connect 29 0 9 0;
#P connect 0 0 1 0;
#P connect 11 0 18 0;
#P connect 11 0 21 0;
#P connect 11 0 22 0;
#P connect 5 0 30 1;
#P connect 27 0 21 0;
#P connect 25 0 18 0;
#P connect 24 0 22 0;
#P connect 22 0 20 0;
#P connect 21 0 17 1;
#P connect 20 0 17 2;
#P connect 19 0 16 1;
#P connect 18 0 17 0;
#P connect 17 2 29 4;
#P connect 17 0 14 1;
#P connect 17 0 19 0;
#P connect 17 1 19 1;
#P connect 17 2 19 2;
#P connect 3 0 29 1;
#P fasten 1 0 16 0 31 222 127 222;
#P connect 16 0 13 0;
#P connect 14 0 15 0;
#P connect 13 0 14 0;
#P pop;

happy tunes
Don

312)341-6477
414)736-9434

please note new address
dmalone@roosevelt.edu

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 23 Jul 1998 12:56:20 -0400
From:    David Durlach 
Subject: Part 2 of - The EXACT Timing/Order in which messages pass through
MAX.

1) Hi.  Thank you all for your responses to my posting.

2) Unfortunately, I think my initial posting was not sufficiently clear
as to our problem.  We need absolute data-element by data-element
"integrity/phase-locking" of our data streams.  To put this issue in
context - when MAX sends (for example) a 32 bit 4 byte integer data
element down a pipe and into/through any object, it is *guaranteed*, NO
MATTER WHAT and without needing to discuss anything further about the
specifics, that these 4 bytes move through MAX without any *other* bytes
somehow making their way into the middle of these 4.
We need to construct *dual* streams/pipes of integers in a similarly
"atomically-protected" manner. [Note that for reasons of speed, among
others, using a MAX string (atomic) data type is not an appealing
solution.]  Below, we have described a couple of potentially worrisome
scenarios: (I hope these ASCII-based graphics MAX figures come out
spaced correctly.  When I emailed them to myself as a test they did...)

Scenario 1:
    __________
   |object A  |
   |__ ____ __|
      |    |
 ____ |    | _______ from any number of other objects
    _\|____|/_
   |object B  |
   |__________|

"Bang" handler for object A:
 outlet_int(, );
 outlet_int(, );

The receiving of data in the left inlet of object B is what triggers
further action.

Is it guaranteed that object B will always receive  with its
associated , when you consider that the inlets of B are
connected not only to A, but to other objects as well?  In other words,
is the following *unacceptable* sequence of events possible:

1. object B receives  from object A
2. object B receives another timestamp from some other object
3. object B receives  from object A

We are hoping that it is impossible for step 2 to occur in between steps
1 and 3, given the way the bang handler for object A is written.  (The
section on "Message Order" in Max "Getting Started" seems to imply that
this will never happen because Max processes sequentially, never in
parallel, but maybe I am interpreting this incorrectly?)

Scenario 2:
  __________
 |object A  |
 |__ ____ __|
    |    |
    |   _|________
    |  | object C |
    |  |_ ________|
    |    |
    |    |
  __|____|__
 |object B  |
 |__________|

"Bang" handler for object A:
 outlet_int(, );
 outlet_int(, );

The receiving of data in the left inlet of object B is what triggers
further action.

In this example, object C performs some processing which takes an
undetermined amount of time, before outputting its value.  As with the
first example, it is again critical here that the  not be
received at object B until after the .  We have read that Max
message ordering will never be affected by processing time, so we
believe we are ok here.  Can anyone confirm this?

3) To Trond & Laila Linde Lossius:
 The URL of the (lengthy and interesting) MAX discussion from which I
cribbed the paragraph by Miller Puckette is:
http://mitpress.mit.edu/e-journals/Computer-Music-Journal/EdNotes/Max.

4) To Eric Singer:
 Our MAX-run Pacemaker project was regrettably put on hold last week due
to lack of funding, and because our cardiac-challenged test subject
received a shoulder strain, during a racquetball game, from the iMac she
had been wearing strapped to her wrist :-)
 [In actuality, our project involves real-time music-processing and the
control of computer-controlled dancing physics-artworks by a number of
PCs, with MAX on a Mac acting as the master controller (communicating
via Ethernet) for the whole performance.  If there is sufficient
interest, I will post a report about our project on this list when I
have more to say.  In the meantime, if you are interested, you may
examine the March 1997 Discover Magazine article about my activities.
http://coldfusion.discover.com/output.cfm?ID=1073]

Sincerely,

David Durlach    TechnoFrolics

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 23 Jul 1998 14:00:49 -0400
From:    Stephen Kay 
Subject: Part 2 of - The EXACT Timing/Order in which messages pass through
MAX.

>Is it guaranteed that object B will always receive  with its
>associated , when you consider that the inlets of B are
>connected not only to A, but to other objects as well?  In other words,
>is the following *unacceptable* sequence of events possible:

>1. object B receives  from object A
>2. object B receives another timestamp from some other object
>3. object B receives  from object A

I cannot say for sure whether or not this could happen.  It seems to
me in discussions of reentrancy that have taken place on this list
that it might be possible.  I guess David Z. could answer this.

However, several observations:

1) If you want these 2 numbers to always stay together, why not
pack them as a list, then send them to object B? That way nothing
can separate them.  If you are writing objects A & B in C Code,
this would be very easy to accomplish; if using plain vanilla
Max objects, use pack and unpack.

2) In the case of your second example, where you want to do some
processing on the , you would unpack the list at object
C, process the 2nd number, repack the list and send to object B.
Again if writing the object yourself in C, this could easily be
done internally.

Packing and unpacking can add some (slight) processing overhead, =

but it seems like it would be a solution to your problem.

Stephen Kay
---------------------- The MegaMAX Collection ----------------------
 Over 30 Max objects for the creation of more professional looking, =

         feeling, and functioning patchers and applications.
                     http://www.musikinetix.com
                         sk@musikinetix.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 23 Jul 1998 12:24:14 -0800
From:    Ted Apel 
Subject: Re: Dual MAX inquires:

>1) is there an equivalent object to P.D.'s 'fiddle' in MSP? (pitch
tracking)
>              or 'bonk'? (attack detection)

I am working with Miller on moving fiddle~ and bonk~ to MSP. I will post to
the list when they are available. Hopefully soon!

Ted Apel

------------------------------

Date:    Thu, 23 Jul 1998 23:37:44 +0200
From:    "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Do=E9nado?=, el Ur" 
Subject: Morella:concerts+workshops

Querido/a amigo/a,
me complace invitarte a los conciertos y seminarios
que se celebrar=E1n la pr=F3xima semana en la bell=EDsima
ciudad medieval de Morella bajo el t=EDtulo

    "MORELLA NovAntiga"
Jornadas de Confluencias
      Arte y Tecnolog=EDa
      (30.7 al 2.8.1998)

Cuatro conciertos de m=FAsica medieval y electroac=FAstica principalmente=
,
12 audiciones de cuatro laboratorios europeos, dos seminarios y
un importante estreno del singular=EDsimo Eduardo Polonio para
electroac=FAstica y La Banda de Morella.

En la p=E1gina del festival encontrar=E1s informaci=F3n detallada sobre
el programa, alojamiento, etc. Morella se halla a unos 250 Km. de
Barcelona.
festival: http://www.iam.it/morella
Ayuntamiento de Morella: http://www.morella.net
c/ Segura Barreda 28 - 12300 Morella (Castell=F3n)
Tel. 964-173003

Es una gran ocasi=F3n para encontrarnos. Os esperamos
en la ciudad espiral!
-- =

d
*

------------------------------

End of MAX Digest - 22 Jul 1998 to 23 Jul 1998
**********************************************