Homer's Phobia number 5? I wonder if they felt they had to throw in a later episode or two to make it more "balanced". While some of those aren't bad, I know I would have had more from seasons 2-6 or so.
There is no mechanism for getting the absolute location of the users finger, rather than the relative movement. Without that, you can't remap part of the trackpad to be a scroll area.
Maybe, maybe not. I asked this same question on Macintouch some time ago, and got this response:
Luke Pacholski is disappointed that the trackpad on the TiBook doesn't have any of the nifty software features that other notebooks have. This software is made by Synaptics, which manufactures almost every OEM trackpad out there. (My Pismo has a Synaptics touchpad - took it apart a few weeks ago and the IC on the trackpad had the Synaptics logo on it.) Anyhow, Synaptics has made most of the APIs for the touchpad public, and there are Linux drivers available - so all it needs is someone willing to write a driver for OS X or 9, and Mac users would probably have the same functionality.
Yes, CDRs use some sort of organic compound with a shelf life of only ten years (far short of aluminum).
Well, yes and no. CD-Rs use an organic compound to hold the actual data (what gets "burned") instead of the pits of a pressed CD. However, the reflective layer is still metal. Generally either silver or gold. And as far as lifespan goes, nobody really knows.
As far as gold CDs go - yes, some labels, especially audiophile ones, use gold on CDs instead of aluminum. While some claim gold reflects better than aluminum, that's not where the improvement in quality comes from. Generally more attention is put into gold releases to make them "right".
Of course, that's not always the case. While a company like DCC really knows what they are doing and almost always puts out top-notch product, some gold CDs by the major labels (and even MoFi) are worthless from a sound quality perspective. The best sounding version of Who's Next is a budget (aluminum) CD from Canada, even though 2 gold versions and one "remixed/remastered" version have come out over the years. Go figure...
Because the site does not show the un-retouched composite images, we cannot judge the success of his RGB photography and we cannot come to our own conclusions on what the photographed scenes truly looked like.
Sure you can - just download the 3 frame negatives and do the compositing yourself. It's really very simple in Photoshop.
As to why the sample picture looks so different pre-corrected - I don't know. I didn't try that one, although I did download the neg for the self-portrait, and it came out almost exactly like how they have it on the site. Not too much color correction...
I tried recomposing one of the pictures from the b&w samples they had on the site. And while it worked, it didn't look anywhere near as nice as the pictures on the site. Some image expert spent a lot of time to make those pictures look nice.
Eh, it's really not all *that* hard. Take the "blue" image, paste into the blue channel in Photoshop. Do the same for green and red. Line them up. There you go! Of course, lining them up can be a bit tricky sometimes, but all in all it's not really that tough.
Actually, it *is* from three different exposures. Notice how there are "ghost people" in some pictures, and how some of the little children look. There's one shot where you can clearly tell the kid moved his head between shots.
The University of Wisconsin - Madison has developed tools which allow this type of bandwidth management. BTW, the King letter aparently made it there as well, but I haven't heard the response.
Yep, UW got a letter. I know as of this morning there was no official statement, and I don't see one yet. However, I've talked to a few people at DoIt, and they've said there's no way UW will block Napster. I think we've got a pretty liberal network use policy, in addition to the fact we've got a *huge* pipe...
A realworld example sure to appeal to CmdrTaco's heart: The Who's album Live At Leeds was released with a label that said in big scrawly letters, "CRACKLING NOISES OK- DO NOT CORRECT". When played on a high end turntable, do you in fact get crackly noises? No, you get the Who, live. It's the same as orchestral recordings breaking up at FFF and fancy cartridges that don't break up at those modulation levels.
Eh...the "crackling noises" were due to faulty cables at the original concert and are on the master tapes. Please explain how playing the album on a high end turntable could somehow remove them...
Why the vacumm cleaner? - Standard record needles will push away small specs of dust and dirt. Since this turntable uses a laser that never actually touches the LP, it can't push anything aside. Thus, it will "see" dirt and dust that normal turntables don't. You need the cleaner to get all that junk out of the grooves...
Who would buy this? - This isn't meant for just anyone. It's meant for people who have things on vinyl that simply can't be replaced. It *should* be required at record companies. I know of many instances where original tapes to a recording no longer exist and a record is the only source available. Or, in the case of any music pre-1950 - magnetic tape didn't exist. All music was recorded direct to wax. It would sure be nice to have that music without crackles and pops...
Digital? - I can't say I'm an expert on the system, but the site clearly states the system is *not* digital:
Q: Is the Laser Turntable digital?
No. The Laser Turntable processes the musical information as an analogue signal. A laser beam is directed to the groove of record. The reflection is changed based on the shape of groove. Position Sensitive Detector (PSD) receives that reflection and generates electrical signals. The purest music is maintained by keeping the signal analog throughout the system.
Personally I'd *love* to have one of these - I like a lot of older (read: classic rock) music, and often, certain things just are not available on CD. This would be perfect to transfer them into the digital domain...
It's actually Terry Riley, who turned Pete on to electronic music.
But, in fairness, I can't remember if the track came from an audience member's stats, or Mehrer Baba's.
The intention was for it to be Meher Baba's stats. However, the technology wasn't available in 1970/71, so it's really Pete's version of what he *thought* it would sound like.
1. Pete made demos of just about all the songs he wrote for The Who. That's Pete Townshend playing everything - in the beginning just guitar and vocals (overdubbed for multiple parts), but later everything - bass, drums, piano, synth, etc... Some of these demos can be found on Scoop and Another Scoop.
2. A few Who tracks used the basic tracks from Pete's demos - Baba O'Riley, Won't Get Fooled Again and Love Reign O're Me being a few notable examples. This is how The Who's version of Baba came about. Pete recorded a demo version (over 13 minutes long) with synth, guitar, drums, piano, etc. It didn't have any vocals. The synth and piano tracks were later used for The Who's version. This long instrumental version was edited down (to 10 minutes?) for one of Pete's "Baba" LPs.
3. Most people confuse the title of "Baba O'Riley", calling it "Teenage Wasteland". It turns out there actually *was* a song called "Teenage Wasteland"! I still have yet to hear it, but it's on the new box set. Looking at the lyrics to it at Pete's site, it looks like he decided to take some of the lyrics from that song and put them on top of his "Baba O'Riley" demo. The demo version of "Baba" with vocals will be on the box set as well - a sound clip is on Pete's site.
4. While it's been commonly quoted that Pete entered statistics of Baba Meher into a computer to come up with the "Baba O'Riley" synth track, I believe Pete actually just wrote and recorded the synth track how he *thought* it would come out if he fed the info into a computer...
BTW, I'm a bit bitter...I submitted info on Pete's new site and the box set over the weekend and it was rejected. Grr.
Looking at my Mac browsers, it looks like Netscape doesn't totally support PNG, and IE (4.5) doesn't support it *at all* - the W3 pages come up with all broken images.
I'm a bit surprised this story made it on./ - GIF isn't going away any time soon, and PNG is far from ready as a common image format, IMO. Unisys doesn't seem to be coming after anyone with any great vengence - how could they? First of all, the web is way too large - how do you take that on? Second, how is Unisys going to know if you created your graphics with an unlicensed graphics program? This whole thing is silly.
Luke (sticking to GIFs and JPEGs, for the near future, anyway)
I'd have to agree on this one. While I certainly don't use a floppy on a daily basis by any means, there are times when you really need one. Transferring small installers, moving config files from Mac to PC, etc... That's one thing I think should be included, if only by the virtue that everyone else has one...
I'm not the kind of person that would buy an iMac anyway, but if there is one thing I'd like to see in an iMac, it would be better 3D support. At least a RAGE 128. The RAGE Pro just doesn't cut it for good gaming...
I really doubt it will have an LCD screen, but who knows...
And change the mouse and keyboard!
Re:Hmmm. Is this encouraging?
on
Be on the G4
·
· Score: 1
:::P.S. Apple bashing occurs because Apple pissed off a shitload of PPC users that love the hardware, but not the MacOS!:::
Funny...I could really give a crap about PPC. It's the OS I really like. Sure, the underlying parts of the OS suck (memory management, multitasking, etc), but to me, MacOS is like home. I've also got Linux running on a P233 to play around with, but to me it's still not something I can say is my main OS.
If Apple had decided to use the IBM PC way back when, I'd probably be just as happy as I am now. It would be nice to be able to use standardized hardware, although on the other hand my system does everything I want it to... I have no particular love for the PPC platform, except possibly that setting up new hardware is generally less painful than on a PC...
Not sure how well they work (have not tried them), but Project Ballantain and Freesco both do what you describe. Check them out here: http://www.linuxsupportline.com/~router/
Comparing Pete Townshend to SRV, Clapton or Hendrix is like comparing apples to oranges. They are *lead* players. Pete is a *rhythm* player. The only thing is, he plays rhythm as a lead instrument. Just listen to his power chording on Sparks or My Generation on Live At Leeds.
As for drummers - have you ever seen or heard Keith Moon? The guy was amazing. Arms going in every direction, fills where there shouldn't be time for fills - Moon played drum solos all the time, it's just the rest of the band was playing as well!
While Live At Leeds is all well and good, any true Who fan *must* pick up "Live At Leeds Complete" - the *entire* concert, *unedited*, with great sound (not as good as the remaster/remix, but wide stereo from the original 8 track tapes). I've got lots-o-info about it on my site...
BTW, serious Who fans need to check out Pete's demos for Tommy and Lifehouse/Who's Next (well, they are all good, but those are awesome). Behind Blue Eyes is haunting, and Won't Get Fooled Again is amazing - Pete plays everything: drums, guitars, synths, vocals, bass, etc...! A good intro is the Scoop CD, although the complete Tommy and Lifehouse demos are available on boot...
Slashdot Mirror
Homer's Phobia number 5? I wonder if they felt they had to throw in a later episode or two to make it more "balanced". While some of those aren't bad, I know I would have had more from seasons 2-6 or so.
As far as gold CDs go - yes, some labels, especially audiophile ones, use gold on CDs instead of aluminum. While some claim gold reflects better than aluminum, that's not where the improvement in quality comes from. Generally more attention is put into gold releases to make them "right".
Of course, that's not always the case. While a company like DCC really knows what they are doing and almost always puts out top-notch product, some gold CDs by the major labels (and even MoFi) are worthless from a sound quality perspective. The best sounding version of Who's Next is a budget (aluminum) CD from Canada, even though 2 gold versions and one "remixed/remastered" version have come out over the years. Go figure...
As to why the sample picture looks so different pre-corrected - I don't know. I didn't try that one, although I did download the neg for the self-portrait, and it came out almost exactly like how they have it on the site. Not too much color correction...
Eh, it's really not all *that* hard. Take the "blue" image, paste into the blue channel in Photoshop. Do the same for green and red. Line them up. There you go! Of course, lining them up can be a bit tricky sometimes, but all in all it's not really that tough.
Actually, it *is* from three different exposures. Notice how there are "ghost people" in some pictures, and how some of the little children look. There's one shot where you can clearly tell the kid moved his head between shots.
Look at the "Russian Children on a Hillside" picture on this page: http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/ethnic.html
Still *very* cool though...
Who would buy this? - This isn't meant for just anyone. It's meant for people who have things on vinyl that simply can't be replaced. It *should* be required at record companies. I know of many instances where original tapes to a recording no longer exist and a record is the only source available. Or, in the case of any music pre-1950 - magnetic tape didn't exist. All music was recorded direct to wax. It would sure be nice to have that music without crackles and pops...
Digital? - I can't say I'm an expert on the system, but the site clearly states the system is *not* digital:
Personally I'd *love* to have one of these - I like a lot of older (read: classic rock) music, and often, certain things just are not available on CD. This would be perfect to transfer them into the digital domain...
A few points:
1. Pete made demos of just about all the songs he wrote for The Who. That's Pete Townshend playing everything - in the beginning just guitar and vocals (overdubbed for multiple parts), but later everything - bass, drums, piano, synth, etc... Some of these demos can be found on Scoop and Another Scoop.
2. A few Who tracks used the basic tracks from Pete's demos - Baba O'Riley, Won't Get Fooled Again and Love Reign O're Me being a few notable examples. This is how The Who's version of Baba came about. Pete recorded a demo version (over 13 minutes long) with synth, guitar, drums, piano, etc. It didn't have any vocals. The synth and piano tracks were later used for The Who's version. This long instrumental version was edited down (to 10 minutes?) for one of Pete's "Baba" LPs.
3. Most people confuse the title of "Baba O'Riley", calling it "Teenage Wasteland". It turns out there actually *was* a song called "Teenage Wasteland"! I still have yet to hear it, but it's on the new box set. Looking at the lyrics to it at Pete's site, it looks like he decided to take some of the lyrics from that song and put them on top of his "Baba O'Riley" demo. The demo version of "Baba" with vocals will be on the box set as well - a sound clip is on Pete's site.
4. While it's been commonly quoted that Pete entered statistics of Baba Meher into a computer to come up with the "Baba O'Riley" synth track, I believe Pete actually just wrote and recorded the synth track how he *thought* it would come out if he fed the info into a computer...
BTW, I'm a bit bitter...I submitted info on Pete's new site and the box set over the weekend and it was rejected. Grr.
Looking at my Mac browsers, it looks like Netscape doesn't totally support PNG, and IE (4.5) doesn't support it *at all* - the W3 pages come up with all broken images.
./ - GIF isn't going away any time soon, and PNG is far from ready as a common image format, IMO. Unisys doesn't seem to be coming after anyone with any great vengence - how could they? First of all, the web is way too large - how do you take that on? Second, how is Unisys going to know if you created your graphics with an unlicensed graphics program? This whole thing is silly.
I'm a bit surprised this story made it on
Luke (sticking to GIFs and JPEGs, for the near future, anyway)
I'd have to agree on this one. While I certainly don't use a floppy on a daily basis by any means, there are times when you really need one. Transferring small installers, moving config files from Mac to PC, etc... That's one thing I think should be included, if only by the virtue that everyone else has one...
Not to mention the iMac IIci!!
I'm not the kind of person that would buy an iMac anyway, but if there is one thing I'd like to see in an iMac, it would be better 3D support. At least a RAGE 128. The RAGE Pro just doesn't cut it for good gaming...
I really doubt it will have an LCD screen, but who knows...
And change the mouse and keyboard!
:::P.S. Apple bashing occurs because Apple pissed off a shitload of PPC users that love the hardware, but not the MacOS! :::
Funny...I could really give a crap about PPC. It's the OS I really like. Sure, the underlying parts of the OS suck (memory management, multitasking, etc), but to me, MacOS is like home. I've also got Linux running on a P233 to play around with, but to me it's still not something I can say is my main OS.
If Apple had decided to use the IBM PC way back when, I'd probably be just as happy as I am now. It would be nice to be able to use standardized hardware, although on the other hand my system does everything I want it to... I have no particular love for the PPC platform, except possibly that setting up new hardware is generally less painful than on a PC...
1) Do you have a Pentium or better? Mandrake is compiled for 5x86 - a 386 or 486 won't run Mandrake.
2) I don't know what you did, but Mandrake never touched my Windows drive. I'm guessing you did something wrong when partitioning.
3) You can get a Mandrake CD at Cheap Bytes for like $3. No reason to waste money...
Not sure how well they work (have not tried them), but Project Ballantain and Freesco both do what you describe. Check them out here: http://www.linuxsupportline.com/~router/
Comparing Pete Townshend to SRV, Clapton or Hendrix is like comparing apples to oranges. They are *lead* players. Pete is a *rhythm* player. The only thing is, he plays rhythm as a lead instrument. Just listen to his power chording on Sparks or My Generation on Live At Leeds.
As for drummers - have you ever seen or heard Keith Moon? The guy was amazing. Arms going in every direction, fills where there shouldn't be time for fills - Moon played drum solos all the time, it's just the rest of the band was playing as well!
While Live At Leeds is all well and good, any true Who fan *must* pick up "Live At Leeds Complete" - the *entire* concert, *unedited*, with great sound (not as good as the remaster/remix, but wide stereo from the original 8 track tapes). I've got lots-o-info about it on my site...
BTW, serious Who fans need to check out Pete's demos for Tommy and Lifehouse/Who's Next (well, they are all good, but those are awesome). Behind Blue Eyes is haunting, and Won't Get Fooled Again is amazing - Pete plays everything: drums, guitars, synths, vocals, bass, etc...! A good intro is the Scoop CD, although the complete Tommy and Lifehouse demos are available on boot...
Can anyone say "Total protonic reversal"? ;-)
"Ok, important safety tip. Thanks Egon."