Monthly Archives: August 2005

Transition Complete

*Taken with a Canon Powershot A300

Finally, I got my Korg X5D synthesizer working on my beautiful iMac G5… Had to turn to the net for help. Since the Korg X5D was an “old” synthesizer, it does not have a USB port. So I had to secure a Yamaha UX-16 USB to Midi cable that likewise cost a pretty penny…

The fact that I got my wires crossed (both literally and figuratively) did not help me any these past days. Apparently, you put the Midi In plug to the Midi Out socket and the Midi Out plug to the Midi In socket in the synth. I though it was in to in and out to out… I was so used to having only one plug (a proprietary PC to Host Port) to contend with when it was then connected to a PC.

To test the set-up, I always use “Bizaare Love Triangle” MIDI file since it tests al 16 Midi tracks. Plus, it sounds impressive…

Like Homer Simpson, I was shouting “D’oh!”

With the final issue out of the way, my transition to the world of Apple is complete. Though I still have to use my laptop while away and maintain my (now old) Duron 850 because my father would still use it and I still have files there that I need. Also, I would still use the laptop as a sequencer when I take the X5D to church…

Wish me and my iMac luck.


Filed under Uncategorized

Blog Lecture No. 40: Modus Operandi

With the allegations of a grand conspiracy to manipulate the impeachment proceedings, this lecture may be appropriate. But short.

What is the rule on past actions as evidence?

Section 34, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Evidence states:

Sec. 34 Similar acts as evidence. — Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he did or did not do the same or similar thing at another time; but it may be received to prove a specific intent or knowledge; identity, plan, system, scheme, habit, custom or usage, and the like.

So as a general rule past actions cannot be used to prove present actions.

That is logical. Just because you did (or did not do) something in the past does not necessarily mean you did (or did not do) something again.

Couple with additional evidence, however, of:

1. Specific intent or knowlege
2. Identity (signature trait as in serial crimes)
3. Plan (independent of the acts)
4. Scheme
5. Habit
6. Custom or usage
7. Similar matters

The past action may be admissible to prove present action because it just accentuates something being done (or not done) with a sense of regularity or habituality.

Any questions?

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Blog Lecture No. 39: Verification

Let’s get straight to the point, shall we?

When is something verified?

According to Section 4, Rule 7 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure:

A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read the pleading and that the allegations therein are true and correct of his knowledge and belief.

A pleading required to be verified which contains a verification based on “information and belief,” or upon “knowledge, information and belief,” or lacks a proper verification, shall be treated as an unsigned pleading.

When is it not?

When there is only what they call a Jurat. You know that. It goes a little bit like this:

“Subscribed and sworn to before me on _________, affiant showing to me his Community Tax Certificate No. ________, issued at ________ on __________.”

Which is common in notarized affidavits.

A verification (though also in affidavit form but separate and distinct from the main body or complaint) should look like this:

“I, ___________, of legal age, Filipino and residing at ___________, after being duly sworn to according to law, hereby depose and say:

1. I have read this Impeachment Complaint and/or caused it to be prepared.

2. The facts therein are true and correct to my own knowledge and belief.”

then followed by the Jurat.

What about this thing called a “virtual acknowledgement” where being a lawyer makes anything he executes such?

“Virtual” does not mean “actual” so the answer is “virtually wrong…” or he is “virtually dreaming.”


Filed under Uncategorized

Turned on the Anti-Spam

I beg your kind indulgence but I turned the new (or is it recently discovered only?) anti-spam feature of Blogspot. I think all of you in Blogspot should do the same.

So those who are fond on commenting on my blog, “I am sorry” for the additional inconvenience. I just don’t want to start my day erasing around 23 spam comments from one or more of my entries…

But please don’t let that stop you from speaking out. I welcome all your remarks.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Administration Blogger’s Change of Title

Just noticed recently that the administration blogger (or bloggers) changed their blospot from “Rational View” to the “Rational Shpere.” (again no link my friends, just look for it and exercise your internet research skills than rely on me to spoonfeed it to you…)

Took me a few seconds to figure out why.

Rather than present its view as “rational,” they intend to use reason to run us into circles? Or run rings around us?

Just guessing…

Me and my iMac will be so happy together… (haven’t decided on a name for it yet, but I don’t usually name my computers. I just refer to them by their processors)


Filed under Uncategorized

Cat out of the bag…

Thank God for people like Congressman Rodolfo Bacani for still having a conscience.

Of course GMA has each and every right to kill the impeachment complaint, when she feels it is technically infirm.

The problem is, impeachment, as we have pointed out, is both a political and a legal process. Yes they can all go through killing the process with all the technicalities it can find. But I agree with Senator Rene Saguisag (for a change) when he said whatever the process will be, there must be not merely a sense, but actual credibility in the entire process. This simply means, if GMA will be acquitted, she will be acquitted on the merits.

What does this mean? This means the darn thing must go to trial. A painful process, but so be it.

If the Administration congressmen kill the impeachment complaint today, the thing still goes to the plenary (see my blog lecture on this here). With this, the opposition still has two options:

1. Muster the 79 (deadline: before or during plenary)
2. Go to the Supreme Court (but ask for a temporary restraining order/preliminary injuction)

I suggest the opposition simply goes for its 79. For the administration, I suggest they at least let the thing go to trial, for I cannot predict the public’s reaction if they kill the impeachment on a technicality.

Writing/calling/texting to your congressman won’t help either. They don’t have a sense of accountability anymore since they feel they don’t owe us a thing. They paid for our votes, remember.


Filed under Uncategorized


Got my hands on an iMac G5. Thanks to all the people who made it possible. This would be a good diet tool because I would not eat because of it.

I’m exhausted from all that installation(s) I made today. Had to move my Pentium II-350 to my office, my trusty Duron 850 to my father’s room and the iMac in the living room (because it could pass for furniture… it’s that beautiful…

Only the laptops stay where they are…even the one still on probation (though I had the skin changed to the Microsoft Longhorn [aka Vista])

Just a few issues left, though, such as the user profiles keep on piling up and the installation of my synthesizer, which could wait until later. I’m in no hurry.

May my relationship with it last more than my marriage…


Filed under Uncategorized