It really depends on the music and the compressor. Some music will compress almost losslessly at that bitrate (eg. techno). Music with a lot of randomness on the other hand (older nine inch nails, for example) you will hear some serious artifacts. Niel Young is an old goat and probably couldn't tell the difference. Besides. AAC at 128 is pretty good for almost everything and the 256 kbps AAC sold on iTunes is for all intents and purposes identical to the master as far as the listener is concerned. Anything else is snake oil.
24 bit is useful for mastering when you have to do repeated operations on the audio. Nobody can tell the difference in a true blind test. It's a placebo.
Doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. I'd like to sit his coked out ass down for a double blind test and see if he can tell the difference between 128kbps mp3 and 24bit 96khz uncompressed. I bet you he couldn't, and if he could, I guarantee he couldn't at 160kbps.
Of course it could simply be that (the vast majority of) new music does, in fact, suck. Once in a while i'll listen to something new that I like (which would seem to discount your theory), but most of the time it's crap. There is very little originality in music anymore. It's formulaic. There is no more real innovation (at least not done well). What you're saying also doesn't seem to explain why many younger listeners nowadays are listening to older music and agreeing it's better.
On an Acer Aspire 5313. I've been dealing with it simply by doing as the summary suggests: switching to VT and restarting lighttdm. I'd be happy to help any way I can. The problem doesn't seem to happen every time it suspends, but it happens enough to be annoying. Mostly I just use that laptop for browsing the web so it's no big deal, but I can see it being a major issue if somebody was, for example, working on an important document and hadn't saved.
Breivik was a fan of a lot of people. Just because he liked (some of) what Geller had to say does not mean she is guilty for her crimes. She never, ever, endorsed violence and was quick to condemn the massacre. But of course the same time you condemn her for something she did not command, you let Muhammad off the hook for something he did, as you do his followers. Pity the savage arabs you say, they simply don't know any better. Of course I don't actually expect you to read that link. It's from one of those Islamophobe sites after all. No point reading both sides of the argument when you've already made up your mind.
Please tell me where Pamela has ever fantasized about beheading muslims or killing them in moderate countries. Citations please! Outragious accusations require substantial proof. And Pamela has never claimed to be an academic. Even in the "anti-shariah" community, she isn't looked up to as a scholar -- more as a spokesperson. If you want scholarship, look to Robert Spencer, or better yet, read the Quran and Hadiths yourself. Of course you'll never, ever, do that since you've already made up your mind that Islam is peaceful, only Christianity is violent, and there is nothing more to be said.
You know. Personally. I have every single reason to hate Christianity and Christians. When I was younger, my parents sent me to a facility to try to "fix" my sexuality (needless to say it didn't work), and while that experience wasn't what they probably wanted for me, it nevertheless left me scarred. Christianity is homophobic, sexist, mysogynistic, in many ways intolerant, but it is not, I repeat it is not, violent. It does not endorse of promote violence. I am objective enough to say that in retrospect despite my experiences. You, on the other hand, are so stuck in your blind hate that you refuse to step back and examine the evidence objectively.
It doesn't matter whether the original sources are accurate or not (they probably aren't). Muslims who take their religion seriously believe they are, and that's all that matters. Did Muhammad personally behead 600-900 jews? Probably not, but that's what the sources say, and if you dare question them, that's blasphemy, and you get your head cut off for that.
The difference is the KKK had no Biblical basis. Have you actually read any of their literature such as "Might is Right"? You'll find nothing in the Bible against dark skinned people. Is the bible homophobic? Absolutely it is, but it doesn't say "kill the doer and the reciever" like Islam does. Yes, in the old Testament it says "shall be put to death" but Christians don't follow that old law (reason they don't keep kosher either), and Jews stopped doing that ages ago (the punishment of stoning was cancelled). What i'm getting at is that while individual Christians (just as Muslims) may or may not be violent, it's unfair to blame the religion itself unless the holy books call for such action. Are all Muslims violent? Of course not. But that doesn't take away from the fact that those who do follow Islam seriously are violent.
I'd like to see a source for that "cleansed of Muslims" allegation. Google yielded no results at all. Most Christians who dislike Islam or support Israel don't do so, as you allege, because they want a war. On the other hand, they do see such a war in the middle east as inevitable. In other words, it's not something they'd actually participate in instigating, but if it happens, it happens (in fact, most who support Israel do so in hopes of postponing such a conflict). Israel would like nothing better to be left alone but that's unlikely to happen so long as Muslims in surrounding lands follow their religion's dictates to fight against the Jews. Have you actually read what Muhammad had to say about Jews?
As far as Pamela Geller goes, yeah. She's a bit hyperbolic at times but she most certainly does not want a world war. I'd be interested to see if you can find a single statement to back up that allegation. She has never, ever, advocated any illegal violence that I know of (advocating US military action in, for example, striking Iran is a different story, but then again, in my view such an act would most likely prevent disaster, rather than cause it).
Yes. It does contain strong admonitions against taking action against innocent people. Absolutely I agree. On the other hand the definition of who is truly "innocent" is very, very, limited. For example, one who insults the prophet is not innocent. One who refuses to pay the Jizya is not innocent. Read Sura 9. Read what the Qur'an says about Jews (Muhammad himself murdered between 600 and 900 according the the hadith, even after they had surrendered. Read what it says about Women. Read any translation of 4:34 (go to quran.com). Read what the hadith say about Gays (kill the doer and the reciever). I'm sorry, but those who argue that Islam is peaceful are either misinformed, misleading, or outright lying.
Oh lol. Was it your muslim friend who told you that? He probably believes it considering how many in the west know so little about their own religion. Do yourself a favor and just read one chapter of the qur'an: Sura 9. Just read that one chapter. Try to explain to me how that, the last written chapter that abrogates all previous (the Qur'an is not chronological), doesn't contain an iron clad directive to conquer, subdue, and kill. Muhammad and his followers conquered a large portion of the middle east. Are you really trying to convince me he did that defensively?
Er. From what you know of Muhamammad, you dont' know much. Pick up a Qur'an. Muhammad was a warlord and good luck finding any commands to be peaceful in his holy book (that aren't abrogated).
But the movie was not intended to start a riot. The producers said a riot might happen as a result of the movie, but that was not the primary intent. Like I said. Because *anything* said about Islam might offend muslims in the middle east enough to riot, you might say that anything said about Islam could possibly pass your test of not being protected speech. Also, the supreme court ruled in Street v. New York that mere offensiveness does not qualify as fighting words. Also see Brandenburg v. Ohio to see exactly how far you can go without crossing the line. See also Snyder v. Phelps (yes, that Phelps). I'm glad the supreme court has the good sense not to take things as far as you would have them go.
We didn't install our own government after Gaddafi. They're still in a transitional period. I'm surprised you don't know this since you think yourself so well informed. It's likely, considering who started the revolution, that the Libyans will elect an Islamist government like the Egyptians and elsewhere. This is hardly to the US's benefit. We (and others) intervened because we knew which way the wind was blowing, that Gaddafi was going to lose, and throwing him under the bus might buy us some good will. Gaddafi was universally hated. (almost) Nobody was upset about him being overthrown. They hate us for entirely different reasons. As to your "shores of tripoli" allegation, I think Kreigaffe response was more than adequate.
If you make a movie that offended Christians, and Christians rioted over it and killed people, would you be to blame? Why then do you hold Muslims to a different standard. That is your bigotry but you're too blind to see it. You'd rather prosecute free speech than see the truth that is staring you straight in the face. Is Salman Rushdie to blame for his plight? Where do you draw the line? What exactly is "fighting words" in your mind? Any words that might offend Muslims? Does that include cartoons? Soon you've banned just about any speech that could possibly offend Muslims and killed any significant non-sharia compliant dialogue about Islam. Is that what you want? To sacrifice everything this country is built on to a bunch of religious lunatics? Fuck that, and if that's what you want, fuck you too!
You're right. We should just respect the religious fanatics and quietly do nothing as they expand. Would't want to hurt any feelings and cause the children to throw a tantrum. After all, Arabs aren't human enough to have any real self control. We should expect less of them than the rest of society. Who is the bigot here? You are. Your bigotry of low expectations. You should be standing up for free speech and demanding the same standards from everybody. Instead, you're making excuses for barbarism and blaming somebody who, for better or worse, was well within his constitutional rights to make the film he did.
You don't have to worry? Have you read the news recently. The producer of the film just had a "voluntary" interview with the feds. How much longer do you think before they'll find some excuse to arrest him to satisfy the lunatics in the middle east?
You are a liar. Sahih (authentic) Bukhari clearly states she was 9, as do other Sahih hadiths. I could care less what some muslim.org piece says any more than I would believe what scientology.org tells me about it's "religion". If you want the truth you have to go to the scriptures themselves and the scriptures CLEARLY say she was 9 years old.
The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).
Is that or is that not an accurate quote? Is Bukhari considered Sahih (authentic) or is it not? How can that passage possibly be interpreted in such a way where Muhammad does not rape a 9 year old? Is is not true that this passage is cited in many Muslim majority countries as the reason child marriages are permissible? Am I a bigot for pointing this out?
You should give it a second shot. The UPlay junk is annoying but once it's up and running it's not as much trouble as some would have you believe and the game itself is well worth it, as is "Brotherhood" while Revelations isn't nearly as good.
All you would really have to do is trick somebody into a video conference long enough to blink, record the call, and play it back on a tablet. You could also porbably fake the blink using photoshop and some other tools.
Slashdot Mirror
My point was even at that poor quality, said dirty old hippie, with his old age, probably couldn't tell the difference. I agree, though.
It really depends on the music and the compressor. Some music will compress almost losslessly at that bitrate (eg. techno). Music with a lot of randomness on the other hand (older nine inch nails, for example) you will hear some serious artifacts. Niel Young is an old goat and probably couldn't tell the difference. Besides. AAC at 128 is pretty good for almost everything and the 256 kbps AAC sold on iTunes is for all intents and purposes identical to the master as far as the listener is concerned. Anything else is snake oil.
24 bit is useful for mastering when you have to do repeated operations on the audio. Nobody can tell the difference in a true blind test. It's a placebo.
Doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. I'd like to sit his coked out ass down for a double blind test and see if he can tell the difference between 128kbps mp3 and 24bit 96khz uncompressed. I bet you he couldn't, and if he could, I guarantee he couldn't at 160kbps.
Of course it could simply be that (the vast majority of) new music does, in fact, suck. Once in a while i'll listen to something new that I like (which would seem to discount your theory), but most of the time it's crap. There is very little originality in music anymore. It's formulaic. There is no more real innovation (at least not done well). What you're saying also doesn't seem to explain why many younger listeners nowadays are listening to older music and agreeing it's better.
If you make a Genius appointment at your local apple store they will help you -- even without apple care.
On an Acer Aspire 5313. I've been dealing with it simply by doing as the summary suggests: switching to VT and restarting lighttdm. I'd be happy to help any way I can. The problem doesn't seem to happen every time it suspends, but it happens enough to be annoying. Mostly I just use that laptop for browsing the web so it's no big deal, but I can see it being a major issue if somebody was, for example, working on an important document and hadn't saved.
I see you can't support your libel against Pamela Geller, so yeah. We're done here.
Breivik was a fan of a lot of people. Just because he liked (some of) what Geller had to say does not mean she is guilty for her crimes. She never, ever, endorsed violence and was quick to condemn the massacre. But of course the same time you condemn her for something she did not command, you let Muhammad off the hook for something he did, as you do his followers. Pity the savage arabs you say, they simply don't know any better. Of course I don't actually expect you to read that link. It's from one of those Islamophobe sites after all. No point reading both sides of the argument when you've already made up your mind.
Please tell me where Pamela has ever fantasized about beheading muslims or killing them in moderate countries. Citations please! Outragious accusations require substantial proof. And Pamela has never claimed to be an academic. Even in the "anti-shariah" community, she isn't looked up to as a scholar -- more as a spokesperson. If you want scholarship, look to Robert Spencer, or better yet, read the Quran and Hadiths yourself. Of course you'll never, ever, do that since you've already made up your mind that Islam is peaceful, only Christianity is violent, and there is nothing more to be said.
You know. Personally. I have every single reason to hate Christianity and Christians. When I was younger, my parents sent me to a facility to try to "fix" my sexuality (needless to say it didn't work), and while that experience wasn't what they probably wanted for me, it nevertheless left me scarred. Christianity is homophobic, sexist, mysogynistic, in many ways intolerant, but it is not, I repeat it is not, violent. It does not endorse of promote violence. I am objective enough to say that in retrospect despite my experiences. You, on the other hand, are so stuck in your blind hate that you refuse to step back and examine the evidence objectively.
It doesn't matter whether the original sources are accurate or not (they probably aren't). Muslims who take their religion seriously believe they are, and that's all that matters. Did Muhammad personally behead 600-900 jews? Probably not, but that's what the sources say, and if you dare question them, that's blasphemy, and you get your head cut off for that.
The difference is the KKK had no Biblical basis. Have you actually read any of their literature such as "Might is Right"? You'll find nothing in the Bible against dark skinned people. Is the bible homophobic? Absolutely it is, but it doesn't say "kill the doer and the reciever" like Islam does. Yes, in the old Testament it says "shall be put to death" but Christians don't follow that old law (reason they don't keep kosher either), and Jews stopped doing that ages ago (the punishment of stoning was cancelled). What i'm getting at is that while individual Christians (just as Muslims) may or may not be violent, it's unfair to blame the religion itself unless the holy books call for such action. Are all Muslims violent? Of course not. But that doesn't take away from the fact that those who do follow Islam seriously are violent.
I'd like to see a source for that "cleansed of Muslims" allegation. Google yielded no results at all. Most Christians who dislike Islam or support Israel don't do so, as you allege, because they want a war. On the other hand, they do see such a war in the middle east as inevitable. In other words, it's not something they'd actually participate in instigating, but if it happens, it happens (in fact, most who support Israel do so in hopes of postponing such a conflict). Israel would like nothing better to be left alone but that's unlikely to happen so long as Muslims in surrounding lands follow their religion's dictates to fight against the Jews. Have you actually read what Muhammad had to say about Jews?
As far as Pamela Geller goes, yeah. She's a bit hyperbolic at times but she most certainly does not want a world war. I'd be interested to see if you can find a single statement to back up that allegation. She has never, ever, advocated any illegal violence that I know of (advocating US military action in, for example, striking Iran is a different story, but then again, in my view such an act would most likely prevent disaster, rather than cause it).
Yes. It does contain strong admonitions against taking action against innocent people. Absolutely I agree. On the other hand the definition of who is truly "innocent" is very, very, limited. For example, one who insults the prophet is not innocent. One who refuses to pay the Jizya is not innocent. Read Sura 9. Read what the Qur'an says about Jews (Muhammad himself murdered between 600 and 900 according the the hadith, even after they had surrendered. Read what it says about Women. Read any translation of 4:34 (go to quran.com). Read what the hadith say about Gays (kill the doer and the reciever). I'm sorry, but those who argue that Islam is peaceful are either misinformed, misleading, or outright lying.
Oh lol. Was it your muslim friend who told you that? He probably believes it considering how many in the west know so little about their own religion. Do yourself a favor and just read one chapter of the qur'an: Sura 9. Just read that one chapter. Try to explain to me how that, the last written chapter that abrogates all previous (the Qur'an is not chronological), doesn't contain an iron clad directive to conquer, subdue, and kill. Muhammad and his followers conquered a large portion of the middle east. Are you really trying to convince me he did that defensively?
Er. From what you know of Muhamammad, you dont' know much. Pick up a Qur'an. Muhammad was a warlord and good luck finding any commands to be peaceful in his holy book (that aren't abrogated).
But the movie was not intended to start a riot. The producers said a riot might happen as a result of the movie, but that was not the primary intent. Like I said. Because *anything* said about Islam might offend muslims in the middle east enough to riot, you might say that anything said about Islam could possibly pass your test of not being protected speech. Also, the supreme court ruled in Street v. New York that mere offensiveness does not qualify as fighting words. Also see Brandenburg v. Ohio to see exactly how far you can go without crossing the line. See also Snyder v. Phelps (yes, that Phelps). I'm glad the supreme court has the good sense not to take things as far as you would have them go.
We didn't install our own government after Gaddafi. They're still in a transitional period. I'm surprised you don't know this since you think yourself so well informed. It's likely, considering who started the revolution, that the Libyans will elect an Islamist government like the Egyptians and elsewhere. This is hardly to the US's benefit. We (and others) intervened because we knew which way the wind was blowing, that Gaddafi was going to lose, and throwing him under the bus might buy us some good will. Gaddafi was universally hated. (almost) Nobody was upset about him being overthrown. They hate us for entirely different reasons. As to your "shores of tripoli" allegation, I think Kreigaffe response was more than adequate.
If you make a movie that offended Christians, and Christians rioted over it and killed people, would you be to blame? Why then do you hold Muslims to a different standard. That is your bigotry but you're too blind to see it. You'd rather prosecute free speech than see the truth that is staring you straight in the face. Is Salman Rushdie to blame for his plight? Where do you draw the line? What exactly is "fighting words" in your mind? Any words that might offend Muslims? Does that include cartoons? Soon you've banned just about any speech that could possibly offend Muslims and killed any significant non-sharia compliant dialogue about Islam. Is that what you want? To sacrifice everything this country is built on to a bunch of religious lunatics? Fuck that, and if that's what you want, fuck you too!
You're right. We should just respect the religious fanatics and quietly do nothing as they expand. Would't want to hurt any feelings and cause the children to throw a tantrum. After all, Arabs aren't human enough to have any real self control. We should expect less of them than the rest of society. Who is the bigot here? You are. Your bigotry of low expectations. You should be standing up for free speech and demanding the same standards from everybody. Instead, you're making excuses for barbarism and blaming somebody who, for better or worse, was well within his constitutional rights to make the film he did.
You don't have to worry? Have you read the news recently. The producer of the film just had a "voluntary" interview with the feds. How much longer do you think before they'll find some excuse to arrest him to satisfy the lunatics in the middle east?
You are a liar. Sahih (authentic) Bukhari clearly states she was 9, as do other Sahih hadiths. I could care less what some muslim.org piece says any more than I would believe what scientology.org tells me about it's "religion". If you want the truth you have to go to the scriptures themselves and the scriptures CLEARLY say she was 9 years old.
LIAR. Sahih (authentic) Bukhari clearly states she was 9.
Is that or is that not an accurate quote? Is Bukhari considered Sahih (authentic) or is it not? How can that passage possibly be interpreted in such a way where Muhammad does not rape a 9 year old? Is is not true that this passage is cited in many Muslim majority countries as the reason child marriages are permissible? Am I a bigot for pointing this out?
You should give it a second shot. The UPlay junk is annoying but once it's up and running it's not as much trouble as some would have you believe and the game itself is well worth it, as is "Brotherhood" while Revelations isn't nearly as good.
All you would really have to do is trick somebody into a video conference long enough to blink, record the call, and play it back on a tablet. You could also porbably fake the blink using photoshop and some other tools.