Depending on your workflow, sharing audio sessions with other people can be as simple as exporting relevant tracks making sure they are easily resynced together (for example exporting the whole audio interval for each track), or as difficult as "You gotta have same audio program and plugins and same versions". If your sharing problem involves sw programs or versions, your problem is worse than sharing, it's archiving.
There is no guarantee that today's most used audio will be viable tomorrow, so I suggest to keep plain audio and midi of your stuff always and pick the sw that you prefer.
There are multimedia distros with live DVD: avlinux, dream studio, artistx, ubuntu studio...
Check out their offerings, it's not like you can't download a fully functional copy. Audacity is great for simple retouches, you want a DAW or a sequencer with audio editing functions for anything more complex.
No way the consumer can control the data. If he could alter it, he could claim innocence while he is liable. So the "carputer" (it's an ugly name so somebody is going to use it eventually) will be closed source or DRM. It's great for public transport, but not for something you want to call My car.
/. is not like other sites. There are numerous experts in numerous technical fields on this site. It's a stomping ground for an experts to provide opinions in their area of expertise without a "Company Slogan" involved. It also has subjects more political in nature where those same strong opinions abound. While there are a few kids, sock puppets, shills, etc... the majority of the audience here is intelligent.
Sounds good! maybe you could post a link to this wonderful site?
I am writing this because you forgot to mention trolls.
> god can not detect any change in the universe. No, a theoretical external observer who looks at things the same way we do, does not detect change. That this encompasses the concept of God is to be demonstrated.
On a side note, Christians will quote Mt. 10:30 and say their God is quite capable, and others may object that a hypothetical creator of an abstraction is not bound by the rules of the abstraction itself, so you cannot exclude any capability.
> So is it "gee-eye-eff", "giff" or "jiff"? Step one: learn Italian. Step two: now "gif" is pronounced "gif". This is how it feels to have a sane language. You may curl up and cry now.
I really don't like the way these issues are presented. Vaccination is a PROCESS. Like eating. Vaccination is good? yes, as a discovery. Injecting whatever kind of vaccine for whatever kind of illness is good? Entirely different problem.
Uh.. this is slashdot, you DO NOT observe the article anyway, or strange things may occur.
Speaking of strange, why do we keep calling stuff like this "strange"? at a microscopic level matter behave differently, ok. Had we mostly experience of quantum states, we would classify classical mechanic strange. It is what it is. Model it with known concepts if you can, but don't try to fit everything in existing categories.
Because if we had any real and informed choice between product A whose money stays in the local economy and product B foxconn style, we'd have chosen A even if we had to fork more money. Because it's better to fork more money and have an income and some rights, like western economies did before the 90s, than race to the bottom and have the whole economy race with you. "Sorry, for us to be competitive you have to work more hours". "Sorry, for us to be competitive you have to work for less". "Sorry, for us to be competitive you have to get lost".
Instead, in practice, we have to choose between brand A and B, both supported by the same financial system that in the 1990s decided to bring down western economy by lowering consumption using job flexibility as an excuse to take a sense of security away. No matter what economic indicators say, no sense of security means less consumption.
> It always amazes me on Slashdot what negative attitude some posters have.
On one hand, those who do, do; those who don't... rant on forums. On the other hand, for all the products and ideas out there, if you always say "meh" you are statistically more right than if you always said "wow". On the other other hand, even successful products suck. The ipod still sucks (no plain storage of music as files) the iphone and androids still suck (powerful as 15yr old computers, do 10% of what 15yr old pc can do and 300% of what PC cannot do and you don't want them to do either, namely locating you and eavesdropping on you all the time). On the other other other hand, Ranting is justified only if you try to do something about it too.
You are perfectly right, but the system is working as intended, it is very simple: what do people in charge use to control the others? currently, money. Therefore money must be the most powerful medium. Therefore all interference to the power of money must be removed. Culture, scruples, old style political, religious and military power. Some removals are healthy, some not. The overall effect is subtle and powerful slavery.The story of the last centuries is the story of the progressive removal of such impediments.
Are current HR practices turning workers into expendable drones with no whatsoever care for anything in their company except the money? Perfect. That is paired with managers who have no whatsoever care, and even knowledge about the product they sell. How in hell they get to power positions? Simple, they interface with, and obey the rules of the financial system.
It's worse than that, there is no need for the concept of "there" "need" designer". That cuts both way because it invalidates most atheism reasoning as well. In fact religions "a god told me that..." are more logically acceptable than "if there were a god, then..."
> We could all be living in the 10^10^10^10th iteration of Wolfram's Rule 30 Yes... well... provided that the concept of "number" has any comparable meaning in the remaining 10^10^10^10-1 iterations. Once you get out this universe, you get out of the logic that "rules" it (because it doesn't rule anything, it merely models), unless you want to make a logic system a god ruling over all iterations, which is not even religion, it is idolatry.
> If we are a simulation, we may be able to discern exactly what we're simulating, and why.
No wai and I can prove it.
You have an mp3 player with two songs in it. The random playing algorithm makes it play the first song, the second song, the first again the second again and so on, because when it has to choose the next song there is only the other one available.
The normal playing algorithm plays the first song then the second song then the first song and so on EXACTLY LIKE the random playing algorithm.
Without looking at the mode, relying on your ears only, you would likely theorize that it's playing sequential, and some nerd would come up with the theory that it's playing random, some other nerd would argue about occam's razor and bullshit like that. In truth there is no way to discern the truth of the programming until you get to see the mode.
No doubt about it. But the control freaks attack fantasy too. So you spend time bothering about electrons in your PC and don't spend energy defending yourself in the real life. They lose the battle in the virtual world, you feel you have achieved something while nothing changed in practice. Good (for them). They win the battle in the virtual world, they have put another limitation in the way you think. Good (for them).
This is why police states and totalitarian regimes bother with seemingly irrelevant aspects.
Now, I am not implying the Red Cross is fascist. I can surely get their POV about the subject, it's understandable they are sensitive to some themes. There's a saying that goes like "you don't talk about rope with the family of the one that has been hanged". Very true. But you don't want to be banned from talking about rope everywhere, no way.
If you were Syrian would you root for your oppressive regime, radical opposition to that regime, or a completely foreign superpower who did so well in restoring democracy in iraq? I'd probably put a sign out of the house saying "Whatever color you are, enter here to win! Prize: bullet to the head"
> If it's so laughable, then isn't it better to just have it?
Yes, let's run unverifiable crap on our PCs. Nothing ever wrong happened with that. Hmm it's like microsoft era and the NSA activities never happened for you, good, good.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed, quality control issues: solved.
> Although "Recursive Cortical Network" sounds really cool, it would be nice to, you know, learn a bit about how it WORKS.
It works just like the "Recursive Cortical Network", look it up.
Depending on your workflow, sharing audio sessions with other people can be as simple as exporting relevant tracks making sure they are easily resynced together (for example exporting the whole audio interval for each track), or as difficult as "You gotta have same audio program and plugins and same versions". If your sharing problem involves sw programs or versions, your problem is worse than sharing, it's archiving.
There is no guarantee that today's most used audio will be viable tomorrow, so I suggest to keep plain audio and midi of your stuff always and pick the sw that you prefer.
There are multimedia distros with live DVD: avlinux, dream studio, artistx, ubuntu studio...
Check out their offerings, it's not like you can't download a fully functional copy. Audacity is great for simple retouches, you want a DAW or a sequencer with audio editing functions for anything more complex.
No way the consumer can control the data. If he could alter it, he could claim innocence while he is liable. So the "carputer" (it's an ugly name so somebody is going to use it eventually) will be closed source or DRM. It's great for public transport, but not for something you want to call My car.
But, sadly, background noise increased.
Sounds good! maybe you could post a link to this wonderful site?
I am writing this because you forgot to mention trolls.
> god can not detect any change in the universe.
No, a theoretical external observer who looks at things the same way we do, does not detect change. That this encompasses the concept of God is to be demonstrated.
On a side note, Christians will quote Mt. 10:30 and say their God is quite capable, and others may object that a hypothetical creator of an abstraction is not bound by the rules of the abstraction itself, so you cannot exclude any capability.
> So is it "gee-eye-eff", "giff" or "jiff"?
Step one: learn Italian.
Step two: now "gif" is pronounced "gif".
This is how it feels to have a sane language.
You may curl up and cry now.
True slashdotters do not read the links either.
It goes both way.
Joins: UF|slaughterer
[AA]wjcked: slaugherer, your ping sucks!
UF|slaughterer: sry
[AA]wjcked: stop mating calls to whales LOLOLOL
UF|slaughterer: f*ck you
I really don't like the way these issues are presented.
Vaccination is a PROCESS. Like eating.
Vaccination is good? yes, as a discovery.
Injecting whatever kind of vaccine for whatever kind of illness is good? Entirely different problem.
In related news, primitive hand stencils in caves are now likely considered as the first crude attempts at nail painting.
Uh.. this is slashdot, you DO NOT observe the article anyway, or strange things may occur.
Speaking of strange, why do we keep calling stuff like this "strange"? at a microscopic level matter behave differently, ok. Had we mostly experience of quantum states, we would classify classical mechanic strange.
It is what it is. Model it with known concepts if you can, but don't try to fit everything in existing categories.
Except we never had a chance to choose.
Because if we had any real and informed choice between product A whose money stays in the local economy and product B foxconn style, we'd have chosen A even if we had to fork more money.
Because it's better to fork more money and have an income and some rights, like western economies did before the 90s, than race to the bottom and have the whole economy race with you. "Sorry, for us to be competitive you have to work more hours". "Sorry, for us to be competitive you have to work for less". "Sorry, for us to be competitive you have to get lost".
Instead, in practice, we have to choose between brand A and B, both supported by the same financial system that in the 1990s decided to bring down western economy by lowering consumption using job flexibility as an excuse to take a sense of security away. No matter what economic indicators say, no sense of security means less consumption.
> It always amazes me on Slashdot what negative attitude some posters have.
On one hand, those who do, do; those who don't... rant on forums.
On the other hand, for all the products and ideas out there, if you always say "meh" you are statistically more right than if you always said "wow".
On the other other hand, even successful products suck. The ipod still sucks (no plain storage of music as files) the iphone and androids still suck (powerful as 15yr old computers, do 10% of what 15yr old pc can do and 300% of what PC cannot do and you don't want them to do either, namely locating you and eavesdropping on you all the time).
On the other other other hand, Ranting is justified only if you try to do something about it too.
You are perfectly right, but the system is working as intended, it is very simple: what do people in charge use to control the others? currently, money. Therefore money must be the most powerful medium. Therefore all interference to the power of money must be removed. Culture, scruples, old style political, religious and military power. Some removals are healthy, some not. The overall effect is subtle and powerful slavery.The story of the last centuries is the story of the progressive removal of such impediments.
Are current HR practices turning workers into expendable drones with no whatsoever care for anything in their company except the money? Perfect. That is paired with managers who have no whatsoever care, and even knowledge about the product they sell. How in hell they get to power positions? Simple, they interface with, and obey the rules of the financial system.
> there needent be designers at all
It's worse than that, there is no need for the concept of "there" "need" designer". That cuts both way because it invalidates most atheism reasoning as well. In fact religions "a god told me that..." are more logically acceptable than "if there were a god, then..."
> We could all be living in the 10^10^10^10th iteration of Wolfram's Rule 30
Yes... well... provided that the concept of "number" has any comparable meaning in the remaining 10^10^10^10-1 iterations. Once you get out this universe, you get out of the logic that "rules" it (because it doesn't rule anything, it merely models), unless you want to make a logic system a god ruling over all iterations, which is not even religion, it is idolatry.
n00b
> If we are a simulation, we may be able to discern exactly what we're simulating, and why.
No wai and I can prove it.
You have an mp3 player with two songs in it. The random playing algorithm makes it play the first song, the second song, the first again the second again and so on, because when it has to choose the next song there is only the other one available.
The normal playing algorithm plays the first song then the second song then the first song and so on EXACTLY LIKE the random playing algorithm.
Without looking at the mode, relying on your ears only, you would likely theorize that it's playing sequential, and some nerd would come up with the theory that it's playing random, some other nerd would argue about occam's razor and bullshit like that. In truth there is no way to discern the truth of the programming until you get to see the mode.
Think about it as plato's cave revisited.
Before we go into philosophy, I warn that being a computation is different from "being the result of a computation". The mold can be simulated.
AC, please, He's just living different.
> fantasy is fantasy.
No doubt about it. But the control freaks attack fantasy too. So you spend time bothering about electrons in your PC and don't spend energy defending yourself in the real life.
They lose the battle in the virtual world, you feel you have achieved something while nothing changed in practice. Good (for them). They win the battle in the virtual world, they have put another limitation in the way you think. Good (for them).
This is why police states and totalitarian regimes bother with seemingly irrelevant aspects.
Now, I am not implying the Red Cross is fascist. I can surely get their POV about the subject, it's understandable they are sensitive to some themes.
There's a saying that goes like "you don't talk about rope with the family of the one that has been hanged". Very true. But you don't want to be banned from talking about rope everywhere, no way.
If you were Syrian would you root for your oppressive regime, radical opposition to that regime, or a completely foreign superpower who did so well in restoring democracy in iraq?
I'd probably put a sign out of the house saying "Whatever color you are, enter here to win! Prize: bullet to the head"
Then a saudi cleric who recently said "women should not drive" will turn the speakers on, and shout in the microphone TOOOOOOOLLLDDYOOOUUUUUUUUU....
> If it's so laughable, then isn't it better to just have it?
Yes, let's run unverifiable crap on our PCs. Nothing ever wrong happened with that.
Hmm it's like microsoft era and the NSA activities never happened for you, good, good.