I am associated with a low(er) budget professional studio which does in-house and PR video work internationally. (*Sorry, I can't be too specific here*).
Anyway...we investigated and selected hard-/software and other components necessary to replace our expensive out-side video consultants. They did awesome work with extremely expensive analog tools (we're in SoCal, so these studio firms are plentiful). But, we could not afford them. So we hired some professional graphic artists (with video experience) and built an in-house studio.
We were producing audio programs for international radio distribution using MS Win computers running SAW 32 and were able to do pretty good work with a low budget. But we definitely realized we could not stay with Windows machines for our new video studio. Main reason? Our lead video expert is a Mac-head. Ding. Sometimes it's not the platform, but the personnel.
Ok, then we got hold of Mac G3's and Adobe Premiere 5.1 & After Effects (like I said...not too specific). The Mac G3 had built in IEEE1394 and we used the MAC DV codec. We also had a Sony DV Cam (essential; freed up our Cannon XL/1 for shooting instead of playback).
For storage we bought some Utra-SCSI II LVM IBM 9 GB disks and built a cheap little 4 drive RAID 0 unit. This was the only way we could suck down video without dropping frames (an essential requirement for pro video, duh).
But, Oh Boy! Premiere is ss-ll-oo-ww! We had a 45 minute initial video program to produce (of course, under an extremely tight schedule, which we spent most of the time building the systems...including trying to find the *exact* SCSI terminator required for the drives we bought at Fry's; eventually, we called the IBM-specified terminator mfg company and they, Oh, what is their name??, sent us a *SAMPLE* terminator fReE! Overnight, Saturday delievery! Why? Because they had no distributors in LA! Wha?... but I digress...heh) and (I'll wait while you back reference to get context....ok) Premiere took over 24 hours to render the final production. Arrrrggghhh!!
Then we moved to Final Cut Pro by Apple. Sweet! Fast! Intuitive! The same video production that took us so long on Premiere was accomplished in 1/100th the time. Same people involved, too.
And the G4 helped, too, when we could get one.
All in all, we have 3 workstations (Mac G3, Mac G4, PowerMac--poor guy!), 1 Cannon XL/1, numerous MiniDV cams(all Sonys; Sony has the best optics), 2 Sony DV Cams (to free up the cameras during playback). We use FCP and After Effects and produce some pretty radical stuff.
The studio we previously used visited us and saw one of our productions. They were stunned at what we could do with basically consumer equipment. Since then, they've invested in similar equipment, because it's almost as good as their analog studio but much faster.
Then, at home, I have a Pyro Firewire card ($160), an AMD K6-2 333 with a couple of drives ($378 Jan 1999), including a 10GB 7200 rpm IBM ($150 at Fry's last Fall), and use the Ulead Brain-Dead Studio Software (I think that's the name) that came with the Pyro IEEE 1394 card, and a Sony TVR-110 ($600). With this I was able to film the birth of my firstborn son (sorry, nothing graphic) and put it on the 'net. I'd give you the link, but it's already next to my name). It's not pro (or even amatuer) but it made the grandparents across the country cry.
And if it did, don't you think business would have picked up on its ability to influence masses of people!
Theoretically, if what people watched and spent time with had any influence on their thinking or behavior (yeah, right) you'd expect that--say--an opportunity to reach everyone watching the Super Bowl would cost tons of money, even for just thirty seconds! Hah!
-- Umm...the English language uses the masculine form of third person pronouns to indicate either male or female subject/objects when the distinction is ambiguous or irrelevant. The sexist thing to do would be to specify a particuar gender by using "she/her/those gals."
I was, until the end of last year. No, I wasn't worried about the court case (or settlement or lack of settlement of the same). No I wasn't worried about Y2K (although I did buy a few jugs of water [in retrospect: Why?]).
I just began to sense the slowing down of their momentum. They seemed less important. Hey, juct compare the pomp and circumstance of Windows 95's roll-out versus the Win2K roll-out ("Umm. *ahem* It's available -- but you don't have to buy it. We're not a monopoly. Really").
Consider the fact that MSFT's stock price is nowhere near as "overvalued" against earnings as other Internet-oriented stocks. Doesn't this bother you? It did me. I realized the reason Yahoo! is market-cap'ed where it is relates to the general feeling that Yahoo!'s future is so bright. But where can Microsoft go but down? Where is the next generation of techies going to work? Not Microsoft!
When Microsoft started admitting the Internet was the future, their fate was sealed. Why? Because the Internet is not proprietary, but is based on an assumption of open standards and open access. Microsoft's business model does not fit this new culture (but it could, I suppose, at a cost).
I stopped investing in MSFT and stopped following this case so closely because it has largely become irrelevant to the future.
The judge in this case obviously "gets it." The web is about linking -- HYPERlinking, even. HTTP does not depend on a formal relationship between domains to establish a link one to the other; no, the very act of setting up an HTTP server to accept requests for URLs establishes the invitation for other domains (even competitors) to link at will. Of course, there are ways to block and/or control access to certain parts, but this restriction requires extra effort by the domain administration: access is assumed granted unless otherwise stopped.
This is certainly unique to the Internet (and to the WWW specifically). Where in "real life" can store A sell stores B's inventory in an attempt to trick venture capitalist C that A's sales are booming? Such a thing is not possible!
So I am amazed that in the court room, where so much is based on case history, such a ruling could be decreed that ''deep linking by itself . . . does not necessarily involve unfair competition.'' I somewhat figured the court would not see the unique circumstances and environment of the WWW and rule that hyperlinking is not allowed without express permission, or some-such progress-reversing, revolution-stopping, Web-breaking judgment.
This is a good day for the World Wide Web.
On the other hand, could you imagine having to set up Trust Domains (a la WinNT) between websites before linking one to another? Yikes!
I -- a recent college grad at the time -- went to a Computer City to buy, with cash, a laptop. I was ignored. Eventually after attempting to get assistance and not finding any (the store was not busy; I guess I didn't look "monied") I lost my temper. I walked over to the sales manager's office and pulled out the thousands of dollars in twenties and hundreds and said while waving the bills, "Excuse me! I came here to buy a laptop in cash but no one has even bothered to assist me. Good bye!" The manager tried to stop me from leaving, but to no avail.
I walked over to the neighboring Circuit City and bought a laptop at a decent price in a pleasant atmosphere.
I wonder why Computer City is out-of-business?
I guess YMMV applies to negative as well as positive experiences, eh?
I've used SAW since '96 to produce nationally distributed radio programs (I'm no musician) and have been looking for something like SAW, or SoundForge...or best yet -- how about an Open Source Pro Tools?
I did download ecasound and ecawave last night but, sadly, I'm missing some dependencies and haven't been able to run them. Ecawave claims to be a stable wave editor.
Ok, bad joke but how do you expect contractors to make a profit when the lowest bid wins the government contracts? They have to built their profit into the prices of itemized expenses. Ergo, a $6 hammer gets billed at $550, or some other number beneath the threshhold of prior approval required.
I remember in the early 1990's (unfortunately before hearing of Linux) buying a copy of Coherent (a UNIX-like OS with GNU tools for x86 procesors) b/c I wanted *nix at home for my spanking new CompuAdd 386-40...
Some time after installing the thing, I had reason to call Coherent's tech support and got a message they were out of business because of a "competing product" distrubuted for free...*sigh*
it seems to me that SRP only offers secure password transmission and forgoes on packet encryption
We've used telnet over the Internet for over two years as our initial ASP offering (we're readying our web-based application to replace it). That is, we're able to deliver our *nix based enterprise application over the Internet via telnet (as long as we have a maximmum latency of 500 ms, that is). These issues of securing login and packet data had to be addressed for us to convince our Fortune 500 customers to buy into our Internet-based solution.
Combining SRP, for password transmission, and CIPE for complete packet encryption, we're able to provide a reliably secure telnet session.
If we didn't have SRP and CIPE, we'd be SOL.
P.S. At the project's inception in 1996 we could not cost-justify any solution that required a per-user license fee. This threw us into Open Source solutions (and the ability to hack at the source code has proven a marvellous benefit since then).
After reading on-line news from the mid-eighties on CompuServe I'm hooked on up-to-the-minute news sites for life. Also, after finding news commentary sites (from/. to ZDNet's TalkBack), I am stuck on interactive news sites. and who that is politically inclined does not check the Drudge?
But lately I've noticed that I am increasingly spending quarters to buy the LA Times (hey, it's the major local paper in my area) instead of reading it exclusively on-line. Afterall, the LA Times web site offers a "Print Edition" on-line. But I don't like it. Actually, I get little or no pleasure from reading newspaper sites versus reading the paper. This has been nagging at me, but until you asked, I hadn't really thought about why.
I find myself reading the paper for an hour at a time (I only read the Front and Business Sections) while my online news checking is in short 10 minute bursts. Even when I'm on the LA Times site I spend less than half the time than when I have the paper in front of me.
The paper draws me in. I find myself reading stories that I wouldn't read on-line. On-line I read those stories which appeal from the headline. In print, I often read the end of a story and move to the front to get the context.
Oh. That's it. I like to read from back to front. When I finish a story, I am usually on a different page than when I started and there is the end of another story adjacent that attracts me enough to find the front of it. This cycle repeats itself.
I am returning to the paper because I am broadened by the "random accessibility" of the pages versus the start-at -the-beginning-or-forget-it method of the on-line realm.
The on-line realm dictates the path I take to read, so I only go down paths that initially interest me. Narrow, targeted, efficient. The paper is open and I set the path of entry, exit and re-entry.
I'll never give up obsessively checking Rueters and AP news wires online but now I know why I am more fond of the paper in front of me than the online print edition of the same. Thanks for asking.
Let me start by saying I'm in the market for a laptop. I don't need to get one right away but I'm looking. My needs are modest -- I use VIM as my web page editor, so any platform will do (except wince).
function whine (excitement, disappointment, opinion) {
Ever since January 19th I've been waiting for a Crusoe-based product to be even announced as becoming available. And waiting.
Then there's this post on Slashdot which is truly disappointing: it's a rehash of Transmeta's site that is funded by the silly "find the ball under the cup" ads. Maybe it also has the "punch the &*^@%# monkey" ads, but I didn't wait around for them. No products, just bare chips. (Prototypes and mockup machines don't count since they're not for sale.)
*Sigh*
I'm starting to believe Transmeta didn't wait too long to announce its intentions (as some said initially) but rather announced way too soon.
Mobile Linux isn't ready
No products on the way to market
It's not that I wasn't impressed by the technology but it's that I want to buy a product.
Yes, I believe the Navy is unhappy with MSFT. One reason is the Navy's love of their battle ships and Microsoft WinNT's penchant for crashing the entire ship!
See this article about WinNT crashing the USS Yorktown.
If that's not a mission critical system failure, what is?
Although I am extremely happy with what's inside my computers this personalization movement is good. This, and even more the iMac phenomenon, prove that non-techies (A.K.A., normal people) accept the PC as integral in their life.
Perhaps the selling mark of the 00's will not relate to what's 'Inside' but what's merely on the Outside.
This also proves that PC's are commodities to most and are differientiated by oddities.
Sorry.
On another (but Off Topic) note, Shouldn't Slashdot warn hosts that they're about to be/.'ed? How soon did the poor guy's site go down? If everyone hit my personal Earthlink site (which has a limit of 250 MB per month output) come morning, I'd have "a lot of 'splaining to do, Lucy..."
We'll also be hyper-sensitive to anything that even appears pro-VA biased.
The sad thing about this deal (VA buying Andover.net) is that there are probably good things to come from VA. But sing the praises of them on/. or freshmeat...and expect backlash. It may be that the uncomfortable purchase of Andover by VA will limit the favorable coverage of the latter by the publishers with the former.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyway...we investigated and selected hard-/software and other components necessary to replace our expensive out-side video consultants. They did awesome work with extremely expensive analog tools (we're in SoCal, so these studio firms are plentiful). But, we could not afford them. So we hired some professional graphic artists (with video experience) and built an in-house studio.
We were producing audio programs for international radio distribution using MS Win computers running SAW 32 and were able to do pretty good work with a low budget. But we definitely realized we could not stay with Windows machines for our new video studio. Main reason? Our lead video expert is a Mac-head. Ding. Sometimes it's not the platform, but the personnel.
Ok, then we got hold of Mac G3's and Adobe Premiere 5.1 & After Effects (like I said...not too specific). The Mac G3 had built in IEEE1394 and we used the MAC DV codec. We also had a Sony DV Cam (essential; freed up our Cannon XL/1 for shooting instead of playback).
For storage we bought some Utra-SCSI II LVM IBM 9 GB disks and built a cheap little 4 drive RAID 0 unit. This was the only way we could suck down video without dropping frames (an essential requirement for pro video, duh).
But, Oh Boy! Premiere is ss-ll-oo-ww! We had a 45 minute initial video program to produce (of course, under an extremely tight schedule, which we spent most of the time building the systems...including trying to find the *exact* SCSI terminator required for the drives we bought at Fry's; eventually, we called the IBM-specified terminator mfg company and they, Oh, what is their name??, sent us a *SAMPLE* terminator fReE! Overnight, Saturday delievery! Why? Because they had no distributors in LA! Wha?... but I digress...heh) and (I'll wait while you back reference to get context....ok) Premiere took over 24 hours to render the final production. Arrrrggghhh!!
Then we moved to Final Cut Pro by Apple. Sweet! Fast! Intuitive! The same video production that took us so long on Premiere was accomplished in 1/100th the time. Same people involved, too.
And the G4 helped, too, when we could get one.
All in all, we have 3 workstations (Mac G3, Mac G4, PowerMac--poor guy!), 1 Cannon XL/1, numerous MiniDV cams(all Sonys; Sony has the best optics), 2 Sony DV Cams (to free up the cameras during playback). We use FCP and After Effects and produce some pretty radical stuff.
The studio we previously used visited us and saw one of our productions. They were stunned at what we could do with basically consumer equipment. Since then, they've invested in similar equipment, because it's almost as good as their analog studio but much faster.
Then, at home, I have a Pyro Firewire card ($160), an AMD K6-2 333 with a couple of drives ($378 Jan 1999), including a 10GB 7200 rpm IBM ($150 at Fry's last Fall), and use the Ulead Brain-Dead Studio Software (I think that's the name) that came with the Pyro IEEE 1394 card, and a Sony TVR-110 ($600). With this I was able to film the birth of my firstborn son (sorry, nothing graphic) and put it on the 'net. I'd give you the link, but it's already next to my name). It's not pro (or even amatuer) but it made the grandparents across the country cry.
Who says space isn't cool?
And if it did, don't you think business would have picked up on its ability to influence masses of people!
Theoretically, if what people watched and spent time with had any influence on their thinking or behavior (yeah, right) you'd expect that--say--an opportunity to reach everyone watching the Super Bowl would cost tons of money, even for just thirty seconds! Hah!
!
My thoughts exactly... How ironic.
-- Umm...the English language uses the masculine form of third person pronouns to indicate either male or female subject/objects when the distinction is ambiguous or irrelevant. The sexist thing to do would be to specify a particuar gender by using "she/her/those gals."
I just began to sense the slowing down of their momentum. They seemed less important. Hey, juct compare the pomp and circumstance of Windows 95's roll-out versus the Win2K roll-out ("Umm. *ahem* It's available -- but you don't have to buy it. We're not a monopoly. Really").
Consider the fact that MSFT's stock price is nowhere near as "overvalued" against earnings as other Internet-oriented stocks. Doesn't this bother you? It did me. I realized the reason Yahoo! is market-cap'ed where it is relates to the general feeling that Yahoo!'s future is so bright. But where can Microsoft go but down? Where is the next generation of techies going to work? Not Microsoft!
When Microsoft started admitting the Internet was the future, their fate was sealed. Why? Because the Internet is not proprietary, but is based on an assumption of open standards and open access. Microsoft's business model does not fit this new culture (but it could, I suppose, at a cost).
I stopped investing in MSFT and stopped following this case so closely because it has largely become irrelevant to the future.
This is certainly unique to the Internet (and to the WWW specifically). Where in "real life" can store A sell stores B's inventory in an attempt to trick venture capitalist C that A's sales are booming? Such a thing is not possible!
So I am amazed that in the court room, where so much is based on case history, such a ruling could be decreed that ''deep linking by itself . . . does not necessarily involve unfair competition.'' I somewhat figured the court would not see the unique circumstances and environment of the WWW and rule that hyperlinking is not allowed without express permission, or some-such progress-reversing, revolution-stopping, Web-breaking judgment.
This is a good day for the World Wide Web.
On the other hand, could you imagine having to set up Trust Domains (a la WinNT) between websites before linking one to another? Yikes!
I -- a recent college grad at the time -- went to a Computer City to buy, with cash, a laptop. I was ignored. Eventually after attempting to get assistance and not finding any (the store was not busy; I guess I didn't look "monied") I lost my temper. I walked over to the sales manager's office and pulled out the thousands of dollars in twenties and hundreds and said while waving the bills, "Excuse me! I came here to buy a laptop in cash but no one has even bothered to assist me. Good bye!" The manager tried to stop me from leaving, but to no avail.
I walked over to the neighboring Circuit City and bought a laptop at a decent price in a pleasant atmosphere.
I wonder why Computer City is out-of-business?
I guess YMMV applies to negative as well as positive experiences, eh?
I did download ecasound and ecawave last night but, sadly, I'm missing some dependencies and haven't been able to run them. Ecawave claims to be a stable wave editor.
For an example of this term see What I found using Google.
I remember in the early 1990's (unfortunately before hearing of Linux) buying a copy of Coherent (a UNIX-like OS with GNU tools for x86 procesors) b/c I wanted *nix at home for my spanking new CompuAdd 386-40...
Some time after installing the thing, I had reason to call Coherent's tech support and got a message they were out of business because of a "competing product" distrubuted for free...*sigh*
So. Mark has resurfaced at MSFT? No surprise...
We've used telnet over the Internet for over two years as our initial ASP offering (we're readying our web-based application to replace it). That is, we're able to deliver our *nix based enterprise application over the Internet via telnet (as long as we have a maximmum latency of 500 ms, that is). These issues of securing login and packet data had to be addressed for us to convince our Fortune 500 customers to buy into our Internet-based solution.
Combining SRP, for password transmission, and CIPE for complete packet encryption, we're able to provide a reliably secure telnet session.
If we didn't have SRP and CIPE, we'd be SOL.
P.S. At the project's inception in 1996 we could not cost-justify any solution that required a per-user license fee. This threw us into Open Source solutions (and the ability to hack at the source code has proven a marvellous benefit since then).
O, the irony...
But try "Netscape Navigator newest" and all is right with the world.
There's a lot at stake.
But lately I've noticed that I am increasingly spending quarters to buy the LA Times (hey, it's the major local paper in my area) instead of reading it exclusively on-line. Afterall, the LA Times web site offers a "Print Edition" on-line. But I don't like it. Actually, I get little or no pleasure from reading newspaper sites versus reading the paper. This has been nagging at me, but until you asked, I hadn't really thought about why.
I find myself reading the paper for an hour at a time (I only read the Front and Business Sections) while my online news checking is in short 10 minute bursts. Even when I'm on the LA Times site I spend less than half the time than when I have the paper in front of me.
The paper draws me in. I find myself reading stories that I wouldn't read on-line. On-line I read those stories which appeal from the headline. In print, I often read the end of a story and move to the front to get the context.
Oh. That's it. I like to read from back to front. When I finish a story, I am usually on a different page than when I started and there is the end of another story adjacent that attracts me enough to find the front of it. This cycle repeats itself.
I am returning to the paper because I am broadened by the "random accessibility" of the pages versus the start-at -the-beginning-or-forget-it method of the on-line realm.
The on-line realm dictates the path I take to read, so I only go down paths that initially interest me. Narrow, targeted, efficient. The paper is open and I set the path of entry, exit and re-entry.
I'll never give up obsessively checking Rueters and AP news wires online but now I know why I am more fond of the paper in front of me than the online print edition of the same. Thanks for asking.
function whine (excitement, disappointment, opinion) {
Ever since January 19th I've been waiting for a Crusoe-based product to be even announced as becoming available. And waiting.
Then there's this post on Slashdot which is truly disappointing: it's a rehash of Transmeta's site that is funded by the silly "find the ball under the cup" ads. Maybe it also has the "punch the &*^@%# monkey" ads, but I didn't wait around for them. No products, just bare chips. (Prototypes and mockup machines don't count since they're not for sale.)
*Sigh*
I'm starting to believe Transmeta didn't wait too long to announce its intentions (as some said initially) but rather announced way too soon.
It's not that I wasn't impressed by the technology but it's that I want to buy a product.
} // end of function whine()
But the deal was saved by the offer of FREE HOME DELIVERY. Now I know I'm saving BIG TIME!
*Sigh*
I just remembered...
Oh well... off to eBay before my wife finds out...(DOH!)
See this article about WinNT crashing the USS Yorktown.
If that's not a mission critical system failure, what is?
It<sup>1</sup>s not exactly on topic, but I couldn<sup>1</sup>t help but notice this annoyance, too.
Ok, guys: What<sup>1</sup>s the answer?
It used to be that computers would be spec'ed, not bespeckled.
Perhaps the selling mark of the 00's will not relate to what's 'Inside' but what's merely on the Outside.
This also proves that PC's are commodities to most and are differientiated by oddities.
Sorry.
On another (but Off Topic) note, Shouldn't Slashdot warn hosts that they're about to be /.'ed? How soon did the poor guy's site go down? If everyone hit my personal Earthlink site (which has a limit of 250 MB per month output) come morning, I'd have "a lot of 'splaining to do, Lucy..."
Sorry everyone.
If Slashdot fails to be objective, it fails overall. It is not in the interest of an investor to lose money in their investment.
Slashdot's safe...
ThinkGeek may be in trouble, though... (better get my regular Jolt shipments sped up!)
We'll be watching.
We'll also be hyper-sensitive to anything that even appears pro-VA biased.
The sad thing about this deal (VA buying Andover.net) is that there are probably good things to come from VA. But sing the praises of them on /. or freshmeat...and expect backlash. It may be that the uncomfortable purchase of Andover by VA will limit the favorable coverage of the latter by the publishers with the former.
Good luck. You'll need it.