WTF are you talking about? The US has no such law.
South Carolina, on the other hand, has a stamp law, and so do (very few) other states.
The stamps are a tax on an illegal item, and does not change the legality of the item. If you are caught with drugs without a stamp, you will be fined for the taxes you should have paid. Regardless of whether your drugs were stamped, you will be prosecuted for possessing illegal substances.
You do not have to "present" the drugs in order to purchase the stamps.
And they didn't make "like 5", they currently issue them.
A) If the camera were to be called "Niikon" then Nikon would sue to keep it from being sold in the USA or any other countries where Nikon does business.
B) If they copied the firmware from Nikon, then they have a copyright violation to sue over. Again, they can keep it from being sold in the US and other countries.
Additionally, since the file format has nothing whatever to do with copyright protection, the ability to work with it is not basis for a DMCA lawsuit.
The difficulties in transforming DC would have made transformers much larger and more would have been required. For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Currents.
So: I am not wrong, I have looked outside lately, and I do not think that pole transformers are counterweights, nor do I think that they are pigs.
Edison didn't believe that DC was safer, he knew the situation. In addition to being safer, AC doesn't require a transformer on every block for distribution like DC does. Edison knew that AC was better, but Edison didn't own the patent on it. The rivalry between Edison and Tesla was the real cause of this--Tesla invented and marketed AC, Edison patented a DC distribution system. Edison tried to shape public opinion because he knew that his sytem was both less safe and more expensive. Luckily his tactics didn't work.
If he had done the exact opposite, the press would not have covered the story and we wouldn't be having this discussion. You wouldn't have cared.
Except that you would probably be attacking him for being irrational etc. I am not defending him, I am having a discussion about a specific incident, and giving my opinion regarding it. The fact that you assume that I am a zealot leads me to believe that you are in fact such a zealot, and that you would attack Bush regardless of his actions.
Kerry keeps trying to steer things back to modern issues
In the last two weeks following the Republican convention, he has tried to talk about something else. I have listened to his speeche or read the transcripts. I have heard him continue to harp on his own service in the military.
Additionally, he can't say anything about the other items you mentioned.
Health Care. Kerry wants socialized medicine, which is what Canada and Cuba have. Notice that Canadians and Cubans come to America to get medical care, precisely because socialism does not breed advancements or better care. Ask an honest Canadian or Cuban.
Jobs. Following the so-called "dotcom bubble burst" many jobs were lost and many new jobs had lower salaries. Many investors lost their shirts, and don't want to risk their remaining money. The trend continued into Bush's term. After all that, New York City lost 3,000 workers, and many financial companies were shut down, lost their data and/or their employees. What is amazing is that the economy grew stronger this year than it has since the mid-eighties, and unemployment never went higher than it was even in 1995 and only starting raising following 9/11.
Our 1,000/1 young men to Saddam 'victory ratio'. This is misleading at best. Saddam and the government he controlled included thousands of people, and most of them are dead or caught. Catching Saddam was not at all the only or even the most importand task. In addition, how many of his own people did Saddam order killed?
A. Get the fuck to somewhere protective, since I am the fucking leader of the country and arguably the biggest target. And since he's arguably the biggest target, he doesn't run around making rash decisions about his own security. It is the job of the Secret Service to keep the President safe. If they had had a safer place to put him immediately, they would have put him there. It is not his job, and he would not be able to do it--he's not familiar with the area, didn't come weeks ahead of time to observe the area, determine routes, set up guard stations, safe houses, etc.
B. Figure out what planes have been hijacked, and where they are currently. Not only is that not the President's job, he doesn't have the means to do it. It is the job of the Federal Aviation Administration and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who would report to the President when they had it done. He knew, as most intelligent people do, that the FAA has procedures to handle these things, and he knew that they were doing their job.
First of all, regardless of whether flying the Saudi royal family out of the US was well justified, it was authorized by Richard Clark, not the President (as you already saw fit to ignore). THAT is why it is irrelevant when speaking about Bush.
As if the saudi's were the only group posible that should not fear a terrorist attack. They were the only group able to charter their own plane that were certainly not going to be used as a terrorist's target.
Again, you can attack the reasons for letting them leave the country all you want. Richard Clarke, without approval from the President, authorized their evacuation. If you don't want to believe me, do a simple Google search. For instance, Slate has an article where they mention that Clarke said it.
As to Bush's reaction in the school, he is being told where and when to go places by his staff. He is briefed by his Chief of Staff when the data comes in. He is protected by a team of Secret Service agents, who control where he is at all times. The President letting the children leave the room and then waiting was more than likely because he was told to wait. If there was really a threat to him, they would need time to secure the route to his waiting vehicles, probably a different route than originally intended. The Secret Service needed to secure the route to the airport so that they could get back safely. I don't think it's unreasonable that he would sit quietly and do his job while his staff does their job. That is what a good leader does. Ask anybody involved in business what they would prefer in their boss or the president of their company.
By reading other things into this, you are either being disingenuous or stupid. Looking at this incident, I see a chance that it did in fact take place as Moore tries to make it look--Bush not acting while others told him to do something, anything. And though there's a chance it's true, it still doesn't amount to a hill of beans. His actions in this one case don't necessarily reflect upon his character, whether his actions were good or bad. Everyone has experiences that are exceptions in their lives and in those cases one is apt to respond exceptionally.
To top it off, you are applying your own experiences to what is being done by a President, who obviously has his own mode of operation--signals that his Chief of Staff would give him when he needs to give him more information, the Secret Service telling him where to go and when, etc.
I tire of this. The fact is, this guy doesn't want to be President because it pays well. I'm sure he has an enormous burden in making decisions that affect the entire country, including his parents, his siblings, and even himself. Keep in mind, once he is no longer President, he will have to abide by the laws that he has approved. He will be subject to the same inconveniences as everyone else.
On 9/11/01, a coleague of mine walked into my office and said, "Come here, quick." We went to the break room, and watched the burning building on TV. A large crowd had gathered in the room. We all sat quietly and watched. I saw the second plane flying toward the scene, and I watched a ball of fire erupt. I remember thinking that there were might be hundreds or even thousands of people dying right at that moment. I hoped that they had already evacuated. I sat and watched quietly for more than an hour, as the second tower hit crumpled, followed by the first tower. Everyone in the room sat and watched quietly. There was nothing that we could do.
I don't think that the situation was any different for the President, except that he was in a room full of children who were waiting to listen to a story. I find his ability to remain composed quite heartening. I'm sure if the President had been Bill Clinton, you'd have felt the same.
The Presidential Daily Bulletin that you are referring to is absolutely irrelevant. It did not provide a specific threat, the general threat did not have a simple, cheap, or socially acceptable solution (people still complain about the difficulty from airport security, even after the attacks). You can Google for it, and out of five results, the first is my site.
The FDR reference, which I'm not sure I believe, refers to a specific threat to a specific place which is a military installation and was not placed on alert. If it is true, it is not good, but I wouldn't call it damning either--who in the hell could argue that our stepping in and defeating Hitler was a bad thing? And without us, Europe would have fallen.
Do you think flewing off the saudis, including family-members of bin laden, when all planes could not leave is just a BFD-class molehill too?
It is absolutely irrelevant. All flights in the US were grounded to keep new planes from being hijacked, and the family was not going to be targeted by terrorists, so letting their plane take off was not a security risk. The Bin Laden family is very large and are not hostile to the US in any way, Osama being the only exception. It is not unreasonable to get the family out of the country considering that they may be targeted as reparation for what their family member did. Additionally, if the family were even covertly hostile and had been involved in the attacks, they would have been out of country already, and would not have needed to get special permission to leave. And to top it off, RICHARD CLARK gave the order to allow the Bin Laden family to leave. Look it up.
...and trying to get more information and holding a staff meeting, or something.
What the hell good would that have done? It would have made no sense whatsoever to interrupt his storytelling with children simply because something had happened in New York. He was told the key points, and his staff were still gathering information. If he had stopped and called a staff meeting, those people would not be able to gather more information, as they would be in a MEETING. He did exactly what I would expect from a sane and intelligent person: he didn't alarm the children, he finished what he was doing, and he let his staff get on with the gathering of data. To expect otherwise is absolutely idiotic.
Bush was and is a complete idiot without any real character, that puts self-interest before anything else.
On the contrary, his actions in the school showed that Bush is not a complete idiot, and doesn't make hasty decisions based on incomplete information or call a meeting because "something is happening." He is confident in his staff to gather the data and his Chief of Staff to give him information at the pertinent time.
I have used FCP extensively and I have used other tools as well. FCP is quite pretty. Apple has not licked all of the issues with Firewire capture and playback, they certainly have not created in FCP a product which is stable (as in, doesn't crash).
I edited two hour-long TV shows using FCP, and I have edited my last three using Vegas Video on my home-built Windows machine. With a decent Firewire card, you can expect no more problems than an Apple machine.
However, Vegas has a number of, in my mind, essential features for the editor. Off the top of my head:
Audio waveform of each track displayed in the timeline, so that editing can be done based on audio.
Video frames shown in the timeline, so you can see the video as it sits in the timeline.
Ability to move video and audio tracks up and down and label them, creating groups of tracks.
Ability to resize height of each track, audio and video, individually. You can minimize tracks to a tiny line and restore them later when you want to work on that track.
With one click, single out a specific video or audio track.
With one click, mute a video or audio track.
Ability to apply filters to individual tracks, that act on top of event effects to blend video tracks.
Ability to import many more video, audio, and still graphic formats. They even recommend use of PNGs for still.
Integration with the audio waveform editor of your choice. I use CoolEdit, but you could use anything--select a section of an audio event, right click and choose Edit. It opens your audio editor. In FCP, export the file as a QuickTime movie (even though it's only audio) and use some editor to edit it.
I have found that FCP, while pretty, is simply not a great editor, but Apple lovers of course think otherwise. Before purchasing editing software (if you're into that kind of thing;) I would go to your local Public Access station and use their editing software, and see if you can try out other software as well.
But as mikehihz says, try them all out and pick the one that fits you best.
Not to toot the horn of my horn tooter, but I agree. Avid is by far the best tool for editing from what I've heard. I have not ever used it--I tried the Free version and had trouble getting it to work--maybe it was me;).
The point I did want to drive home, though, is that you shouldn't just go buy a G5 and Final Cut Pro. There are a few tools out there, and like anything else, different people have different needs when it comes to their tools. Perhaps FCP is the right fit, but I suggest a little trial first.
Although the bandwidth may be the same, the tape moves faster around the head, which results in better quality of data on the tape. Fewer errors, artifacts, etc. In addition, for some reason (probably marketing) nearly all MiniDV equipment records the audio "unlocked" from the video, so the two could go out of sync under certain conditions. DVCAM equipment locks the audio by default.
As far as broadcast, DVCAM is minimum quality needed to hand a tape in. Most stations use DigiBeta, however, which is supposedly far better in quality. I have not yet seen the results in dubbing from DV to DigiBeta, but I will soon.
Agreed. The XL1-S is far better. Having used both, and GL1s, I highly recommend the XL1-S.
The XL series in particular are very easy to hold, especially with the shoulder pad that has XLR plugs on it. The balance of the camera is superb. I suggest going to a store where you can pick them up and use them.
The 3CCD cameras all produce a good picture, HD is not necessary at this point in time. Also, audio quality may not be important, but you should look at your needs--perhaps you will always use an external mic, perhaps not. The XL and GL1 do not pick up too much motor noise, but the XL sounds far better than the GL.
The XL has interchangable lenses, such as a 3X zoom lens, and has focus and zoom rings, which makes it far easier and faster to control.
Take a look at:
Video quality (get a 3CCD)
Lens quality
Availability of different lenses and adapters
Audio quality in built-in mic
Ability to connect other audio inputs
Tape format! I highly recommend either DVcam (broadcast quality), or MiniDV (not quite, but still very good).
I don't recommend FCP, having used it. I highly recommend Vegas Video. There are a number of essential tools missing from both, but they are absolutely incompatable--FCP being from Apple, and Vegas only running on Windows.
If you find that Linux administrators ask you, "Why would you want to do that?" you may find that you are not doing things the optimal or correct way. There are fundamental differences between Windows and Linux, as there are fundamental differences between MacOS and Windows, OSX and Windows, or even Windows 9x and Windows NT/2000. Things are done differently on different platforms, and although you may be able to do something a certain way on one platform, there is more than likely a completely different, perhaps easier way to achieve the same result.
As to applying this to Mozilla or Firefox, there is no such parallel. There is very little different between the IE and Mozilla, except in back-end operation. I have been using Mozilla since 2000, and Firefox since right before the latest name change. Prior to that, I used IE 4/5/5.5/6. I have switched my parents, friends, clients, and business associates. Not a single problem, certainly nothing that required "recompliling code or editing script or something similarly arcane on the command line."
You might want to stop rolling your eyes, and take a look. These products may not have looked as good in the beginning, but no product does. Keep in mind that Microsoft and other proprietary products are not available for inspection until they have matured to some degree. The fact that these products work well before that stage and are therefore in use is actually quite amazing.
Since my firewall doesn't have a sound card and is in a cabinet in the attic, I'm thinking of another way to use the example given. Actually, it's pretty simple. Use syslogd to send the logs from your firewall to a different system, also running syslogd (I imagine BSD might also use the same protocol). Then use the script on that system. Since I would like the 'plink' to be in the living room, I'll need to set up a machine next to the stereo. Might as well put one there to play MP3s on anyway...
It's relavent becausethe grandparent post implied that there were more attacks in Iraq than at home It's NOT relevant at all, because the attack on the WTC was before the war in Iraq started. If the implication was that the war is attracting terrorists that would otherwise be attacking the US, then an attack that happened before the war is NOT relevant to the discussion.
they aren't necessarily terrorists either Their methods in Iraq are not necessarily terrorism, although there seems to be plenty of that as well. Just because they are picking up weapons doesn't mean they wouldn't otherwise be conducting terrorist attacks in the US.
THe sense I Get is from hearing interviews of Iraqi's on the street. Yes, those interviews came through the media and might have been edited. The general sense in those interviews, however, is that they're glad that Saddam is gone, but are still worried about security, joblessness, etc. Unexployment is significantly up. Which is exactly what one should expect in a warzone where the government is being replaced. Undoubtedly there were plenty of government jobs that ended when the government was overthrown. There things always happen--jobs are lost, jobs are created. Regardless, the people are far better off without Hussein in power.
there were some 37 deaths in the prisons. 9 are still under investigation. Others were ruled "justifiable homicide". According to the actual data I can find:
Of the 37 deaths, 32 occurred in Iraq and five in Afghanistan. Investigators have determined that 15 of the deaths resulted from natural causes. Eight more were justifiable homicides that occurred during four prison riots, two were homicides, and three died outside of prison. One homicide involved a soldier who shot a prisoner throwing rocks at him. The other involved a CIA officer interrogating a prisoner in Afghanistan.
Of the nine suspicious deaths under investigation, six were prisoners in Iraq -- including two at Abu Ghraib -- and three were prisoners in Afghanistan.
There are far worse track records in individuals prisons all over the world, notably China and even the US. There is no way this could be construed as a pattern.
I was told BEFORE the WAR that he had hard evidence of Itaq's attempt to buy uranium A simple google search will show you that there was no such statement made....of their mobile chemical faiclities, of their chemical storage bunkers... all of which have been proven FALSE. None of which have been proven false. These are things which were stated by defected Iraqi scientists or were found by UN inspectors. Keep in mind that it is well known that Iraq had a number of items, and that is why Hussein was ordered to account for the weapons that he had or had destroyed. If Hussein really did destroy them, he could have simply done this. He probably sold or gave them to another state or organization, otherwise, why would he refuse to provide this list?
More people died in 9/11 than all the soldiers killed in the Iraq war to date. How in the hell is that relevant to a discussion of whether the war is justified?
those are "insurgents" who may believe they're liberating their country instead of terrorists How interesting. The media has continually been repeating the word 'insurgent' when there have been plenty of individuals captured who are from Iran, Libya, etc., countries that don't want the US to win. These are not insurgents.
the sense I get is that Iraq is less stable now than it was under its former dictator Your 'sense' is based on watching the mainstream media, which wants you to think that that is the case. There are very few problems in Iraq compared to the areas that are doing well. According to those I've spoken to who were ON THE GROUND in Iraq, the country is doing great, except for the small handful of areas where there are fighters.
And, apparently, you still have about the same chance of getting tortured in prison! Being humiliated by a woman looking at your genitals and being forced to wear panties on your head is not even remotely the same as the torture, maiming, and killing that was going on in this prison before US occupation. Give me a break!
we will attack a country that doesn't have WMDs Iraq had WMDs. There is no question of this ANYWHERE. Hussein USED THEM. We went in to locate them because the UN told Hussein to provide a list of what he had, and what had been done with what he was missing. In addition, WMDs are being found in Iraq. Google for "serin gas found iraq" for instance.
Did anyone mention the missing weapons of mass destruction?
You just did. Where are the missing WMDs? WE ALL KNOW THEY HAD THEM. They gassed the Kurds with them. We have some of their scientists that were working on them. The two years of delay caused by fuckheads like you are the reason we aren't FINDING any. THEY ARE SOMEWHERE.
Slashdot Mirror
We have changed the name of the planet Uranus to prevent jokes such as the preceding. Its new name is Eurectum.
the caller always has the option of telling the 911 dispatcher where they are
Except that the VOIP provider has to switch the 911 call to the correct 911 center before the operator even rings.
WTF are you talking about? The US has no such law.
South Carolina, on the other hand, has a stamp law, and so do (very few) other states.
The stamps are a tax on an illegal item, and does not change the legality of the item. If you are caught with drugs without a stamp, you will be fined for the taxes you should have paid. Regardless of whether your drugs were stamped, you will be prosecuted for possessing illegal substances.
You do not have to "present" the drugs in order to purchase the stamps.
And they didn't make "like 5", they currently issue them.
A) If the camera were to be called "Niikon" then Nikon would sue to keep it from being sold in the USA or any other countries where Nikon does business.
B) If they copied the firmware from Nikon, then they have a copyright violation to sue over. Again, they can keep it from being sold in the US and other countries.
Additionally, since the file format has nothing whatever to do with copyright protection, the ability to work with it is not basis for a DMCA lawsuit.
REAL hackers can whistle into a 56Kbaud modem and make JPEG porn come up on the screen, embedded in an HTML page. Frontpage.
The difficulties in transforming DC would have made transformers much larger and more would have been required. For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_Currents.
So: I am not wrong, I have looked outside lately, and I do not think that pole transformers are counterweights, nor do I think that they are pigs.
Edison didn't believe that DC was safer, he knew the situation. In addition to being safer, AC doesn't require a transformer on every block for distribution like DC does. Edison knew that AC was better, but Edison didn't own the patent on it. The rivalry between Edison and Tesla was the real cause of this--Tesla invented and marketed AC, Edison patented a DC distribution system. Edison tried to shape public opinion because he knew that his sytem was both less safe and more expensive. Luckily his tactics didn't work.
If he had done the exact opposite, the press would not have covered the story and we wouldn't be having this discussion. You wouldn't have cared.
Except that you would probably be attacking him for being irrational etc. I am not defending him, I am having a discussion about a specific incident, and giving my opinion regarding it. The fact that you assume that I am a zealot leads me to believe that you are in fact such a zealot, and that you would attack Bush regardless of his actions.
In the last two weeks following the Republican convention, he has tried to talk about something else. I have listened to his speeche or read the transcripts. I have heard him continue to harp on his own service in the military.
Additionally, he can't say anything about the other items you mentioned.
A. Get the fuck to somewhere protective, since I am the fucking leader of the country and arguably the biggest target.
And since he's arguably the biggest target, he doesn't run around making rash decisions about his own security. It is the job of the Secret Service to keep the President safe. If they had had a safer place to put him immediately, they would have put him there. It is not his job, and he would not be able to do it--he's not familiar with the area, didn't come weeks ahead of time to observe the area, determine routes, set up guard stations, safe houses, etc.
B. Figure out what planes have been hijacked, and where they are currently.
Not only is that not the President's job, he doesn't have the means to do it. It is the job of the Federal Aviation Administration and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who would report to the President when they had it done. He knew, as most intelligent people do, that the FAA has procedures to handle these things, and he knew that they were doing their job.
First of all, regardless of whether flying the Saudi royal family out of the US was well justified, it was authorized by Richard Clark, not the President (as you already saw fit to ignore). THAT is why it is irrelevant when speaking about Bush.
As if the saudi's were the only group posible that should not fear a terrorist attack.
They were the only group able to charter their own plane that were certainly not going to be used as a terrorist's target.
Again, you can attack the reasons for letting them leave the country all you want. Richard Clarke, without approval from the President, authorized their evacuation. If you don't want to believe me, do a simple Google search. For instance, Slate has an article where they mention that Clarke said it.
As to Bush's reaction in the school, he is being told where and when to go places by his staff. He is briefed by his Chief of Staff when the data comes in. He is protected by a team of Secret Service agents, who control where he is at all times. The President letting the children leave the room and then waiting was more than likely because he was told to wait. If there was really a threat to him, they would need time to secure the route to his waiting vehicles, probably a different route than originally intended. The Secret Service needed to secure the route to the airport so that they could get back safely. I don't think it's unreasonable that he would sit quietly and do his job while his staff does their job. That is what a good leader does. Ask anybody involved in business what they would prefer in their boss or the president of their company.
By reading other things into this, you are either being disingenuous or stupid. Looking at this incident, I see a chance that it did in fact take place as Moore tries to make it look--Bush not acting while others told him to do something, anything. And though there's a chance it's true, it still doesn't amount to a hill of beans. His actions in this one case don't necessarily reflect upon his character, whether his actions were good or bad. Everyone has experiences that are exceptions in their lives and in those cases one is apt to respond exceptionally.
To top it off, you are applying your own experiences to what is being done by a President, who obviously has his own mode of operation--signals that his Chief of Staff would give him when he needs to give him more information, the Secret Service telling him where to go and when, etc.
I tire of this. The fact is, this guy doesn't want to be President because it pays well. I'm sure he has an enormous burden in making decisions that affect the entire country, including his parents, his siblings, and even himself. Keep in mind, once he is no longer President, he will have to abide by the laws that he has approved. He will be subject to the same inconveniences as everyone else.
On 9/11/01, a coleague of mine walked into my office and said, "Come here, quick." We went to the break room, and watched the burning building on TV. A large crowd had gathered in the room. We all sat quietly and watched. I saw the second plane flying toward the scene, and I watched a ball of fire erupt. I remember thinking that there were might be hundreds or even thousands of people dying right at that moment. I hoped that they had already evacuated. I sat and watched quietly for more than an hour, as the second tower hit crumpled, followed by the first tower. Everyone in the room sat and watched quietly. There was nothing that we could do.
I don't think that the situation was any different for the President, except that he was in a room full of children who were waiting to listen to a story. I find his ability to remain composed quite heartening. I'm sure if the President had been Bill Clinton, you'd have felt the same.
The Presidential Daily Bulletin that you are referring to is absolutely irrelevant. It did not provide a specific threat, the general threat did not have a simple, cheap, or socially acceptable solution (people still complain about the difficulty from airport security, even after the attacks). You can Google for it, and out of five results, the first is my site.
The FDR reference, which I'm not sure I believe, refers to a specific threat to a specific place which is a military installation and was not placed on alert. If it is true, it is not good, but I wouldn't call it damning either--who in the hell could argue that our stepping in and defeating Hitler was a bad thing? And without us, Europe would have fallen.
Do you think flewing off the saudis, including family-members of bin laden, when all planes could not leave is just a BFD-class molehill too?
It is absolutely irrelevant. All flights in the US were grounded to keep new planes from being hijacked, and the family was not going to be targeted by terrorists, so letting their plane take off was not a security risk. The Bin Laden family is very large and are not hostile to the US in any way, Osama being the only exception. It is not unreasonable to get the family out of the country considering that they may be targeted as reparation for what their family member did. Additionally, if the family were even covertly hostile and had been involved in the attacks, they would have been out of country already, and would not have needed to get special permission to leave. And to top it off, RICHARD CLARK gave the order to allow the Bin Laden family to leave. Look it up.
What the hell good would that have done? It would have made no sense whatsoever to interrupt his storytelling with children simply because something had happened in New York. He was told the key points, and his staff were still gathering information. If he had stopped and called a staff meeting, those people would not be able to gather more information, as they would be in a MEETING. He did exactly what I would expect from a sane and intelligent person: he didn't alarm the children, he finished what he was doing, and he let his staff get on with the gathering of data. To expect otherwise is absolutely idiotic.
Bush was and is a complete idiot without any real character, that puts self-interest before anything else.
On the contrary, his actions in the school showed that Bush is not a complete idiot, and doesn't make hasty decisions based on incomplete information or call a meeting because "something is happening." He is confident in his staff to gather the data and his Chief of Staff to give him information at the pertinent time.
"Apple has creativity in it's DNA"
Gimme a break.
I have used FCP extensively and I have used other tools as well. FCP is quite pretty. Apple has not licked all of the issues with Firewire capture and playback, they certainly have not created in FCP a product which is stable (as in, doesn't crash).
I edited two hour-long TV shows using FCP, and I have edited my last three using Vegas Video on my home-built Windows machine. With a decent Firewire card, you can expect no more problems than an Apple machine.
However, Vegas has a number of, in my mind, essential features for the editor. Off the top of my head:
I have found that FCP, while pretty, is simply not a great editor, but Apple lovers of course think otherwise. Before purchasing editing software (if you're into that kind of thing ;) I would go to your local Public Access station and use their editing software, and see if you can try out other software as well.
But as mikehihz says, try them all out and pick the one that fits you best.
Not to toot the horn of my horn tooter, but I agree. Avid is by far the best tool for editing from what I've heard. I have not ever used it--I tried the Free version and had trouble getting it to work--maybe it was me ;).
The point I did want to drive home, though, is that you shouldn't just go buy a G5 and Final Cut Pro. There are a few tools out there, and like anything else, different people have different needs when it comes to their tools. Perhaps FCP is the right fit, but I suggest a little trial first.
Although the bandwidth may be the same, the tape moves faster around the head, which results in better quality of data on the tape. Fewer errors, artifacts, etc. In addition, for some reason (probably marketing) nearly all MiniDV equipment records the audio "unlocked" from the video, so the two could go out of sync under certain conditions. DVCAM equipment locks the audio by default.
As far as broadcast, DVCAM is minimum quality needed to hand a tape in. Most stations use DigiBeta, however, which is supposedly far better in quality. I have not yet seen the results in dubbing from DV to DigiBeta, but I will soon.
"the Canon its either all auto, or all manual. If you want manual white balance you got manual everything else, at least as far as i have found..."
Uh, no. White balance, focus, framerate, iris, etc can each be set to manual or automatic. This is true on the GL1, XL1, and XL1-S.
Agreed. The XL1-S is far better. Having used both, and GL1s, I highly recommend the XL1-S.
The XL series in particular are very easy to hold, especially with the shoulder pad that has XLR plugs on it. The balance of the camera is superb. I suggest going to a store where you can pick them up and use them.
The 3CCD cameras all produce a good picture, HD is not necessary at this point in time. Also, audio quality may not be important, but you should look at your needs--perhaps you will always use an external mic, perhaps not. The XL and GL1 do not pick up too much motor noise, but the XL sounds far better than the GL.
The XL has interchangable lenses, such as a 3X zoom lens, and has focus and zoom rings, which makes it far easier and faster to control.
Take a look at:
I don't recommend FCP, having used it. I highly recommend Vegas Video. There are a number of essential tools missing from both, but they are absolutely incompatable--FCP being from Apple, and Vegas only running on Windows.
If you find that Linux administrators ask you, "Why would you want to do that?" you may find that you are not doing things the optimal or correct way. There are fundamental differences between Windows and Linux, as there are fundamental differences between MacOS and Windows, OSX and Windows, or even Windows 9x and Windows NT/2000. Things are done differently on different platforms, and although you may be able to do something a certain way on one platform, there is more than likely a completely different, perhaps easier way to achieve the same result.
As to applying this to Mozilla or Firefox, there is no such parallel. There is very little different between the IE and Mozilla, except in back-end operation. I have been using Mozilla since 2000, and Firefox since right before the latest name change. Prior to that, I used IE 4/5/5.5/6. I have switched my parents, friends, clients, and business associates. Not a single problem, certainly nothing that required "recompliling code or editing script or something similarly arcane on the command line."
You might want to stop rolling your eyes, and take a look. These products may not have looked as good in the beginning, but no product does. Keep in mind that Microsoft and other proprietary products are not available for inspection until they have matured to some degree. The fact that these products work well before that stage and are therefore in use is actually quite amazing.
Since my firewall doesn't have a sound card and is in a cabinet in the attic, I'm thinking of another way to use the example given. Actually, it's pretty simple. Use syslogd to send the logs from your firewall to a different system, also running syslogd (I imagine BSD might also use the same protocol). Then use the script on that system. Since I would like the 'plink' to be in the living room, I'll need to set up a machine next to the stereo. Might as well put one there to play MP3s on anyway...
It's NOT relevant at all, because the attack on the WTC was before the war in Iraq started. If the implication was that the war is attracting terrorists that would otherwise be attacking the US, then an attack that happened before the war is NOT relevant to the discussion.
they aren't necessarily terrorists either
Their methods in Iraq are not necessarily terrorism, although there seems to be plenty of that as well. Just because they are picking up weapons doesn't mean they wouldn't otherwise be conducting terrorist attacks in the US.
THe sense I Get is from hearing interviews of Iraqi's on the street. Yes, those interviews came through the media and might have been edited. The general sense in those interviews, however, is that they're glad that Saddam is gone, but are still worried about security, joblessness, etc. Unexployment is significantly up.
Which is exactly what one should expect in a warzone where the government is being replaced. Undoubtedly there were plenty of government jobs that ended when the government was overthrown. There things always happen--jobs are lost, jobs are created. Regardless, the people are far better off without Hussein in power.
there were some 37 deaths in the prisons. 9 are still under investigation. Others were ruled "justifiable homicide".
According to the actual data I can find:
There are far worse track records in individuals prisons all over the world, notably China and even the US. There is no way this could be construed as a pattern.
I was told BEFORE the WAR that he had hard evidence of Itaq's attempt to buy uranium
A simple google search will show you that there was no such statement made.
None of which have been proven false. These are things which were stated by defected Iraqi scientists or were found by UN inspectors. Keep in mind that it is well known that Iraq had a number of items, and that is why Hussein was ordered to account for the weapons that he had or had destroyed. If Hussein really did destroy them, he could have simply done this. He probably sold or gave them to another state or organization, otherwise, why would he refuse to provide this list?
More people died in 9/11 than all the soldiers killed in the Iraq war to date.
How in the hell is that relevant to a discussion of whether the war is justified?
those are "insurgents" who may believe they're liberating their country instead of terrorists
How interesting. The media has continually been repeating the word 'insurgent' when there have been plenty of individuals captured who are from Iran, Libya, etc., countries that don't want the US to win. These are not insurgents.
the sense I get is that Iraq is less stable now than it was under its former dictator
Your 'sense' is based on watching the mainstream media, which wants you to think that that is the case. There are very few problems in Iraq compared to the areas that are doing well. According to those I've spoken to who were ON THE GROUND in Iraq, the country is doing great, except for the small handful of areas where there are fighters.
And, apparently, you still have about the same chance of getting tortured in prison!
Being humiliated by a woman looking at your genitals and being forced to wear panties on your head is not even remotely the same as the torture, maiming, and killing that was going on in this prison before US occupation. Give me a break!
we will attack a country that doesn't have WMDs
Iraq had WMDs. There is no question of this ANYWHERE. Hussein USED THEM. We went in to locate them because the UN told Hussein to provide a list of what he had, and what had been done with what he was missing. In addition, WMDs are being found in Iraq. Google for "serin gas found iraq" for instance.
EEEEWWWW! I'll take the crab juice!
Godamn, I love obscure Simpsons references!
Did anyone mention the missing weapons of mass destruction?
You just did. Where are the missing WMDs? WE ALL KNOW THEY HAD THEM. They gassed the Kurds with them. We have some of their scientists that were working on them. The two years of delay caused by fuckheads like you are the reason we aren't FINDING any. THEY ARE SOMEWHERE.
Better yet, they probably just filled the whole can with lead!
Seriously, why in hell would they encase the antennae in lead? What good would they be encased in lead?