Use Final Scratch or Rane's Serrato (which let you manipulate digital music using two turntables and vinyl records). Bring a small bag of records so it looks good. Keep the computer hidden and when the cops come, you're like, "Sorry, mate, all my fooking tracks are on vinyl. I never touch the digital stuff, guv'ner!"
I wasn't debating art or not. I find offense in calling someone a musician who simply takes the works of others and splices them together. Call them something else, but not a musician.
So you wouldn't call Elvis Presley a musician? What about blues legend Robert Johnson? What about artists who use keyboards and samplers instead of turntables to "splice"? At what point do you decide one is just "splicing" vs. "creating" when the artist is working with the medium of ideas used by other artists? Why is the preference for using one tool, say the guitar, to "splice" sounds together less "musical" than the preference for another (say the turntable)?
I think those sites use the WMP 10 codecs, which are not supported by this tool or by the WMP. They're just not playable on a mac (yet). But flip4mac does wonders with all the other wmv content out there as well as sites that stream (at least what I've looked at so far). It even (sorta) lets you download streaming videos as quicktime!
yeah I really am thrilled about this announcement - I didn't know flip4mac existed; after reading this article I installed the plugin and will never use WMP again. Watching WMV videos in quicktime player or vlc is awesome. And now videos play directly in browser windows. This is light years ahead of WMP ever would have been; I don't blame them for dropping this.
Apple has advertised Front Row as a reason to buy a new iMac and it even comes with the MacBook, but when will they sell a version of this that will work with older Macs? That would definitely improve the interface that you use for this setup (in my case, sometimes I use Sailing Clicker from my phone -- a terrible solution if you have more than a thousand songs or movies; sometimes I use a cool wireless handheld pointing device that looks like a phaser; usually I wind up having to use VNC through a laptop). The remote that comes with frontrow and the interface looks perfect; why aren't they selling that without the new computers? Seems it would be easy and lots of people would want it.
Especially with the Project-X skin that makes it look like Front Row on a new Mactel computer. But I'm not sure how to use this stuff. I went to the download pages and there are ten different pages pointing to files with extensions like.exe and.dll.... I don't recognize these extensions on any of the operating systems I've used before. This must only run on some obscure OS. Anyone ever seen this stuff before?
I do this and it's a good setup overall (except for occasional sound problems - see my other post). But a warning to anyone who wants to try this - don't expect to decode HDTV on the G4 processor. I bought an EyeTV 500 with this and had to trade it in for the 300 model (without HDTV) because the processor was way too slow to decode HDTV without stuttering. I emailed support back and forth for a while and they eventually admitted the computer was too slow even though they advertise it should work with slower processors. They made the exchange without a problem; they also said some people use Mac minis fine with this machine but I had no luck even watching TV acceptably much less recording anything. The non-HDTV version works much better, but of course I am limited to my reception capabilities (I don't use cable TV; there is plenty of signal for both HDTV and regular coming in for free), and there's no HDTV (until I purchase a separate HDTV receiver, which I will eventually). But for my main purpose -- accessing digital media from an external hard drive on my home theater -- this solution works very well.
I have the M-Audio Transit device and it works most of the time, but I have to deal with dropped sound in the middle of movies. After some futzing around (very frustrating to have sound suddenly drop when trying to watch episodes of "24") I found the magic handshake - unplug the transit from USB and replug in to reboot; quit VLC and restart (if it happens while using QT Player there is no need to restart the app) and the sound will come on as the Transit starts up and is recognized by the computer. It doesn't happen often enough to be predictable; just enough to be annoying. The M-Audio docs and website are pretty thin on info. I'd hesitate to buy the other device from them too unless I hear more experiences from owners. (Though I would still recommend that company's music products; I have two sets of their studio monitors and couldn't be happier with them for the price I paid). As for the Firewave, it looks cool but what the hell is the idea behind not including digital output, either optical or coax? They only have direct speaker outputs meaning you have to connect this instead of your amp to your speakers (uhh, no thanks, I want sound from other input sources too) or you need an amp with direct sound inputs for each channel (certainly not too rare but there are surround-sound amps without them) or some kind of device that converts discrete channels to digital (which also seems silly). On top of it, these discrete outputs on the firewave are all mini plugs! Meaning you can't use standard connectors; you need miniplug-to-RCA or whatever. Why would you want this device to perform channel separation - introducing more noise after the signal is converted - when you have an amp that already does that, and why do you want three extra cords running between your computer and your amplifier? This just seems ill-conceived to me.
Is there any company making a decent box to do this with? Something reliable, preferably from an OSX-friendly company (M-Audio seems to be making the OSX software for the Transit as an afterthought).
people who supposedly "out" CIA agents, who weren't undercover in the first place
Please stop trying to perpetuate the lie that Valerie Wilson was not undercover. Politics aside, you do a disservice to the country when you spread false information intended only to defame a former agent who was simply doing her job. Her job was classified information - that's what Patrick Fitzgerald found, and it is notable that the only people who are claiming she wasn't are right wing pundits. The Bush Administration is not even making this argument; it doesn't hold water. The FBI interviewed the Wilsons' neighbors and relatives and nobody knew of her work for the CIA. The New York Times also investigated this question and found that nobody knew of her status; they found that she was a NOC -- "non-official cover," meaning she was without diplomatic protection if she got into trouble. A lot of people spew crap about her driving to CIA headquarters; former CIA agents have said that such people are totally ignorant of how the CIA operates; that many people who go to CIA HQ are nevertheless undercover. Some claim that she had to live outside of the country for several years to be considered undercover -- that is a legalistic nitpick (it is only relevant to whether a particular law was broken, not to whether national security was undermined) and it is false anyway; it is likely that she left the country (not to live but to operate undercover) during the requisite time period. Some general claims to have met Joe Wilson in the green room at FOX dozens of times turns out to only have been there at the same time as him once, for fifteen minutes, hardly time to get into Wilson's wife's covert employment. This general supposedly holds on to this information for weeks, then tells an obscure right wing radio show after the libby indictment (why didn't he present his evidence to the FBI or to Fitzgerald?) The general, it turns out, once wrote an article about distorting information in order to win a "mindwar" against one's enemies. There are several other pundits with similar stories and they all fall apart under scrutiny. This is a smear campaign. The CIA considered her undercover or they never would have asked the Justice Dept to investigate in the first place.
She also was working under cover of a front company, which was exposed -- meaning all the agents she worked with were compromised. Also compromised was whatever operation she was working on - of course we don't know details, but we do know it had to do with reducing the proliferation of WMD. Precisely what Bush was supposedly protecting us from when he started a preventive war in Iraq. On top of the immediate effects look at the longer term picture -- how is the agency supposed to recruit more NOCs and others to do undercover work when they know their cover could be compromised at the political whim of whoever is in office?
Please put your politics aside and look at this clearly. This is not a left wing, right wing issue. If the Clinton Admin had exposed a CIA agent to get petty revenge on an opponent of the admin, the impeachment hearings would have been over in minutes. Democrats would have joined Republicans condemning him for severely undermining U.S. national security, and the case against him would have been a slam dunk. Apart from whether it was illegal according to a certain interpretation of the law, and apart from what party one belongs to, the fact is, exposure of undercover agents by their bosses in the administration should not happen. Period.
I've seen such comparisons over and over in this forum, and the Macs almost always come out on top for overall value. When you include all the hardware specs the prices are close; Macs are perhaps a couple hundred more. That's putting quality issues aside -- just put a cheap 20" LCD monitor next to the one that comes standard on the iMac and tell me you're getting the same deal. You're not. Then add in the software and the price difference is negligible if it exists at all. That's TCO aside -- Macs are not just prettier than their Wintel counterparts; they are made to last longer and break less. An Apple laptop will take a lot more abuse than a cheap windows laptop. When Jobs announced the intel iMacs someone posted this same ridiculous comment and was proven wrong with actual hardware comparisons. I'm sure you will say such things add "false value" but that's ludicrous; what is false about having to buy a new computer in 2 years? What is false about not having to pay for OS X (even assuming you could run it on your windows machine, which you eventually will be able to)? What is false about getting a better monitor?
Those who are willing to trade the freedom to purchase DRM-encumbered mp3s privately for a little bit of security deserve neither. The right to download Dixie Chicks in private is the fundamental bedrock of our liberties. They can take my right to download Dixie Chicks privately when they pry my cold dead fingers from the mouse!
It should be painfully obvious but it isn't. I never bothered to click the "Parental" button because I don't have kids. I don't use the iTMS but I sometimes found it annoying because I would accidentally click it and have to wait for it to load before going back to my library. Now it's gone completely; no more stray clicks. Thanks!
Story - Sun and Apple might have merged, but didn't. What's next for news? South African scientist could have developed AIDS vaccine! Bill Gates had opportunity to be nice to Jamaican nun! SCO could have won their lawsuit! The RIAA could have sued another file-sharer!
That would have been my guess too, in which case this point is totally irrelevant in comparing SLR to DSLR. Since the SLRs have the same built-in cost, the shutter wear-and-tear doesn't factor into it.
Slashdot Mirror
Did they blow you?
Use Final Scratch or Rane's Serrato (which let you manipulate digital music using two turntables and vinyl records). Bring a small bag of records so it looks good. Keep the computer hidden and when the cops come, you're like, "Sorry, mate, all my fooking tracks are on vinyl. I never touch the digital stuff, guv'ner!"
So you wouldn't call Elvis Presley a musician? What about blues legend Robert Johnson? What about artists who use keyboards and samplers instead of turntables to "splice"? At what point do you decide one is just "splicing" vs. "creating" when the artist is working with the medium of ideas used by other artists? Why is the preference for using one tool, say the guitar, to "splice" sounds together less "musical" than the preference for another (say the turntable)?
I think those sites use the WMP 10 codecs, which are not supported by this tool or by the WMP. They're just not playable on a mac (yet). But flip4mac does wonders with all the other wmv content out there as well as sites that stream (at least what I've looked at so far). It even (sorta) lets you download streaming videos as quicktime!
yeah I really am thrilled about this announcement - I didn't know flip4mac existed; after reading this article I installed the plugin and will never use WMP again. Watching WMV videos in quicktime player or vlc is awesome. And now videos play directly in browser windows. This is light years ahead of WMP ever would have been; I don't blame them for dropping this.
"Decode" is the only thing anyone in their right mind should be doing with WMV.
you obviously don't watch nearly enough porn.
Yes but flash will overtake hard drives in most Write-Only Memory applications.
Apple has advertised Front Row as a reason to buy a new iMac and it even comes with the MacBook, but when will they sell a version of this that will work with older Macs? That would definitely improve the interface that you use for this setup (in my case, sometimes I use Sailing Clicker from my phone -- a terrible solution if you have more than a thousand songs or movies; sometimes I use a cool wireless handheld pointing device that looks like a phaser; usually I wind up having to use VNC through a laptop). The remote that comes with frontrow and the interface looks perfect; why aren't they selling that without the new computers? Seems it would be easy and lots of people would want it.
Especially with the Project-X skin that makes it look like Front Row on a new Mactel computer. But I'm not sure how to use this stuff. I went to the download pages and there are ten different pages pointing to files with extensions like .exe and .dll .... I don't recognize these extensions on any of the operating systems I've used before. This must only run on some obscure OS. Anyone ever seen this stuff before?
I do this and it's a good setup overall (except for occasional sound problems - see my other post). But a warning to anyone who wants to try this - don't expect to decode HDTV on the G4 processor. I bought an EyeTV 500 with this and had to trade it in for the 300 model (without HDTV) because the processor was way too slow to decode HDTV without stuttering. I emailed support back and forth for a while and they eventually admitted the computer was too slow even though they advertise it should work with slower processors. They made the exchange without a problem; they also said some people use Mac minis fine with this machine but I had no luck even watching TV acceptably much less recording anything. The non-HDTV version works much better, but of course I am limited to my reception capabilities (I don't use cable TV; there is plenty of signal for both HDTV and regular coming in for free), and there's no HDTV (until I purchase a separate HDTV receiver, which I will eventually). But for my main purpose -- accessing digital media from an external hard drive on my home theater -- this solution works very well.
Is there any company making a decent box to do this with? Something reliable, preferably from an OSX-friendly company (M-Audio seems to be making the OSX software for the Transit as an afterthought).
Please stop trying to perpetuate the lie that Valerie Wilson was not undercover. Politics aside, you do a disservice to the country when you spread false information intended only to defame a former agent who was simply doing her job. Her job was classified information - that's what Patrick Fitzgerald found, and it is notable that the only people who are claiming she wasn't are right wing pundits. The Bush Administration is not even making this argument; it doesn't hold water. The FBI interviewed the Wilsons' neighbors and relatives and nobody knew of her work for the CIA. The New York Times also investigated this question and found that nobody knew of her status; they found that she was a NOC -- "non-official cover," meaning she was without diplomatic protection if she got into trouble. A lot of people spew crap about her driving to CIA headquarters; former CIA agents have said that such people are totally ignorant of how the CIA operates; that many people who go to CIA HQ are nevertheless undercover. Some claim that she had to live outside of the country for several years to be considered undercover -- that is a legalistic nitpick (it is only relevant to whether a particular law was broken, not to whether national security was undermined) and it is false anyway; it is likely that she left the country (not to live but to operate undercover) during the requisite time period. Some general claims to have met Joe Wilson in the green room at FOX dozens of times turns out to only have been there at the same time as him once, for fifteen minutes, hardly time to get into Wilson's wife's covert employment. This general supposedly holds on to this information for weeks, then tells an obscure right wing radio show after the libby indictment (why didn't he present his evidence to the FBI or to Fitzgerald?) The general, it turns out, once wrote an article about distorting information in order to win a "mindwar" against one's enemies. There are several other pundits with similar stories and they all fall apart under scrutiny. This is a smear campaign. The CIA considered her undercover or they never would have asked the Justice Dept to investigate in the first place.
She also was working under cover of a front company, which was exposed -- meaning all the agents she worked with were compromised. Also compromised was whatever operation she was working on - of course we don't know details, but we do know it had to do with reducing the proliferation of WMD. Precisely what Bush was supposedly protecting us from when he started a preventive war in Iraq. On top of the immediate effects look at the longer term picture -- how is the agency supposed to recruit more NOCs and others to do undercover work when they know their cover could be compromised at the political whim of whoever is in office?
Please put your politics aside and look at this clearly. This is not a left wing, right wing issue. If the Clinton Admin had exposed a CIA agent to get petty revenge on an opponent of the admin, the impeachment hearings would have been over in minutes. Democrats would have joined Republicans condemning him for severely undermining U.S. national security, and the case against him would have been a slam dunk. Apart from whether it was illegal according to a certain interpretation of the law, and apart from what party one belongs to, the fact is, exposure of undercover agents by their bosses in the administration should not happen. Period.
I've seen such comparisons over and over in this forum, and the Macs almost always come out on top for overall value. When you include all the hardware specs the prices are close; Macs are perhaps a couple hundred more. That's putting quality issues aside -- just put a cheap 20" LCD monitor next to the one that comes standard on the iMac and tell me you're getting the same deal. You're not. Then add in the software and the price difference is negligible if it exists at all. That's TCO aside -- Macs are not just prettier than their Wintel counterparts; they are made to last longer and break less. An Apple laptop will take a lot more abuse than a cheap windows laptop. When Jobs announced the intel iMacs someone posted this same ridiculous comment and was proven wrong with actual hardware comparisons. I'm sure you will say such things add "false value" but that's ludicrous; what is false about having to buy a new computer in 2 years? What is false about not having to pay for OS X (even assuming you could run it on your windows machine, which you eventually will be able to)? What is false about getting a better monitor?
if they had merged, MacOS would be a lot snappier!
Those who are willing to trade the freedom to purchase DRM-encumbered mp3s privately for a little bit of security deserve neither. The right to download Dixie Chicks in private is the fundamental bedrock of our liberties. They can take my right to download Dixie Chicks privately when they pry my cold dead fingers from the mouse!
It should be painfully obvious but it isn't. I never bothered to click the "Parental" button because I don't have kids. I don't use the iTMS but I sometimes found it annoying because I would accidentally click it and have to wait for it to load before going back to my library. Now it's gone completely; no more stray clicks. Thanks!
Story - Sun and Apple might have merged, but didn't. What's next for news? South African scientist could have developed AIDS vaccine! Bill Gates had opportunity to be nice to Jamaican nun! SCO could have won their lawsuit! The RIAA could have sued another file-sharer!
That would have been my guess too, in which case this point is totally irrelevant in comparing SLR to DSLR. Since the SLRs have the same built-in cost, the shutter wear-and-tear doesn't factor into it.
Why is this different on manual SLRs? Is it?
Since 1998.
They finally patented Steve Ballmer.
If you hear chatter on your ipod, listen closely to it and call Homeland Security. You may be listening in on terrorist plans....
OS X.
There's already law that addresses this -- invasion of privacy, and it could also be considered harrassment. Her ex was acting illegally anyway.