Supercircuits has a lot of camera and recording gear. The DMR3-CD-PW-16 has 16 channels, up to 2500GB disc capacity, compression, built-in CD-R, etc. If you're using regular composite video sources, it would be possible to build one of these yourself with a bunch of 4 input video capture cards.
If you're using IP cameras that stream MP4 or whatever over ethernet, why not employ a VPN? You can get a nice hardware VPN endpoint such as one of those SOHO Sonicwalls (google for it) on each end, or a linux box on both end as a VPN endpoint.. Most of those cameras don't support VPN but you can easily put a router in between that will do the job.
If you have a real SACD player with real 5.1 component outputs, try the Dark Side of the Moon 30th Aniversary Edition, by Pink Floyd. The following is an excerpt from a talk given by James Guthrie at the press launch for The Dark Side Of The Moon 5.1 SACD. Hayden Planetarium, New York, March 24th, 2003 (Stolen from Pinkfloyd.co.uk, but it was a flash page so I couldn't link).
We were approaching the 30th anniversary of the release of an archetype, and I had written a proposal to EMI. We couldn't just re-master the album yet again, I suggested. The fans might, quite understandably, beat us to death with sticks. Or at the very least, not bother to make an appearance at their local record shops. Doug Sax and I had, after all, already re-mastered the album three or four times for previous re-releases. It was time to do something a bit special. I suggested the release of a hybrid SACD.
With the SACD we could provide a disc that would contain a standard "red-book" layer, allowing it to play in all conventional CD players, and a high-resolution layer with room for both the original stereo mix, and a multichannel 'surround' version. Pricing the disc competitively with normal CDs meant that the record company could really give something back to the fans. Jody Klein had just done the same thing with his Rolling Stones catalogue, and I felt that the idea was inspired. EMI approved the plan and the process of locating the tapes began.
As librarian for Abbey Road's extensive tape vaults, Ian Pickavance's archeological skills were about to be tested. The brief from EMI had been clear. Find all of the original component parts of 'The Dark Side Of The Moon', make safety copies, and send the originals to me in northern California.
By the time Ian arrived with the tapes at my studio in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, the November skies were already quietly discussing how many winter storms they could fit in between now and the end of the mix.
DEADLINES
Storm (Thorgerson) had come up with a cunning plan to release the disc on 03/03/03. 3 times 30 backwards. The 30th anniversary, and a whole page full of numerology relating to the album, the band, and the number 3.
This meant a work schedule for Joel (my assistant engineer) and I that was probably reminiscent of the actual building of those 3-sided Pyramids that Storm had photographed 30 years ago for the original album cover.
Incidentally, 3 times 3 is 9 which, Storm reliably informs me, is the number of letters in Pink Floyd. Coincidently, 9 was also looking like the number of lifetimes it may take to complete the mix, with what we had in mind.
TECHNICAL RAMBLING
David Gilmour had told me that earlier generation multitrack tapes existed for each song. That was all I needed to hear. Whatever it took, I wanted to use those tapes. When recording the album, the band had used a similar technique to that used by The Beatles during the Sgt. Pepper sessions. Apparently The Beatles would fill a 4-track tape and then combine, or pre-mix those elements to one or two tracks of a second 4-track machine, giving themselves more free tracks to work on.
The technique was applied to Dark Side but with two 16-track tapes. The original, non-Dolby, recordings were made and then the drums were pre-mixed to a stereo pair, keyboards were combined, and vocals were bounced together to a new Dolby "A" tape.
The original stereo mix of the album came from this "dub" reel, which contained a combination of first, second and third-generation elements. The drawback was that the album was recorded before the days of time code and multiple tape machine lock-ups. Additionally, the multitrack machines used in those days were notorious for running a different speed from one end of the reel to the other. Consequently, the original tapes were never intended to be used for the mix because they wouldn't sync up. The combined speed error after copying a song was pretty dramatic.
I know many people whose answer to this dilemma would have
By the way, this will be shown NOT to work at all or actually DO ANYTHING. Just as "hate crime" legislation has only allowed judges/juries to impose stiffer penalties on the basis of a "feeling" or "subjective" judgement, the banning of "hate speech" has been shown to lead to more hate speech. Yahoo, as a major provider, is still a company/corporation with shareholders and open to legal action, however, so they must keep their content clean. That's the main problem with the internet--although it is a "free speech" paradise because it allows instant free "distribution" of the "speech"/message, it is made up of small networks that are in general corporately or privately owned which means they are open to legal action. It's going to kill itself. I'm surprised more attorneys are not on the internet, that would be a really great way to make some serious dough.
The problem is that the judges are so old in this country, they keep voting in favor of speech
"O.K., boss, this LTX-27 concealable mike is part of the same system that NASA used when they faked the Apollo moon landings. Yeah, the astronauts broadcast around the world from a soundstage at Norton Airforce Base in San Bernadino, California. So it worked for them, shouldn't give us too many problems."
And in addition to all of your comments on Anti-Nuclear FUD, there's a few others:
The nuclear industry itself does not wish to compete in parallel with Oil companies. First of all, they will make more money if the world has no oil. Secondly, the oil companies make more money without nuclear power out there. And a lot of the board members and shareholders of each industry sit on the opposing industries' boards also.
Dick Cheney, who will probably shoot me if he reads this (BTW, that was a diversion to sweep the domestic wiretapping story under the rug ), owns about HALF of Wyoming (and is the former governor, senator, and has in place friends and family who still run the state), which is the leading source of Uranium in the United States.
As another poster said earlier, we only have about 50 real years of "Enrichable" Uranium to power the plants with. This is what the plants that are currently in operation run on. Yes, there are newer, better technologies out there, but they would involve more efficient processes which would eliminate all the potential profit for the uranium producers and power utilities.
You see, the American economy is built on Waste, and right now we waste oil. Then we will waste the uranium. Then and only then will we seriously employ new technology. So, even if we run out of oil TODAY, we have about 50 years of nuclear using today's technology to power the world's energy requirements.
I don't know if this takes into account the growth of second and third world countries or not, but we still have a very long time to think about it. Actually, only my great grandkids will even have to worry, so why should I? AND WE HAVE BEEN SAYING THIS AS A SPECIES FOR ABOUT 8 GENERATIONS ALREADY.
Well anyway, OF COURSE BIG BUSINESS IS TRYING TO PROFIT. That is why they exist, for profit. And I don't think you should say they are being socially irresponsible because Greenpeace says they are. I think that the benefits of excessive and practically free energy have done more for the advancement of society than ANY "green" policy ever. Yes, we are heading towards a day that we won't have as much abundant energy, but at that time, we will adapt to a more stable society with less growth. It HAS TO HAPPEN. Either we will settle into a stable society when we run out of oil or we will all die in a huge apocalyptic war.
If you want the stable society, you have to wait until we run out of oil. Otherwise, SOMEONE will still be comfortable enough to continue this growth.
If you want the apocalypse, you have to wait until we run out of oil.
It doesn't really matter if it's 15 years or 50 or 500, it's going to happen. It might as well happen sooner than later and us reap the sociological rewards of cheap and abundant energy now.
Also, peak oil may have already been reached, so we are on the decline. But don't think we're just going to RUN OUT all at once. It's going to be a slow decline, a slow long process where prices will go up up and up and waste will have to come DOWN DOWN DOWN in order to save what little oil we have for the most precious purposes (Not burning it). I think that the economic systems will work and we will all be fine.
By the way, this was an artistic statement and not meant to be inciteful or otherwise overly insightful in a way that might be construed as me being "too smart for my own good." Although I do watch the X-Files.
You could be right. All I know is that when I heard about the reaction to the cartoons, I thought, hmm. Sheep. Then I thought maybe I should put together a few cartoons featuring Jesus, you know, snorting coke off a hooker's tits or eating out President Bush's asshole. Then I realized that you have a lot of people who are way ignorant out there who wouldn't get it. Then I realized that there are probably about a billion muslims in the world who are just as, if not more ignorant than some of the retarded people I see in this country who are obsessed with Jesus more than logic. Then I realized that the leaders of these Muslim people have spun this cartoon story out to be some type of hate crime against Islam rather than the edgy melarky it was. Then I realized that it's the same sort of spin that our own leaders used to get us into the war we're in now. Then I realized that leaders use things like hate and religion and other mass motivating communications to get what they want done. Then I realized that we the poor commoners of our respective countries have more in common with each other than we do with our leaders.
That's right, we flag and ribbon wearing, Jesus loving, George Bush electing Americans have more in common with those Flag Burning, Mohammed loving, Hamas electing Muslims than we have with George Bush and the upper echelons of our government. That's what I always try to remember before I start hating. We need to love one another and try to work stuff out. How can we do that, though, if everyone remains ignorant and only listens to their leaders for direction, rather than trying to find the Truth for themselves? How can we find the Truth for ourselves when our leaders try to keep us ignorant?
It's interesting. That's why I'm staying to the sidelines. I turn my back on this whole war/hate thing. I won't even grace it with any more discussion than I already have. Why should I worry about the world when I have bills to pay, family to support, car payment, retirement in about 35 years, etc?
Conversely, I do think that people need to realize that their habits of buying expensive gas guzzling cars, bottled water, convenience items, etc. are directly leading us to a world war situation. There is no solution to the energy crisis that will affect us. The cost in energy for every human in the world to live like an American, or European or Japanese even (known for their efficiency) is higher than the available energy.
So, there are left two choices, and these are what those private meetings are about: #1 everyone gets less, #2 less people.
After the coming war, in which millions will die, millions of lives they believe are expendable, a new one world government will be in place. Ha ha, you say! Well, it's going to happen. Europe is one country now. What do you think WWII was about? WHO CONTROLS THE BANKS. England won. We won.
This war is going to decide who runs the real world show, and will also cleanse the world of excess human lives, change the structure of the middle east and place it under the control of a "neutral" government, a republic of countries. Their success will lead to the establishment of an even larger world government with one stable currency--energy. In addition, one world language and religion will be necessary. Those who don't wish to follow will be walled off, executed in the war, or given manufactured disease so it will look like an accident.
Or maybe not. Who knows what will happen. I know this much, I really don't care.
It's too bad more MUSIC isn't open source, where someone writes pieces of a tune and then releases to the public domain so others can enhance and build upon the original project...
Back in the early days of the internet,.MOD files and the whole Fasttracker scene was at it's peak. With a.MOD file, when you distribute your music you distribute all of the samples used to make the music and the charts itself. Anyone out on the internet could then edit or improve your music. A lot of the music I wrote early on was based on the works of others.
The amazing thing about iTunes is it's ability to make.99 per song, not really the search capabilities. Most of the time, I can't find the song I want on iTunes, unless it's some pop bullsh*t. How songbird intends to do the same (for the artists who list on there)--rather than turn into the next (insert Napster, Gnutella, etc here)--remains to be seen..
The problem is the removal of facts, and the input of opinion "one hell of a model american, etc."
It's against policy to have politcal ranting or opinon on wikipedia. Just the facts, and the WHOLE truth if possible. When someone says "I will serve 2 terms and then leave" and then later on tries to remove the record of ever saying that because they LIED, and they don't want to be known as a LIAR, because then they would get FIRED, it's a violation of wikipedia policy.
So I guess either congress will have to legislate some sort of control for themselves on Wikipedia or they should leave it the fuck alone and stop violating wikipedia policy and our right to read the truth.
With Wikipedia we at least have the CHANCE to see the truth, since it cannot be totally controlled. As long as you don't mind looking at the edits to the article, which are all tracked.
I think this is very revealing, as the parent posted, of the way politicians manipulate the public record with their statements. Because they make their business on having a clean record (because the voting public demands it) and negatively spinning the records of others, politicians will do anything to change the record of the past to make themselves look better.
That is why we should remove all sources of income from our representatives. They should A. Have to come to work for free (they get food and shelter of course), B. Should NOT be allowed to reenter the private markets after serving, etc. Thus everyone would do what's in the best interests for prosperity of all and not be able to take any non-monetary kickbacks in the future.
Yeah, it's all based on fear mongering based around the word "Terrorism". They did a beautiful job to make everyone uptight--even to this day, almost 6 years later, you still look around suspiciously when you get on an airplane or go to the top of a tall building.
Yellow Journalism is what it was called when the media got us into the Spanish American War; Then there was Pearl Harbor.
Now, before you make a big fuss, think about this:
Pearl Harbor resulted in around 2400 deaths, yet World War 2 cost us over 400,000 lives.
The destruction of the World Trade Center resulted in 2,986 deaths, and we are already at 2,433 deaths for the Iraq war (over 2 per day since the war started).
It's media that leads us to believe that one side died "for no reason" and one side died "preserving freedom" or "for their country" or whatever. It's all just semantics. Dead people are dead people.
I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong, but merely stating the facts. In general, media hype, bias, whatever you want to call it, is what leads us into bigger problems. We should be shooting for world peace, but instead, as resources such as oil become more scarce, we are posturing to become more and more aggressive and warlike every day.
The enevitable world war which IS coming will result in the establishment of a single world government, not unlike the United States government. A republic of countries, a new one language for the world, an even distribution of resources and education to everyone, population control to keep the world population around 5 billion, etc. This all has to happen in the next 100 years or we will, as a planet, self destruct. We are rapidly reaching our carrying capacity, many regions are already over populated. We in America are very lucky to be here, with all this space and resources. Yet we waste energy and food because we can, in the name of luxury. We, being the top dog, have the most to lose when the enevitable end of our current way of life comes.
Wiretapping people, getting rid of naysayers, spinning every fact to benefit the economic interests of the few, these will not protect our country, or the world. Just get used to having less now and it won't be such a shock when it all collapses.
Or who knows, maybe the robots will solve the problems for us.
Here's the real deal, which outlines one of the fundamental problems of Capitalism. I call it the "Communist Problem".
1. Firstly, capitalism is based on people owning things. Very very obvious. But, how does one determine this "ownership". Is it possession, title, what? In a lot of cases, it's possession, such as cash money, diamonds, etc. In a lot of other cases, usually regarding big expensive things, but increasingly attaching itself to smaller and smaller things (video store card, etc.), it is what's called "title" or basically a piece of paper legally describing the property and a statement legally describing the owner.
2. Capitalism is also based (nowadays) on a gradually increasing amount of money in a system with a gradually increasing amount of owners getting new stuff that's created gradually. The gradually increasing amount of money is called "credit", which is how the government "prints" money nowadays. They just lend it out, with no real chance of repayment, or they borrow it with no real chance for repayment. The increasing number of owners is called the growth rate (babies being born) and the increasing number of new stuff is called production or GDP or a bunch of other terms.
3. So people have to own stuff and they need a way to prove that it's their stuff. How do you do that though? Now that everything is about "title" or "entitlement", it's really about proving your name or number applies to you, and then they give you the physical stuff. They problem is, how do you prove you're you? Well, it used to be that everyone knew each other and there was social trust and if there was a bad guy he pissed off enough people and got shot. In a lot of ways, the underground economy of drugs and stolen stuff still works this way. Not a perfect system, but people are held accountable and prices are actually fairly steady. Now, in the legitimate system, it's all based on legal precendent. Companies now have to expect a certain amount of loss, and they make up for it with lawsuits. Consumers should also expect to have a certain amount of loss and should make up for it with lawsuits.
4. Lawyers win.
5. Ok, now comes the "communist problem". If no one knew what everyone owned, everyone would own the same stuff, which is what communism is all about. But if everyone has a number, like the DNA thing, then we are all just numbers and are really just serving the system, which is what communism is all about. Either way, we are not better off either way. What they've tried to do here is keep it balanced by letting people buy all the shit they want, and then letting protect that which they possess with guns. When you start getting to the big stuff like houses and cars and land and companies and stuff like that, you have to get lawyers involved to make sure that all this "title" and "entitle" paperwork is correct. (Of course, if they prove that you are not you, they can take all that titled shit)
We all know the real thing we are afraid of is not our fellow citizens but the police and government who uses them to take our shit. They can't do that because we have guns, so it balances it out. They CAN take stuff that is only "titled" though, because you don't actually possess it, it's just there and there's a piece of paper that says you can do whatever you want with it.
6. Anyway, that's the problem. You can only really for sure own stuff if you can stand next to it and protect it, and if there's a national ID we will all have a number and be slaves to the system.
7. I had a point originally but I got lost on a tangent. It's Friday. I'm not one of those gun persons, I don't own a gun, I don't like them. But this all seems to make a certain small amount of sense.
Actually, this could give rise to a new kind of "free range" livestock, where you could just let them wander wherever you want and then when you need to round them up you use a UV spotlight and you can see them almost anywhere. Of course, they would be Genetically Engineered Free Range, which might be the juxtaposition that kills the deal.
Oil is basically concentrated solar energy, collected for millions of years during the time of dinosaurs when jungles covered the CO2 rich, warm, watery earth. Our rate of consumption increases every year. I don't know really why I wrote that. I just wanted to mention the Thermolife and got all caught up in biodiesel debate again.
MONEY REALLY *DOES* GROW ON TREES! LOOK AT THAT TOMATO! YOU CAN EVEN CUT A TIN CAN WITH IT!
Sorry.
Ahem, I think they have already proven that there is not enough sun energy per square yard of surface area on the earth to meet even a small percentage of our yearly hydrocarbon energy consumption. However, this could be useful for highway or trail markers, maple syrup harvesters (let them know when a bucket is full without requring batteries, etc. I don't see how this could possibly be cheaper than commodity solar cells, however. What's the use. What about the thermolife, which uses thin films to create current from body heat gradients (inside a human body)? That's a revoultion. Potatoheads.
Actually, what you are saying is a poor excuse. IT obviously does not have enough experienced people who know how to actually implement group policies (on whatever OS you use), design a security hierarchy, etc. Once you have a framework in place, it's really quite easy to grant exceptions.
I run a small server 2003/win xp network and it's really pretty easy to do anything you want. You can even choose a default list of bookmarks to put on a user's web browser.
One problem I have noticed is shitty web based applications that require admin access to run properly. A web app should NEVER need access to/WINDOWS or the registry. There are a few other apps that don't run nice unless you're administrator. In most cases, you can just figure out which files the app needs to have access to and chmod them to what they need to run.
I have run on both types of network, and I'm telling you, users do and should not run as administrator on your windows boxes. You are just making yourself a huge headache if you don't sit down and learn how to set up the network properly.
And, to be on topic, there are also extensive auditing functions built into every OS that enable you to track who opens what and when. Trust is important in a business environment but you must manage trust just as you manage risk. That means taking the risk of giving trust and rights and making sure that if they are misused you can hold people accountable.
From the Non-disclosure agreement they sign on their first day to the termination of their accounts on their last, you need a solid backed up record of every user's activity.
If you haven't already, you can set a password with your provider which people will have to provide before they can access your information. They will NOT let you reset it unless you call from your cell phone. It's not perfect, but it can prevent the casual prying eyes from calling up the cell phone company with your name, bday and last 4 digits....
In addition, make sure you set up your online account, because the first time you use it, it's very insecure. Once you set up a password, you're a lot more secure.
Another thing you can do is not use your cell phone for calls you want kept anonymous. The cell phone has ALWAYS been one of the best ways to get information on people. It's easy to intercept your conversations and almost as easy to track your physical location.
If you want to be anonymous, make friends with one of those local cell phone shops. They get dozens of phones per day for returns, insurance claims, etc. Slap in a new SIM, use it to make your 10 calls and toss it in the river/fire/whatever. Beware of payphones also, as most of them (the few that remain) are watched by hidden cameras since late 2001.....
I'm an author so this is of course a fictional example and pure speculation I'm releasing to the public domain that you're free to use if you ever make a movie or write a novel. I'm not saying you should do this nor am I saying I would and I'm not saying this is true.
Actually, facial recognition software could be used to index the clips in real time and make entries into a very simple database (camera 12812, frame 20060102110201, face 1828182) Then the authorites would just need to run a simple query on the index that says "select * from index where face=1828182" and they would have a list of all the frames from all the cameras where that face is present. After that it's a simple matter to extract one long video clip showing the face moving from camera to camera.
Since the facial recognition software is doing this in "real time" as the video flows in from the camera, it is essentially "pre processed" at collection time, thus making it TRIVIAL to extract the information. And we've all seen news stories since '01 that show facial recognition software pulling 100 faces out of a frame in real time with desktop hardware........ sorry to say, brother, but you're spreading misinformation.
As far as storing the video, you could use a simple decay algorythm that would decay the image over time in order to save space while keeping as much important information as possible. Say you have 30fps video at 1000x1000 resolution. Then, using the aforementioned index, you could assign a value to a clip based on the faces present. For instance, if there are no faces (IE, no index entries) the frame would get a value of 0. Ten faces would be a 10. Then you assign a "half life" to the clips (different half lifes for different cameras, of course) that determines how much raw information from the camera is saved and for how long.
For instance, frames from camera A have a half-life of 10 days. That means during processing, frames that haven't been touched in 10 days are reprocessed. Based on their value from the facial recognition engine, frames are either kept or deleted. Also, you'd use a log curve to increase the value of adjacent frames to a very high value frames. For instance, a frame has 20 faces, the immediately preceding frame has only 10 faces, it should get a value closer to the 20 because of it's relation to the 20. Frames become more valuable as they are surrounded by more valuable frames. Anyway, the software decides the most non-valuable images, and then removes frames up to the point where there are half as many frames as before. Touch times are reset and the timer is set again for 10 days. The process is repeated until: all the frames are gone or only frames with a value of 1 or greater remain. The thing is that you are doing this over time so you will only require a maximum of twice the power of the real time processing running continously to degrade the images (and once they are at their lowest quality, they are no longer checked.). In addition, the less valuable images don't necessarily have to be removed--they can be more compressed or moved to some other storage medium yet they still stay in the index.
When all of this is combined with GIS systems (as they are already using in those speed cams), it would be possible to (using only the index, not the imagery) generate a map showing a probable track of any one face either in real time or after the fact.
Suspect A is suspected of posting a sign in front of the capitol saying something negative about the corporations. Suspect A is photographed by officers and is assigned a face hash of 0A3F901...0A3F9FF. Index is queried for possible matches. A number of hits come up. Camera One one block from the capitol has a possible match on the Face. 5 minutes later, there is another match one block in the opposite direction. A plot on the GIS mapping shows that in that five minutes, the suspect could have walked right past where the sign was found.
Unfortunately, Suspect A did not commit the crime, he was merely a jogger who, at a party with a few friends, had mentioned something negative about the corporations and one of his "friends" decided to report him to the authorites, just to be "safe". The actual culprit made a simple rubber mask out of commonly available materials used in the
It seemed like they all get along very nicely. I agree with the other poster that they are just small cranks in a big machine. I do think that Hotmail and Yahoo revolutionized the world back in the day when they unveiled "FREE EMAIL" for everyone. That was around 1998. Before that, you had to pay. All of a sudden, there was no excuse to not have and use an email address.
Gmail, well.. It's really cool and they were the first major player to give 1GB of space. But still, I don't think Gmail was a real killer when it was introduced. All they really had going for them was the 1GB thing, which all the other competitors quickly matched. It was just Google's first step into the services/portal sector that Yahoo has controlled since the mid 90's. I don't think the release of Gmail was a world-changing development.
Now that I think about it, this article really has no point.
Slashdot Mirror
Supercircuits has a lot of camera and recording gear. The DMR3-CD-PW-16 has 16 channels, up to 2500GB disc capacity, compression, built-in CD-R, etc. If you're using regular composite video sources, it would be possible to build one of these yourself with a bunch of 4 input video capture cards.
If you're using IP cameras that stream MP4 or whatever over ethernet, why not employ a VPN? You can get a nice hardware VPN endpoint such as one of those SOHO Sonicwalls (google for it) on each end, or a linux box on both end as a VPN endpoint.. Most of those cameras don't support VPN but you can easily put a router in between that will do the job.
Good luck
If you have a real SACD player with real 5.1 component outputs, try the Dark Side of the Moon 30th Aniversary Edition, by Pink Floyd. The following is an excerpt from a talk given by James Guthrie at the press launch for The Dark Side Of The Moon 5.1 SACD. Hayden Planetarium, New York, March 24th, 2003 (Stolen from Pinkfloyd.co.uk, but it was a flash page so I couldn't link).
We were approaching the 30th anniversary of the release of an archetype, and I had written a proposal to EMI. We couldn't just re-master the album yet again, I suggested. The fans might, quite understandably, beat us to death with sticks. Or at the very least, not bother to make an appearance at their local record shops. Doug Sax and I had, after all, already re-mastered the album three or four times for previous re-releases. It was time to do something a bit special. I suggested the release of a hybrid SACD.
With the SACD we could provide a disc that would contain a standard "red-book" layer, allowing it to play in all conventional CD players, and a high-resolution layer with room for both the original stereo mix, and a multichannel 'surround' version. Pricing the disc competitively with normal CDs meant that the record company could really give something back to the fans. Jody Klein had just done the same thing with his Rolling Stones catalogue, and I felt that the idea was inspired. EMI approved the plan and the process of locating the tapes began.
As librarian for Abbey Road's extensive tape vaults, Ian Pickavance's archeological skills were about to be tested. The brief from EMI had been clear. Find all of the original component parts of 'The Dark Side Of The Moon', make safety copies, and send the originals to me in northern California.
By the time Ian arrived with the tapes at my studio in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, the November skies were already quietly discussing how many winter storms they could fit in between now and the end of the mix.
DEADLINES
Storm (Thorgerson) had come up with a cunning plan to release the disc on 03/03/03. 3 times 30 backwards. The 30th anniversary, and a whole page full of numerology relating to the album, the band, and the number 3.
This meant a work schedule for Joel (my assistant engineer) and I that was probably reminiscent of the actual building of those 3-sided Pyramids that Storm had photographed 30 years ago for the original album cover.
Incidentally, 3 times 3 is 9 which, Storm reliably informs me, is the number of letters in Pink Floyd. Coincidently, 9 was also looking like the number of lifetimes it may take to complete the mix, with what we had in mind.
TECHNICAL RAMBLING
David Gilmour had told me that earlier generation multitrack tapes existed for each song. That was all I needed to hear. Whatever it took, I wanted to use those tapes. When recording the album, the band had used a similar technique to that used by The Beatles during the Sgt. Pepper sessions. Apparently The Beatles would fill a 4-track tape and then combine, or pre-mix those elements to one or two tracks of a second 4-track machine, giving themselves more free tracks to work on.
The technique was applied to Dark Side but with two 16-track tapes. The original, non-Dolby, recordings were made and then the drums were pre-mixed to a stereo pair, keyboards were combined, and vocals were bounced together to a new Dolby "A" tape.
The original stereo mix of the album came from this "dub" reel, which contained a combination of first, second and third-generation elements. The drawback was that the album was recorded before the days of time code and multiple tape machine lock-ups. Additionally, the multitrack machines used in those days were notorious for running a different speed from one end of the reel to the other. Consequently, the original tapes were never intended to be used for the mix because they wouldn't sync up. The combined speed error after copying a song was pretty dramatic.
I know many people whose answer to this dilemma would have
By the way, this will be shown NOT to work at all or actually DO ANYTHING. Just as "hate crime" legislation has only allowed judges/juries to impose stiffer penalties on the basis of a "feeling" or "subjective" judgement, the banning of "hate speech" has been shown to lead to more hate speech. Yahoo, as a major provider, is still a company/corporation with shareholders and open to legal action, however, so they must keep their content clean. That's the main problem with the internet--although it is a "free speech" paradise because it allows instant free "distribution" of the "speech"/message, it is made up of small networks that are in general corporately or privately owned which means they are open to legal action. It's going to kill itself. I'm surprised more attorneys are not on the internet, that would be a really great way to make some serious dough.
The problem is that the judges are so old in this country, they keep voting in favor of speech
It was probably one of the girls in the marketing department.
"O.K., boss, this LTX-27 concealable mike is part of the same system that NASA used when they faked the Apollo moon landings. Yeah, the astronauts broadcast around the world from a soundstage at Norton Airforce Base in San Bernadino, California. So it worked for them, shouldn't give us too many problems."
And in addition to all of your comments on Anti-Nuclear FUD, there's a few others:
The nuclear industry itself does not wish to compete in parallel with Oil companies. First of all, they will make more money if the world has no oil. Secondly, the oil companies make more money without nuclear power out there. And a lot of the board members and shareholders of each industry sit on the opposing industries' boards also.
Dick Cheney, who will probably shoot me if he reads this (BTW, that was a diversion to sweep the domestic wiretapping story under the rug ), owns about HALF of Wyoming (and is the former governor, senator, and has in place friends and family who still run the state), which is the leading source of Uranium in the United States.
As another poster said earlier, we only have about 50 real years of "Enrichable" Uranium to power the plants with. This is what the plants that are currently in operation run on. Yes, there are newer, better technologies out there, but they would involve more efficient processes which would eliminate all the potential profit for the uranium producers and power utilities.
You see, the American economy is built on Waste, and right now we waste oil. Then we will waste the uranium. Then and only then will we seriously employ new technology. So, even if we run out of oil TODAY, we have about 50 years of nuclear using today's technology to power the world's energy requirements.
I don't know if this takes into account the growth of second and third world countries or not, but we still have a very long time to think about it. Actually, only my great grandkids will even have to worry, so why should I? AND WE HAVE BEEN SAYING THIS AS A SPECIES FOR ABOUT 8 GENERATIONS ALREADY.
Well anyway, OF COURSE BIG BUSINESS IS TRYING TO PROFIT. That is why they exist, for profit. And I don't think you should say they are being socially irresponsible because Greenpeace says they are. I think that the benefits of excessive and practically free energy have done more for the advancement of society than ANY "green" policy ever. Yes, we are heading towards a day that we won't have as much abundant energy, but at that time, we will adapt to a more stable society with less growth. It HAS TO HAPPEN. Either we will settle into a stable society when we run out of oil or we will all die in a huge apocalyptic war.
If you want the stable society, you have to wait until we run out of oil. Otherwise, SOMEONE will still be comfortable enough to continue this growth.
If you want the apocalypse, you have to wait until we run out of oil.
It doesn't really matter if it's 15 years or 50 or 500, it's going to happen. It might as well happen sooner than later and us reap the sociological rewards of cheap and abundant energy now.
Also, peak oil may have already been reached, so we are on the decline. But don't think we're just going to RUN OUT all at once. It's going to be a slow decline, a slow long process where prices will go up up and up and waste will have to come DOWN DOWN DOWN in order to save what little oil we have for the most precious purposes (Not burning it). I think that the economic systems will work and we will all be fine.
By the way, this was an artistic statement and not meant to be inciteful or otherwise overly insightful in a way that might be construed as me being "too smart for my own good." Although I do watch the X-Files.
You could be right. All I know is that when I heard about the reaction to the cartoons, I thought, hmm. Sheep. Then I thought maybe I should put together a few cartoons featuring Jesus, you know, snorting coke off a hooker's tits or eating out President Bush's asshole. Then I realized that you have a lot of people who are way ignorant out there who wouldn't get it. Then I realized that there are probably about a billion muslims in the world who are just as, if not more ignorant than some of the retarded people I see in this country who are obsessed with Jesus more than logic. Then I realized that the leaders of these Muslim people have spun this cartoon story out to be some type of hate crime against Islam rather than the edgy melarky it was. Then I realized that it's the same sort of spin that our own leaders used to get us into the war we're in now. Then I realized that leaders use things like hate and religion and other mass motivating communications to get what they want done. Then I realized that we the poor commoners of our respective countries have more in common with each other than we do with our leaders.
That's right, we flag and ribbon wearing, Jesus loving, George Bush electing Americans have more in common with those Flag Burning, Mohammed loving, Hamas electing Muslims than we have with George Bush and the upper echelons of our government. That's what I always try to remember before I start hating. We need to love one another and try to work stuff out. How can we do that, though, if everyone remains ignorant and only listens to their leaders for direction, rather than trying to find the Truth for themselves? How can we find the Truth for ourselves when our leaders try to keep us ignorant?
It's interesting. That's why I'm staying to the sidelines. I turn my back on this whole war/hate thing. I won't even grace it with any more discussion than I already have. Why should I worry about the world when I have bills to pay, family to support, car payment, retirement in about 35 years, etc?
Conversely, I do think that people need to realize that their habits of buying expensive gas guzzling cars, bottled water, convenience items, etc. are directly leading us to a world war situation. There is no solution to the energy crisis that will affect us. The cost in energy for every human in the world to live like an American, or European or Japanese even (known for their efficiency) is higher than the available energy.
So, there are left two choices, and these are what those private meetings are about: #1 everyone gets less, #2 less people.
After the coming war, in which millions will die, millions of lives they believe are expendable, a new one world government will be in place. Ha ha, you say! Well, it's going to happen. Europe is one country now. What do you think WWII was about? WHO CONTROLS THE BANKS. England won. We won.
This war is going to decide who runs the real world show, and will also cleanse the world of excess human lives, change the structure of the middle east and place it under the control of a "neutral" government, a republic of countries. Their success will lead to the establishment of an even larger world government with one stable currency--energy. In addition, one world language and religion will be necessary. Those who don't wish to follow will be walled off, executed in the war, or given manufactured disease so it will look like an accident.
Or maybe not. Who knows what will happen. I know this much, I really don't care.
It's too bad more MUSIC isn't open source, where someone writes pieces of a tune and then releases to the public domain so others can enhance and build upon the original project...
.MOD files and the whole Fasttracker scene was at it's peak. With a .MOD file, when you distribute your music you distribute all of the samples used to make the music and the charts itself. Anyone out on the internet could then edit or improve your music. A lot of the music I wrote early on was based on the works of others.
.99 per song, not really the search capabilities. Most of the time, I can't find the song I want on iTunes, unless it's some pop bullsh*t. How songbird intends to do the same (for the artists who list on there)--rather than turn into the next (insert Napster, Gnutella, etc here)--remains to be seen..
Back in the early days of the internet,
The amazing thing about iTunes is it's ability to make
The problem is the removal of facts, and the input of opinion "one hell of a model american, etc."
It's against policy to have politcal ranting or opinon on wikipedia. Just the facts, and the WHOLE truth if possible. When someone says "I will serve 2 terms and then leave" and then later on tries to remove the record of ever saying that because they LIED, and they don't want to be known as a LIAR, because then they would get FIRED, it's a violation of wikipedia policy.
So I guess either congress will have to legislate some sort of control for themselves on Wikipedia or they should leave it the fuck alone and stop violating wikipedia policy and our right to read the truth.
With Wikipedia we at least have the CHANCE to see the truth, since it cannot be totally controlled. As long as you don't mind looking at the edits to the article, which are all tracked.
I think this is very revealing, as the parent posted, of the way politicians manipulate the public record with their statements. Because they make their business on having a clean record (because the voting public demands it) and negatively spinning the records of others, politicians will do anything to change the record of the past to make themselves look better.
That is why we should remove all sources of income from our representatives. They should A. Have to come to work for free (they get food and shelter of course), B. Should NOT be allowed to reenter the private markets after serving, etc. Thus everyone would do what's in the best interests for prosperity of all and not be able to take any non-monetary kickbacks in the future.
Yeah, it's all based on fear mongering based around the word "Terrorism". They did a beautiful job to make everyone uptight--even to this day, almost 6 years later, you still look around suspiciously when you get on an airplane or go to the top of a tall building.
Yellow Journalism is what it was called when the media got us into the Spanish American War; Then there was Pearl Harbor.
Now, before you make a big fuss, think about this:
Pearl Harbor resulted in around 2400 deaths, yet World War 2 cost us over 400,000 lives.
The destruction of the World Trade Center resulted in 2,986 deaths, and we are already at 2,433 deaths for the Iraq war (over 2 per day since the war started).
It's media that leads us to believe that one side died "for no reason" and one side died "preserving freedom" or "for their country" or whatever. It's all just semantics. Dead people are dead people.
I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong, but merely stating the facts. In general, media hype, bias, whatever you want to call it, is what leads us into bigger problems. We should be shooting for world peace, but instead, as resources such as oil become more scarce, we are posturing to become more and more aggressive and warlike every day.
The enevitable world war which IS coming will result in the establishment of a single world government, not unlike the United States government. A republic of countries, a new one language for the world, an even distribution of resources and education to everyone, population control to keep the world population around 5 billion, etc. This all has to happen in the next 100 years or we will, as a planet, self destruct. We are rapidly reaching our carrying capacity, many regions are already over populated. We in America are very lucky to be here, with all this space and resources. Yet we waste energy and food because we can, in the name of luxury. We, being the top dog, have the most to lose when the enevitable end of our current way of life comes.
Wiretapping people, getting rid of naysayers, spinning every fact to benefit the economic interests of the few, these will not protect our country, or the world. Just get used to having less now and it won't be such a shock when it all collapses.
Or who knows, maybe the robots will solve the problems for us.
Here's the real deal, which outlines one of the fundamental problems of Capitalism. I call it the "Communist Problem".
1. Firstly, capitalism is based on people owning things. Very very obvious. But, how does one determine this "ownership". Is it possession, title, what? In a lot of cases, it's possession, such as cash money, diamonds, etc. In a lot of other cases, usually regarding big expensive things, but increasingly attaching itself to smaller and smaller things (video store card, etc.), it is what's called "title" or basically a piece of paper legally describing the property and a statement legally describing the owner.
2. Capitalism is also based (nowadays) on a gradually increasing amount of money in a system with a gradually increasing amount of owners getting new stuff that's created gradually. The gradually increasing amount of money is called "credit", which is how the government "prints" money nowadays. They just lend it out, with no real chance of repayment, or they borrow it with no real chance for repayment. The increasing number of owners is called the growth rate (babies being born) and the increasing number of new stuff is called production or GDP or a bunch of other terms.
3. So people have to own stuff and they need a way to prove that it's their stuff. How do you do that though? Now that everything is about "title" or "entitlement", it's really about proving your name or number applies to you, and then they give you the physical stuff. They problem is, how do you prove you're you? Well, it used to be that everyone knew each other and there was social trust and if there was a bad guy he pissed off enough people and got shot. In a lot of ways, the underground economy of drugs and stolen stuff still works this way. Not a perfect system, but people are held accountable and prices are actually fairly steady. Now, in the legitimate system, it's all based on legal precendent. Companies now have to expect a certain amount of loss, and they make up for it with lawsuits. Consumers should also expect to have a certain amount of loss and should make up for it with lawsuits.
4. Lawyers win.
5. Ok, now comes the "communist problem". If no one knew what everyone owned, everyone would own the same stuff, which is what communism is all about. But if everyone has a number, like the DNA thing, then we are all just numbers and are really just serving the system, which is what communism is all about. Either way, we are not better off either way. What they've tried to do here is keep it balanced by letting people buy all the shit they want, and then letting protect that which they possess with guns. When you start getting to the big stuff like houses and cars and land and companies and stuff like that, you have to get lawyers involved to make sure that all this "title" and "entitle" paperwork is correct. (Of course, if they prove that you are not you, they can take all that titled shit)
We all know the real thing we are afraid of is not our fellow citizens but the police and government who uses them to take our shit. They can't do that because we have guns, so it balances it out. They CAN take stuff that is only "titled" though, because you don't actually possess it, it's just there and there's a piece of paper that says you can do whatever you want with it.
6. Anyway, that's the problem. You can only really for sure own stuff if you can stand next to it and protect it, and if there's a national ID we will all have a number and be slaves to the system.
7. I had a point originally but I got lost on a tangent. It's Friday. I'm not one of those gun persons, I don't own a gun, I don't like them. But this all seems to make a certain small amount of sense.
All you do is make the WMF with a .JPG extension, and GDI handles the rest. That's the scary part.
Green BACON. Mmm, bacon.
Actually, this could give rise to a new kind of "free range" livestock, where you could just let them wander wherever you want and then when you need to round them up you use a UV spotlight and you can see them almost anywhere. Of course, they would be Genetically Engineered Free Range, which might be the juxtaposition that kills the deal.
Chinese clone handbag. Chinese clone software. Chinese clone dog.
What next?
Oil is basically concentrated solar energy, collected for millions of years during the time of dinosaurs when jungles covered the CO2 rich, warm, watery earth. Our rate of consumption increases every year. I don't know really why I wrote that. I just wanted to mention the Thermolife and got all caught up in biodiesel debate again.
Cheers!
Whisky!
MONEY REALLY *DOES* GROW ON TREES! LOOK AT THAT TOMATO! YOU CAN EVEN CUT A TIN CAN WITH IT!
Sorry.
Ahem, I think they have already proven that there is not enough sun energy per square yard of surface area on the earth to meet even a small percentage of our yearly hydrocarbon energy consumption. However, this could be useful for highway or trail markers, maple syrup harvesters (let them know when a bucket is full without requring batteries, etc. I don't see how this could possibly be cheaper than commodity solar cells, however. What's the use. What about the thermolife, which uses thin films to create current from body heat gradients (inside a human body)? That's a revoultion. Potatoheads.
That's why I'm a member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
They only can work if people donate.
Thanks.
Actually, what you are saying is a poor excuse. IT obviously does not have enough experienced people who know how to actually implement group policies (on whatever OS you use), design a security hierarchy, etc. Once you have a framework in place, it's really quite easy to grant exceptions.
/WINDOWS or the registry. There are a few other apps that don't run nice unless you're administrator. In most cases, you can just figure out which files the app needs to have access to and chmod them to what they need to run.
I run a small server 2003/win xp network and it's really pretty easy to do anything you want. You can even choose a default list of bookmarks to put on a user's web browser.
One problem I have noticed is shitty web based applications that require admin access to run properly. A web app should NEVER need access to
I have run on both types of network, and I'm telling you, users do and should not run as administrator on your windows boxes. You are just making yourself a huge headache if you don't sit down and learn how to set up the network properly.
And, to be on topic, there are also extensive auditing functions built into every OS that enable you to track who opens what and when. Trust is important in a business environment but you must manage trust just as you manage risk. That means taking the risk of giving trust and rights and making sure that if they are misused you can hold people accountable.
From the Non-disclosure agreement they sign on their first day to the termination of their accounts on their last, you need a solid backed up record of every user's activity.
If you haven't already, you can set a password with your provider which people will have to provide before they can access your information. They will NOT let you reset it unless you call from your cell phone. It's not perfect, but it can prevent the casual prying eyes from calling up the cell phone company with your name, bday and last 4 digits....
In addition, make sure you set up your online account, because the first time you use it, it's very insecure. Once you set up a password, you're a lot more secure.
Another thing you can do is not use your cell phone for calls you want kept anonymous. The cell phone has ALWAYS been one of the best ways to get information on people. It's easy to intercept your conversations and almost as easy to track your physical location.
If you want to be anonymous, make friends with one of those local cell phone shops. They get dozens of phones per day for returns, insurance claims, etc. Slap in a new SIM, use it to make your 10 calls and toss it in the river/fire/whatever. Beware of payphones also, as most of them (the few that remain) are watched by hidden cameras since late 2001.....
I'm an author so this is of course a fictional example and pure speculation I'm releasing to the public domain that you're free to use if you ever make a movie or write a novel. I'm not saying you should do this nor am I saying I would and I'm not saying this is true.
Which is why you'll pay a subscription fee for x hours of commercial free television.
Uh, Bob?
Cheers.
Actually, facial recognition software could be used to index the clips in real time and make entries into a very simple database (camera 12812, frame 20060102110201, face 1828182) Then the authorites would just need to run a simple query on the index that says "select * from index where face=1828182" and they would have a list of all the frames from all the cameras where that face is present. After that it's a simple matter to extract one long video clip showing the face moving from camera to camera.
Since the facial recognition software is doing this in "real time" as the video flows in from the camera, it is essentially "pre processed" at collection time, thus making it TRIVIAL to extract the information. And we've all seen news stories since '01 that show facial recognition software pulling 100 faces out of a frame in real time with desktop hardware........ sorry to say, brother, but you're spreading misinformation.
As far as storing the video, you could use a simple decay algorythm that would decay the image over time in order to save space while keeping as much important information as possible. Say you have 30fps video at 1000x1000 resolution. Then, using the aforementioned index, you could assign a value to a clip based on the faces present. For instance, if there are no faces (IE, no index entries) the frame would get a value of 0. Ten faces would be a 10. Then you assign a "half life" to the clips (different half lifes for different cameras, of course) that determines how much raw information from the camera is saved and for how long.
For instance, frames from camera A have a half-life of 10 days. That means during processing, frames that haven't been touched in 10 days are reprocessed. Based on their value from the facial recognition engine, frames are either kept or deleted. Also, you'd use a log curve to increase the value of adjacent frames to a very high value frames. For instance, a frame has 20 faces, the immediately preceding frame has only 10 faces, it should get a value closer to the 20 because of it's relation to the 20. Frames become more valuable as they are surrounded by more valuable frames. Anyway, the software decides the most non-valuable images, and then removes frames up to the point where there are half as many frames as before. Touch times are reset and the timer is set again for 10 days. The process is repeated until: all the frames are gone or only frames with a value of 1 or greater remain. The thing is that you are doing this over time so you will only require a maximum of twice the power of the real time processing running continously to degrade the images (and once they are at their lowest quality, they are no longer checked.). In addition, the less valuable images don't necessarily have to be removed--they can be more compressed or moved to some other storage medium yet they still stay in the index.
When all of this is combined with GIS systems (as they are already using in those speed cams), it would be possible to (using only the index, not the imagery) generate a map showing a probable track of any one face either in real time or after the fact.
Suspect A is suspected of posting a sign in front of the capitol saying something negative about the corporations. Suspect A is photographed by officers and is assigned a face hash of 0A3F901...0A3F9FF. Index is queried for possible matches. A number of hits come up. Camera One one block from the capitol has a possible match on the Face. 5 minutes later, there is another match one block in the opposite direction. A plot on the GIS mapping shows that in that five minutes, the suspect could have walked right past where the sign was found.
Unfortunately, Suspect A did not commit the crime, he was merely a jogger who, at a party with a few friends, had mentioned something negative about the corporations and one of his "friends" decided to report him to the authorites, just to be "safe". The actual culprit made a simple rubber mask out of commonly available materials used in the
It seemed like they all get along very nicely. I agree with the other poster that they are just small cranks in a big machine. I do think that Hotmail and Yahoo revolutionized the world back in the day when they unveiled "FREE EMAIL" for everyone. That was around 1998. Before that, you had to pay. All of a sudden, there was no excuse to not have and use an email address.
Gmail, well.. It's really cool and they were the first major player to give 1GB of space. But still, I don't think Gmail was a real killer when it was introduced. All they really had going for them was the 1GB thing, which all the other competitors quickly matched. It was just Google's first step into the services/portal sector that Yahoo has controlled since the mid 90's. I don't think the release of Gmail was a world-changing development.
Now that I think about it, this article really has no point.