Your interpretation is very different from mine. I read from this that they are no longer going to update AIDA16, but that they will continue to develop AIDA32, they just won't be providing free support for their free product -- other than on the discussion forums.
That doesn't sound anything like being on it's last legs. It sounds like a sensible response for dealing with support for a free product.
Heh. See, I *knew* you'd never done any *real* remixing. What's more, you clearly have no knowledge of or interest in the genre either, so perhaps I should educate you a little?
In my experience, people working in this form tend to distinguish between beats, loops and (non-repeating) samples. (If you're serious about anything, you need to have a language to communicate about it with that has some precision. A beat is a beat is a beat doesn't help anyone if you're trying to describe how you did something or how you want something doing.)
But regardless of what terminology you use, your original post was making the argument that all Dangermous used to make this is stuff longish (three seconds or so) loops that have been chopped from the original, inserted, and possibly time-stretched in something like ACID to match the lyrics? You're just plain wrong about that, because those drum patterns weren't produced by the Beatles. Rather, he's chopped out the individual Beatles drum hits into seperate samples, put them into a soft sampler and programmed new and sometimes (fairly complex) drum patterns in a sequencer.
In truth, Dangermouse is no Dr. Dre or Timbaland, but it's still an interesting and creative piece of work and the fact that you didn't recognize any of this tells me that you've got no real idea at all what goes in to making a piece of work like this and are talking out of your arse.
But thanks for playing, and do come back and try again sometime.
Yea mixing is tough. Not as tough as learning how to play a guitar or keyboard or whatever for yourself.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. It's rather like the difference between video and painting. Sampling and mixing is more fluid, more democratic, yet still involves creative selection and imaginative leaps to be any good. More importantly, perhaps, it's what many people want to listen to -- rather than a bunch of hackneyed old wankers fondling their shiny phallic symbols as they posture in the mode established by some old dork from the early seventies.
Even if it was, it wouldn't make it ok to sample people with actual TALENT and use their work for your own gain without paying them their due.
Don't be a tosser. The only difference between the sampling that Dangermouse did, and the Beatles did before them, was that Dangermouse had better technology available to him. When the Beatles stole Little Richard's trademark squeal, or Chuck Berry's riffs, did they pay those artists for what they stole? Of course they didn't.
I don't give a shit how clever he was. It wasn't his to take, without paying whatever the fair market fee was.
Let me guess. You wouldn't be yet another of those no-hoper bedroom guitarists who someday dreams of prog rock superstardom, and is enraged by the fact that someone who hasn't practiced until his fingers bled is getting all this attention, by any chance?
The beats are the 3-second chunks I was talking about.
So you didn't think he's taken his drum samples off the White Album and added some programmed drum sequencing on there as well then? (Which is what people working in sampled music forms usually refer to as 'beats'.)
I am sure if you ask those artists who hold copyrights and make a living off of their creations to support themselves and their families...I am sure those artists would vehemently disagree with you.
Just as if you ask Bill Gates whether he thinks Microsoft is a monopoly, or whether monopolies should be broken up, he's not likely to agree with you either.
This idea might sound somewhat outlandish to an American but it's fairly common currency in most of the rest of the world: sometimes, those people with vested financial interests aren't the best people to decide on matters of public policy.
Without copyright, The Beatles' White Album would probably have been released to a few friends and family of he artists in a limited pressing of 3000.
That's OK. Like Dangermouse, they could have distributed it on Kazaa and Bittorrent and still reached an audience of millions. They might not have gotten so rich and stupid so fast, but it seems unlikely to me that they would have stopped making music.
And didn't Paul McCartney sample Little Richard's trademark scream in most of his early songs? Because the technology was so poor in those days, he had to use his throat rather than a sampler, but I don't see how the creative impulse is any different.
And I'm not even going to bother with My Sweet Lord/He's So Fine...
Re:Scooby Snacks: Think of the butter
on
SCOoby Snacks
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Also, everyone assumes that the BBC was telling the truth about kelly as the source.
The BBC didn't name Kelly as their source. The government dropped large hints to the press, and then they confirmed it.
It was rather easy to pin the blame on a dead man, wasn't it?
Not really. He was still alive when they pinned the blame on him.
I think the real source remains secret.
I've got a rather nice bridge that you might be interested in. One that connects Manhattan with one of the outer boroughs. If you buy it from me, you could make a fortune in tolls...
The goverment/foreign affairs commitee
caught him in a lie/exaggeration and he killed himself over it.
Sorry, I just don't believe this is the case. Whether he exaggerated or not is a matter of dispute. Other senior defence advisors agreed with his account of the situation. Politicians and yes men disagreed. I think the issue is still unresolved.
If he killed himself for any reason at all, it was because he was a senior civil servant caught leaking sensitive government information to the media. As such, he was about to be forced to resign in disgrace after a distinguished career, and without any pension.
The facts available at the time did not allow them to draw that conclusion.
You mean "facts" like relying on some speculative student dissertation from the internet, while at the same time, disregarding the expert views of experienced Iraq analysts like Kelly himself?
Funny how those same "facts" allowed them to draw the conclusion that Iraq would be ready to launch weapons of mass destruction in 45 mins, but when their expert advisors tell them that such claims are almost certainly bullshit, they can rely on being able to claim that 'we don't know this for a fact'.
In other words it is perfectly possible that, despite all the evidence to the contrary, the government actually believed at that time that the claim (aka complete load of bollocks) was true.
It is perfectly possible if the government happens to be either made up of the educationally subnormal, or are so ideologically committed as to be completely unable to evaluate evidence with any degree of objectivity.
But Kelly was just one of several experienced government defence advisors who told them that their report was complete bollocks and unjustified by the available evidence. That counts as both 'knowing' and as 'sexing it up' in my book.
You claimed that the BBC presented this guy (a civil service defence analyst -- somewhat akin to your CIA analyst, I suppose) as an anonymous cabinet minister.
He says that what you say isn't true.
You post some links that you feel are a rebuttal, but your links don't actually don't say anything about the guy being reported as a cabinet minister.
In fact, Kelly *did* contribute to the production of the report. He may not have been an author, but the officials certainly ran it by him and sought his opinions on the contents. Their refusal to take his advice is what almost certainly led to his interpretation that the facts had been 'sexed up' and his leaking the story to the media.
If the BBC hadn't created a work of fiction without evidence, Kelly would likely be alive.
Hmm. You wouldn't happen to be training for a career in the media by any chance? Your reporting skills would almost qualify you for a job on the Sunday Sport.
Not only did the BBC *not* name Kelly, but the so-called 'work of fiction' you refer to was based upon an account of events provided to their reporter Andrew Gilligan *by* David Kelly.
Kelly killed himself because he had been outed as being a senior defence analyst who was leaking confidential information about his job to the media. While there may have been some minor hyperbole in the language Gilligan used (something that is only remarkable because it was the BBC -- because it's the norm in the rest of the British media), many other defence insiders supported the substance of Kelly's account and Gilligan's report. I mean, it may have slipped your attention but in the last week we've had both Bush and Powell acknowledging that there probably aren't any weapons of mass destruction -- do you really think that these intelligence reports had evidence of the weapons where no weapons existed, or is Gilligan's claim that the government 'sexed it up' the more likely explanation?
And what would you have the media do when defence insiders bring them stories of international importance concerning the preparations for war? Would you rather they sat on the stories and told us nothing?
Gilligan overstated his case in the first radio broadcast of the story -- and corrected it in subsequent broadcasts. He didn't 'make it up' and it wasn't a 'work of fiction'. Kelly hadn't gambled on being identified as the source of the leak, but if anyone gave him up, it was the government and not the BBC.
Please show where SCO officially said what has been claimed.
OK, so you're a lazy ass fuck who doesn't know how to follow links or use Google. I don't mind doing it for you, really...
"I agree that the more yarn you pull out the more you see," McBride said during a press briefing at the inaugural Enterprise IT Week at cdXpo Conference here. "We have enough sorted out, but we are so focused on the [IBM litigation]. With our limited energies and what our guys are going through, we probably won't file any suits against BSD until sometime in the first half of next year."
Why does everyone keep talking about D. McBride on crack?
Partly because Linux Torvalds claimed he must be smoking crack, but mostly because of his resemblance to a a crackhead -- someone prepared to lie, steal or even mug his own grandmother to buy another rock.
He is obviously more of an LSD/THC type of person!
You seem to move with a very different set of acid/potheads to any that I've ever met before -- although I'll admit that Darl's flurescent white teeth and orange skin tone are definitely confusing in that regard. However, rather than making me think he's an acid head, he makes me feel as though *I've* taken acid every time I see a photograph of him.
I don't personally care what the/. thinks is acceptable in regards to this matter... What he said is not professional and should have been either reworded or dropped all together.
And you say this based on what? Is there some guide to business letter ettiquette that I missed?
What he said is not professional and should have been either reworded or dropped all together.
And when you pay his wages, you'll be able to impose your high standards of business ettiquette on him. Until then though, I imagine he'd tell you to write your own fucking letter and you too can get to choose the wording.
You don't sling mud back because Bob the Bully slung mud in your eye.
Here I do agree. Much better to headbutt Bob squarely between the eyes, and then drop-kick him in the nuts as he's going down.
Note: the link is NOT http://realone.com/download/realoneplayer_free.exe but rather a game to trick the average person into going somewhere they did not want to go.
I've put up with some pretty crappy tricks from Real Networks over the years, but sneaking goatse and tubgirl links in to their employee's Slashdot posts is the absolute limit!
I'd agree that someone (less biased than the FSS/GNU/EFF folks:) needs to give a response to Darls letter
I've got a pretty strong feeling that more successful companies like IBM, HP, Dell, Novell, etc. will have something to say about it.
I imagine their dossier will begin with the fact that Caldera happened to begin life *as* a Linux company that couldn't cut it, and so they bought some useless outdated software license with the last couple of mil from their windfall IPO.
All facts that Darl conveniently leaves out of his account, but that anyone who doesn't have the attention span of a gnat, or the morals of a weasel can quite easily remember.
Slashdot Mirror
we found a Linux box in the server room. Nobody knew how to use it, or what the password could be. Nobody even knows what it was doing in there.
It sounds to me like you've got bigger problems than your Linux box. In this case, it seems like it was your whole server room that was 'pwn'd'.
I just want to speak up as having never used Bluetooth in my life.
So your username is really a lie? Or an exaggeration at least?
I suppose OneOfManyNotVeryCoolTims doesn't have quite the same ring to it though?
Your interpretation is very different from mine. I read from this that they are no longer going to update AIDA16, but that they will continue to develop AIDA32, they just won't be providing free support for their free product -- other than on the discussion forums.
That doesn't sound anything like being on it's last legs. It sounds like a sensible response for dealing with support for a free product.
Heh. See, I *knew* you'd never done any *real* remixing. What's more, you clearly have no knowledge of or interest in the genre either, so perhaps I should educate you a little?
In my experience, people working in this form tend to distinguish between beats, loops and (non-repeating) samples. (If you're serious about anything, you need to have a language to communicate about it with that has some precision. A beat is a beat is a beat doesn't help anyone if you're trying to describe how you did something or how you want something doing.)
But regardless of what terminology you use, your original post was making the argument that all Dangermous used to make this is stuff longish (three seconds or so) loops that have been chopped from the original, inserted, and possibly time-stretched in something like ACID to match the lyrics? You're just plain wrong about that, because those drum patterns weren't produced by the Beatles. Rather, he's chopped out the individual Beatles drum hits into seperate samples, put them into a soft sampler and programmed new and sometimes (fairly complex) drum patterns in a sequencer.
In truth, Dangermouse is no Dr. Dre or Timbaland, but it's still an interesting and creative piece of work and the fact that you didn't recognize any of this tells me that you've got no real idea at all what goes in to making a piece of work like this and are talking out of your arse.
But thanks for playing, and do come back and try again sometime.
Yea mixing is tough. Not as tough as learning how to play a guitar or keyboard or whatever for yourself.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. It's rather like the difference between video and painting. Sampling and mixing is more fluid, more democratic, yet still involves creative selection and imaginative leaps to be any good. More importantly, perhaps, it's what many people want to listen to -- rather than a bunch of hackneyed old wankers fondling their shiny phallic symbols as they posture in the mode established by some old dork from the early seventies.
Even if it was, it wouldn't make it ok to sample people with actual TALENT and use their work for your own gain without paying them their due.
Don't be a tosser. The only difference between the sampling that Dangermouse did, and the Beatles did before them, was that Dangermouse had better technology available to him. When the Beatles stole Little Richard's trademark squeal, or Chuck Berry's riffs, did they pay those artists for what they stole? Of course they didn't.
I don't give a shit how clever he was. It wasn't his to take, without paying whatever the fair market fee was.
Let me guess. You wouldn't be yet another of those no-hoper bedroom guitarists who someday dreams of prog rock superstardom, and is enraged by the fact that someone who hasn't practiced until his fingers bled is getting all this attention, by any chance?
Methinks the lady doth protest too much...
The beats are the 3-second chunks I was talking about.
So you didn't think he's taken his drum samples off the White Album and added some programmed drum sequencing on there as well then? (Which is what people working in sampled music forms usually refer to as 'beats'.)
I thought you said you did this stuff yourself?
I am sure if you ask those artists who hold copyrights and make a living off of their creations to support themselves and their families...I am sure those artists would vehemently disagree with you.
Just as if you ask Bill Gates whether he thinks Microsoft is a monopoly, or whether monopolies should be broken up, he's not likely to agree with you either.
This idea might sound somewhat outlandish to an American but it's fairly common currency in most of the rest of the world: sometimes, those people with vested financial interests aren't the best people to decide on matters of public policy.
Without copyright, The Beatles' White Album would probably have been released to a few friends and family of he artists in a limited pressing of 3000.
That's OK. Like Dangermouse, they could have distributed it on Kazaa and Bittorrent and still reached an audience of millions. They might not have gotten so rich and stupid so fast, but it seems unlikely to me that they would have stopped making music.
And didn't Paul McCartney sample Little Richard's trademark scream in most of his early songs? Because the technology was so poor in those days, he had to use his throat rather than a sampler, but I don't see how the creative impulse is any different.
And I'm not even going to bother with My Sweet Lord/He's So Fine...
Oh, come on. I Can't Believe It's Not Butter.
Also, everyone assumes that the BBC was telling the truth about kelly as the source.
The BBC didn't name Kelly as their source. The government dropped large hints to the press, and then they confirmed it.
It was rather easy to pin the blame on a dead man, wasn't it?
Not really. He was still alive when they pinned the blame on him.
I think the real source remains secret.
I've got a rather nice bridge that you might be interested in. One that connects Manhattan with one of the outer boroughs. If you buy it from me, you could make a fortune in tolls...
Seeing a northerner on TV dreamily talking of poisoning, raping, and torturing my great great grandparents doesn't make me feel too happy.
Do you suppose it makes you feel more happy or less happy than the descendants of the slaves that they kept?
Palestinian groups don't attack the Israeli military - the military has lots of guns, and shoots back. Blowing up Israeli children is so much easier.
Yeah, right.
The goverment/foreign affairs commitee caught him in a lie/exaggeration and he killed himself over it.
Sorry, I just don't believe this is the case. Whether he exaggerated or not is a matter of dispute. Other senior defence advisors agreed with his account of the situation. Politicians and yes men disagreed. I think the issue is still unresolved.
If he killed himself for any reason at all, it was because he was a senior civil servant caught leaking sensitive government information to the media. As such, he was about to be forced to resign in disgrace after a distinguished career, and without any pension.
Shame they don't provide any references to allow us to evaluate the credibility of the somewhat fantastic statements that they make.
The facts available at the time did not allow them to draw that conclusion.
You mean "facts" like relying on some speculative student dissertation from the internet, while at the same time, disregarding the expert views of experienced Iraq analysts like Kelly himself?
Funny how those same "facts" allowed them to draw the conclusion that Iraq would be ready to launch weapons of mass destruction in 45 mins, but when their expert advisors tell them that such claims are almost certainly bullshit, they can rely on being able to claim that 'we don't know this for a fact'.
In other words it is perfectly possible that, despite all the evidence to the contrary, the government actually believed at that time that the claim (aka complete load of bollocks) was true.
It is perfectly possible if the government happens to be either made up of the educationally subnormal, or are so ideologically committed as to be completely unable to evaluate evidence with any degree of objectivity.
But Kelly was just one of several experienced government defence advisors who told them that their report was complete bollocks and unjustified by the available evidence. That counts as both 'knowing' and as 'sexing it up' in my book.
Hang on.
You claimed that the BBC presented this guy (a civil service defence analyst -- somewhat akin to your CIA analyst, I suppose) as an anonymous cabinet minister.
He says that what you say isn't true.
You post some links that you feel are a rebuttal, but your links don't actually don't say anything about the guy being reported as a cabinet minister.
In fact, Kelly *did* contribute to the production of the report. He may not have been an author, but the officials certainly ran it by him and sought his opinions on the contents. Their refusal to take his advice is what almost certainly led to his interpretation that the facts had been 'sexed up' and his leaking the story to the media.
On balance, I think you lose.
If the BBC hadn't created a work of fiction without evidence, Kelly would likely be alive.
Hmm. You wouldn't happen to be training for a career in the media by any chance? Your reporting skills would almost qualify you for a job on the Sunday Sport.
Not only did the BBC *not* name Kelly, but the so-called 'work of fiction' you refer to was based upon an account of events provided to their reporter Andrew Gilligan *by* David Kelly.
Kelly killed himself because he had been outed as being a senior defence analyst who was leaking confidential information about his job to the media. While there may have been some minor hyperbole in the language Gilligan used (something that is only remarkable because it was the BBC -- because it's the norm in the rest of the British media), many other defence insiders supported the substance of Kelly's account and Gilligan's report. I mean, it may have slipped your attention but in the last week we've had both Bush and Powell acknowledging that there probably aren't any weapons of mass destruction -- do you really think that these intelligence reports had evidence of the weapons where no weapons existed, or is Gilligan's claim that the government 'sexed it up' the more likely explanation?
And what would you have the media do when defence insiders bring them stories of international importance concerning the preparations for war? Would you rather they sat on the stories and told us nothing?
Gilligan overstated his case in the first radio broadcast of the story -- and corrected it in subsequent broadcasts. He didn't 'make it up' and it wasn't a 'work of fiction'. Kelly hadn't gambled on being identified as the source of the leak, but if anyone gave him up, it was the government and not the BBC.
OK, so you're a lazy ass fuck who doesn't know how to follow links or use Google. I don't mind doing it for you, really... Satisfied now?
Provide a
link.
Why does everyone keep talking about D. McBride on crack?
Partly because Linux Torvalds claimed he must be smoking crack, but mostly because of his resemblance to a a crackhead -- someone prepared to lie, steal or even mug his own grandmother to buy another rock.
He is obviously more of an LSD/THC type of person!
You seem to move with a very different set of acid/potheads to any that I've ever met before -- although I'll admit that Darl's flurescent white teeth and orange skin tone are definitely confusing in that regard. However, rather than making me think he's an acid head, he makes me feel as though *I've* taken acid every time I see a photograph of him.
Haven't you heard of "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy"?
Shouldn't that be "Queer iFor the Straight Guy"?
I don't personally care what the /. thinks is acceptable in regards to this matter... What he said is not professional and should have been either reworded or dropped all together.
And you say this based on what? Is there some guide to business letter ettiquette that I missed?
What he said is not professional and should have been either reworded or dropped all together.
And when you pay his wages, you'll be able to impose your high standards of business ettiquette on him. Until then though, I imagine he'd tell you to write your own fucking letter and you too can get to choose the wording.
You don't sling mud back because Bob the Bully slung mud in your eye.
Here I do agree. Much better to headbutt Bob squarely between the eyes, and then drop-kick him in the nuts as he's going down.
Note: the link is NOT http://realone.com/download/realoneplayer_free.exe but rather a game to trick the average person into going somewhere they did not want to go.
I've put up with some pretty crappy tricks from Real Networks over the years, but sneaking goatse and tubgirl links in to their employee's Slashdot posts is the absolute limit!
a new board of directors with Mother Theresa as chairperson?
Mother Theresa (if she wasn't dead) would make a pretty good celebrity shill for Real Networks. They both have very similar value systems.
I'd agree that someone (less biased than the FSS/GNU/EFF folks :) needs to give a response to Darls letter
I've got a pretty strong feeling that more successful companies like IBM, HP, Dell, Novell, etc. will have something to say about it.
I imagine their dossier will begin with the fact that Caldera happened to begin life *as* a Linux company that couldn't cut it, and so they bought some useless outdated software license with the last couple of mil from their windfall IPO.
All facts that Darl conveniently leaves out of his account, but that anyone who doesn't have the attention span of a gnat, or the morals of a weasel can quite easily remember.