Most racists are too gutless to actually back up their threats. Instead, they would just rather the police lock them away, or have them live as an underclass. It's not really the hardcore, overt racists who are the real problem - they are obvious enough to ignore. It's the people who don't think they are racist "...but" who are the cancer on society.
If politicians really cared about solving the problem, they'd take a look at how christian missionaries operate, for example. Not that I'm advocating missionary work, but you can't deny that they're successful - don't tell people that they're all a bunch of subhuman heathens, but rather set a good example;
I don't think you have much idea of how Christian missions work. Most of them do not set good examples (quite the opposite) but instead focus on telling the indigenous that they are subhuman, and forcing them into virtual or outright slavery. One only needs to look at Christian missions in Australia and South America to see that. Are you unaware of the missionaries running cartels of slave labor in South America, or the "Stolen generation" of Australian Aborigines?
What's loony about the Greens? They have the most credible social and economic policies for the mid to long term, and Bob Brown is probably the only really honest politician on earth. How can anyone not admire Bob Brown? He's a pillar of integrity and sanity, amidst a sea of crackpot, corrupt bastards.
Completely irrelevant. Not only are the Greens in Australia a much more credible party with more representation, Australia has a proportional representation system that gives minor parties a much more significant voice and funding. It's not a completely two-party system like the US.
Is there any way we can make people who need to watch/listen to media whenever they travel extinct? Ever hear of a thing called books? Or just looking out the window, or having a conversation with your travel companions?
Apart from the fact that you seem to know little about socialism:
The core ideal is the use of governmental power to punish and reward behviour.
if this is true, then logically, wouldn't the Republicans be the most "socialist" party in the US. They love government control of behavior - like banning gay marriage, punishing environmentalists, rewarding corporate behavior, restricting freedom, promoting religion, spying on citizens, etc.
OK, you have informed me here. I didn't mention ATRAC3. Didn't know about it, because when we were actually using MiniDisc, it didn't have ATRAC3. It's kind of irrelevannt, because most MiniDisc players in use don't have it. Nobody serious is going to invest in new Minidisc players. Who wants to screw around with using Sony's software, or transferring by recording the audio output (the only option for non-Windows users)?
I think you missed all the people who appreciate all the risk and hassles that laptops present in field recording, need something more portable, don't think that the tradeoff of >2 tracks for computer problems and heaps complex software is worth it,
While I agree with you on portability and bulk - I don't understand what your issues with "computer problems" or "heaps complex software." With the 12" iBooks and Powerbooks I use for this kind of stuff - I never have "computer problems" and the software is extremely easy to use - much more convenient than something like a MiniDisc's crippled interface. So, I get better performance, with less headaches and problems than the MiniDisc. The size is the only problem, but they aren't that big, smaller than most musical instruments. I carry a laptop with me everywhere, anyway - so it doesn't actually add any bulk for me.
What are the "hassles" of using laptops that you refer to?
Most of the later minidiscs support PCM lossless encoding.
The capacity must be pretty small on those discs, though. But later models are fairly irrelevant, as most people have the older ones. Who in their right mind buys recent-model MiniDisc players?
OTOH Atrac sounds *way* better than MP3 to my ears.
But why are you only comparing to MP3, when there are many other formats available on other players? Anyway, I guess Sony must have made some big changes to ATRAC for recent models, because the version of ATRAC when MiniDiscs were actually being purchased and used - was bloody awful, and there's tons of data to back that up. I know, I had to use MiniDiscs at a radio station.
I've never got over the fact that the ipod sounds so dead. Possibly it's just apple can't make amplifiers for shit.. dunno..
That's a hard claim to buy, when most people who have done technical and blind listening tests give very high marks to the iPod amplifiers. Maybe you were listening with different headphones, different music/encoding/whatever.
From your response, you must have misread my reply about multiple CODECs. No, you do not need an external accessory for multiple CODECs - those are supported out of the box. FM and recording are rather niche applications, so it makes sense not charge everybody for them (or increase the bulk of the unit) if 90% of customers don't use them - while allowing those who want them to add them.
But why would you lie about the iPod not supporting multiple CODECs? Or are you just ignorant of that?
I don't go around bashing other people's players with misinformation. I'm glad you enjoy your player, and in fact, I am considering buying an iRiver for the portable recording functionality. But what's up with this need to bash others - and not even get your facts straight?
The moderation I'm getting on the posts are pretty interesting... it really shows how people mod according to their agenda instead of to what contributes to the discussion.
Indeed. My grandparent post is -1 "Troll" rated, when there is nothing even slightly trollish about it.
Because you prefer making claims that aren't really supported in order to promote the ipod.
What the heck? Not really supported? I'm talking absolute fact. What did I write that wasn't true? Meanwhile, you says things like "only applies to iPods" - so, does EVERY SINGLE other MP3 player support recording, FM tuner, etc? I don't think so. You also made non-specific claims, and then threw a hissy-fit about "mindless fanboys" when asked to clarify. I see a lot more mindless ganging up against the iPod and spurious claims than iPod fanboyism. I have my own criticisms of the iPod. But the discussion is worthless if the criticisms are not accurate and meaningful. We are never going to get to meaningful criticism if you just keep spouting nonsense about fanboys, and making personal attacks.
In your world I could tape my ipod to the hood of my car - then you'd have the feature of iPods being able to be used as vehicles!
What the heck? That doesn't make any sense. How did you get that out of my post?
You appear to just want to bash the iPod, and not discuss the article's topic. For example - the article never mentioned FM tuners, but you bring it in, even though it is irrelevant to the article's criticism.
And the iPod does have built-in recording support - you just need an accessory to add the audio inputs. What's so invalid about my response? Are you at all interested in fact?
All of us think that the MDs sound much better, possibly it's the hardware. ATRAC might be horrible but MD players sound good, way better than my ipod, even using high bitrate mp4s
Have you tried the HD players with lossless CODECs, and the same headphones, same volume and music, in a blind test? otherwise, how can you say that it's the hardware?
That last comparison doesn't seem fair at all since ATRAC isn't lossless. NO lossy compression format will reach to the level of a lossless format.
How is that not fair? What lossless format does the MiniDisc support? The whole point is in your second sentence. Many HD-based players support lossless, while the Minidisc does not. Therefore, the Minidisc can never reach the quality level of players that support lossless.
I've been a user of MD for many years and I can say that the whole suggestion that ATRAC is a lesser codec than MP3 is just a myth.
Sorry, I trust rigourous blind testing by a large sample group, and technical analysis, over random anecdotes from you and your friends.
Actually when I eventually moved over to an MP3-player the lesser sound quality of 192kbit MP3 compared to LP ATRAC was one of the most significant problems I had with it.
So, use a lossless CODEC. Can't do that on a MiniDisc.
ATRAC dates back from the time when MP3 was completely unknown and WAY before you could connect any kind of music player to your computer.
No, it was desiged to replace CD and DAT, and it does an inferior job compared to what was available at the time. MP3 is for music playback alone - but the Minidisc was touted as a recorder as well. It was inferior to recorders of the era.
Also, it is not true you could not connect music players to your computer. We had Pro Tools and professional recording systems, and CD burners back then. We had CD players in our computers.
Multiple codecs. Voice recording. FM radio/tuner.Without an external perpherial that does it.
The iPod does support multiple CODECs. You never mentioned "without external peripherals" in your post, so it was still inaccurate. The iPod does record with an accessory. Also, you never mentioned FM radio, and neither did the article. Minidiscs don't come with FM, so I don't see how this is relevant. There's no need to have it built-in, when you can get FM tuners on the headphone cord for a few bucks. It would just waste space in the iPod and clutter the interface.
iPods come with voice recording straight out of the box? Wow.
Again, you never mentioned this in your post. Am I supposed to read your mind? Having it external has advantages of flexibility - such as different types of input jack.
Wow? Last time I touched an ipod you couldn't play music on it that wasn't synced via iTunes. I guess now you can use an ipod like a hard drive and just throw your music on it so it can play!
No, you can sync your iPod with other applications. neither you nor the article mentioned just "throwing songs on from the hard drive" that's different than syncing.
And you appear to be a mindless fanboy.
Why? Because I prefer accuracy, instead of vague and meaningless claims? You sound very defensive and uptight.
I want to enjoy the show, while I'm there; knowing you have to be really quiet with a recording device is bad enough without having to hold it in front of you for the entire show.
Huh? Why do you have to hold it in front of you? Just put in in your jacket or bag, and plug a microphone into it.
Although it remains a great mystery to me why no-one seems to make a simple hard-disk recorder that is inexpensive and records quality uncompressed audio. For some reason, portable audio recording has been neglected. Sure, there are high-end systems, and MP3 players that record (but lack options and quality input jacks), but nothing in-between.
Why the obsession with two physically separate batteries? A single battery with twice the capacity (and low-power cutoff circuitry) gives the same functionality in less space, at a lower cost and complexity.
The big pro is that ATRAC just sounds better than MP3.
In actual blind listening tests, and technical tests, ATRAC is actually rated as one of the worst compression schemes. But most MP3 players don't only support MP3. The iPod, for example, supports AAC, MP3, WAV, Apple Lossless, etc. Even AAC is going to be better than MP3 or ATRAC - and there's no way that either can beat WAV or Apple Lossless. The Minidisc really restricts your options. Nobody said you have to play MP3 on your MP3 player. But Sony says you must use ATRAC.
Digital Video cameras can record audio pretty well (up to 48kHz for most units) - and you get video recording and viewing options as well. probably not worth it if you just want audio, but most people want video cameras as well. File transfer is easy with Firewire.
I cannot concieve of a situation where you would need 30 minidiscs. You'd have maybe 5 and fill them as your mood dictated.
Which is much easier on an MP3 player. Instead of filling 5 separate discs, you just set up your software to autmoatically change the contents of the HDD or Flash memory as your mood dictates. Essentially, unless you are on a desert island and don't ever go near a computer, an MP3 player has "limitless" capacity - and it is much easier to manage.
that it describes already exist in other models/brands of mp3 players (I've used my iRiver for recording and storage - which it gets read as an external hard drive, thus avoiding the issues the article has)... but don't exist in the ipod.
What features are you talking about that don't exist on an iPod? You can record on an iPod, and the iPods are really quite rugged - and there are thousands of different protective cases available. the iPod is also not tied to iTunes. The article was uninformed about the iPod, and you appear to be perpetuating these misconceptions.
Have you seen a 3D action movie recently? There is a lot of cutting going on there. No one was jarred by it. No one was overwhelmed.
I highly doubt that. How do you know that no-one found it unpleasant?
So far all your posts have done is hurl around 'facts' and situations that you claim make this an unworkable technology.
You are putting words in my mouth. I never said it was unworkable. I like 3D technology, but I can recognize that it is not ready for the mainstream, especially with things like sports. At the moment, it is a novelty - and IMAX proves that. Mainstream movies do not use it, and most consumers have no desire to use it at home. We are still, culturally, dealing with the implications of the insights of Dada, Picasso and Marshall McLuhan. Filmmakers who use this technology have not yet worked out how to use it compellingly, outside of a few niche areas like documentary or scientific visualization.
Perhaps you are very skilled and have spent a good long time in the industry. I dont really care. If you cant provide something to back your argument up (and burden of proof is definately on you for making the claims in the first place.)
I'm not the one who made the claims. It is the article that made the claims that this would be the new wave in theaters and sports. People have been saying that kind of thing for over 50 years. As for the evidence, it isn't cut and dried like that. We are talking about art and entertainment, which are subjective areas. Not the kind of thing you can reduce to numbers. It's more the realm of philosophy, entertainers and artists.
'Michael Lewis, chairman of privately held REAL D, which created 3D prints for the Disney's "Chicken Little," said 3D technology has tested successfully on National Football League games'
Right - like you'd believe the PR words of a Disney executive with something to sell. not to mention that "audience testing" is notoriously unreliable. It has led to movies like Bladerunner and Brazil being watered down based on stupid tests. Art does not work by seeking the lowest common denominator. they are also very short sessions, not extended viewing. Many people have been excited over the promises of new technology, but have blaked when it actually comes to adopting it.
3D and holography has great promise, but at the moment it remains at about the level of "Smell-O-Rama" when it comes to pratical mainstream application, outside of videogames or scientific visualization. the biggest success of 3D graphics has been in 2D composites in feature films. The reason this was a success was that it allowed complex virtual sets and objects to be constructed without the physical space or equipment of traditional sets and effects, saving money and fitting with the existing model. The kind of thing discussed by the article is a LOT of extra work and expense, for almost no perceived viewer benefit. How many people say "that film was OK, but it would be awesome if it were in 3D"? Almost nobody.
As for the studios and engineers, the amount of extra bandwidth and complexity to do this properly is staggering. You aren't just going to replace existing TV cameras with 3D cameras and have 3D sports.
Slashdot Mirror
Most racists are too gutless to actually back up their threats. Instead, they would just rather the police lock them away, or have them live as an underclass. It's not really the hardcore, overt racists who are the real problem - they are obvious enough to ignore. It's the people who don't think they are racist "...but" who are the cancer on society.
I don't think you have much idea of how Christian missions work. Most of them do not set good examples (quite the opposite) but instead focus on telling the indigenous that they are subhuman, and forcing them into virtual or outright slavery. One only needs to look at Christian missions in Australia and South America to see that. Are you unaware of the missionaries running cartels of slave labor in South America, or the "Stolen generation" of Australian Aborigines?
What's loony about the Greens? They have the most credible social and economic policies for the mid to long term, and Bob Brown is probably the only really honest politician on earth. How can anyone not admire Bob Brown? He's a pillar of integrity and sanity, amidst a sea of crackpot, corrupt bastards.
Completely irrelevant. Not only are the Greens in Australia a much more credible party with more representation, Australia has a proportional representation system that gives minor parties a much more significant voice and funding. It's not a completely two-party system like the US.
Is there any way we can make people who need to watch/listen to media whenever they travel extinct? Ever hear of a thing called books? Or just looking out the window, or having a conversation with your travel companions?
The core ideal is the use of governmental power to punish and reward behviour.
if this is true, then logically, wouldn't the Republicans be the most "socialist" party in the US. They love government control of behavior - like banning gay marriage, punishing environmentalists, rewarding corporate behavior, restricting freedom, promoting religion, spying on citizens, etc.
OK, you have informed me here. I didn't mention ATRAC3. Didn't know about it, because when we were actually using MiniDisc, it didn't have ATRAC3. It's kind of irrelevannt, because most MiniDisc players in use don't have it. Nobody serious is going to invest in new Minidisc players. Who wants to screw around with using Sony's software, or transferring by recording the audio output (the only option for non-Windows users)?
While I agree with you on portability and bulk - I don't understand what your issues with "computer problems" or "heaps complex software." With the 12" iBooks and Powerbooks I use for this kind of stuff - I never have "computer problems" and the software is extremely easy to use - much more convenient than something like a MiniDisc's crippled interface. So, I get better performance, with less headaches and problems than the MiniDisc. The size is the only problem, but they aren't that big, smaller than most musical instruments. I carry a laptop with me everywhere, anyway - so it doesn't actually add any bulk for me.
What are the "hassles" of using laptops that you refer to?
The capacity must be pretty small on those discs, though. But later models are fairly irrelevant, as most people have the older ones. Who in their right mind buys recent-model MiniDisc players?
OTOH Atrac sounds *way* better than MP3 to my ears.
But why are you only comparing to MP3, when there are many other formats available on other players? Anyway, I guess Sony must have made some big changes to ATRAC for recent models, because the version of ATRAC when MiniDiscs were actually being purchased and used - was bloody awful, and there's tons of data to back that up. I know, I had to use MiniDiscs at a radio station.
I've never got over the fact that the ipod sounds so dead. Possibly it's just apple can't make amplifiers for shit.. dunno..
That's a hard claim to buy, when most people who have done technical and blind listening tests give very high marks to the iPod amplifiers. Maybe you were listening with different headphones, different music/encoding/whatever.
From your response, you must have misread my reply about multiple CODECs. No, you do not need an external accessory for multiple CODECs - those are supported out of the box. FM and recording are rather niche applications, so it makes sense not charge everybody for them (or increase the bulk of the unit) if 90% of customers don't use them - while allowing those who want them to add them.
But why would you lie about the iPod not supporting multiple CODECs? Or are you just ignorant of that?
I don't go around bashing other people's players with misinformation. I'm glad you enjoy your player, and in fact, I am considering buying an iRiver for the portable recording functionality. But what's up with this need to bash others - and not even get your facts straight?
I'm not a fanboy, so why do you say that?
The moderation I'm getting on the posts are pretty interesting... it really shows how people mod according to their agenda instead of to what contributes to the discussion.
Indeed. My grandparent post is -1 "Troll" rated, when there is nothing even slightly trollish about it.
Because you prefer making claims that aren't really supported in order to promote the ipod.
What the heck? Not really supported? I'm talking absolute fact. What did I write that wasn't true? Meanwhile, you says things like "only applies to iPods" - so, does EVERY SINGLE other MP3 player support recording, FM tuner, etc? I don't think so. You also made non-specific claims, and then threw a hissy-fit about "mindless fanboys" when asked to clarify. I see a lot more mindless ganging up against the iPod and spurious claims than iPod fanboyism. I have my own criticisms of the iPod. But the discussion is worthless if the criticisms are not accurate and meaningful. We are never going to get to meaningful criticism if you just keep spouting nonsense about fanboys, and making personal attacks.
In your world I could tape my ipod to the hood of my car - then you'd have the feature of iPods being able to be used as vehicles!
What the heck? That doesn't make any sense. How did you get that out of my post?
You appear to just want to bash the iPod, and not discuss the article's topic. For example - the article never mentioned FM tuners, but you bring it in, even though it is irrelevant to the article's criticism.
And the iPod does have built-in recording support - you just need an accessory to add the audio inputs. What's so invalid about my response? Are you at all interested in fact?
Have you tried the HD players with lossless CODECs, and the same headphones, same volume and music, in a blind test? otherwise, how can you say that it's the hardware?
I don't really trust random anecdotes.
How is that not fair? What lossless format does the MiniDisc support? The whole point is in your second sentence. Many HD-based players support lossless, while the Minidisc does not. Therefore, the Minidisc can never reach the quality level of players that support lossless.
I've been a user of MD for many years and I can say that the whole suggestion that ATRAC is a lesser codec than MP3 is just a myth.
Sorry, I trust rigourous blind testing by a large sample group, and technical analysis, over random anecdotes from you and your friends.
Actually when I eventually moved over to an MP3-player the lesser sound quality of 192kbit MP3 compared to LP ATRAC was one of the most significant problems I had with it.
So, use a lossless CODEC. Can't do that on a MiniDisc.
ATRAC dates back from the time when MP3 was completely unknown and WAY before you could connect any kind of music player to your computer.
No, it was desiged to replace CD and DAT, and it does an inferior job compared to what was available at the time. MP3 is for music playback alone - but the Minidisc was touted as a recorder as well. It was inferior to recorders of the era.
Also, it is not true you could not connect music players to your computer. We had Pro Tools and professional recording systems, and CD burners back then. We had CD players in our computers.
The audio output (read:amplifier section) of most PDAs totally sucks ass.
The iPod does support multiple CODECs. You never mentioned "without external peripherals" in your post, so it was still inaccurate. The iPod does record with an accessory. Also, you never mentioned FM radio, and neither did the article. Minidiscs don't come with FM, so I don't see how this is relevant. There's no need to have it built-in, when you can get FM tuners on the headphone cord for a few bucks. It would just waste space in the iPod and clutter the interface.
iPods come with voice recording straight out of the box? Wow.
Again, you never mentioned this in your post. Am I supposed to read your mind? Having it external has advantages of flexibility - such as different types of input jack.
Wow? Last time I touched an ipod you couldn't play music on it that wasn't synced via iTunes. I guess now you can use an ipod like a hard drive and just throw your music on it so it can play!
No, you can sync your iPod with other applications. neither you nor the article mentioned just "throwing songs on from the hard drive" that's different than syncing.
And you appear to be a mindless fanboy.
Why? Because I prefer accuracy, instead of vague and meaningless claims? You sound very defensive and uptight.
Huh? Why do you have to hold it in front of you? Just put in in your jacket or bag, and plug a microphone into it.
Although it remains a great mystery to me why no-one seems to make a simple hard-disk recorder that is inexpensive and records quality uncompressed audio. For some reason, portable audio recording has been neglected. Sure, there are high-end systems, and MP3 players that record (but lack options and quality input jacks), but nothing in-between.
Why the obsession with two physically separate batteries? A single battery with twice the capacity (and low-power cutoff circuitry) gives the same functionality in less space, at a lower cost and complexity.
He was also a great rapper and DJ who laid down wicked beats. Not many people know that about Hitler.
You might want to try using your brain, or reading comprehension.
High quality? Minidisc recordings don't sound particularly good, being recorded in a compressed format.
In actual blind listening tests, and technical tests, ATRAC is actually rated as one of the worst compression schemes. But most MP3 players don't only support MP3. The iPod, for example, supports AAC, MP3, WAV, Apple Lossless, etc. Even AAC is going to be better than MP3 or ATRAC - and there's no way that either can beat WAV or Apple Lossless. The Minidisc really restricts your options. Nobody said you have to play MP3 on your MP3 player. But Sony says you must use ATRAC.
Digital Video cameras can record audio pretty well (up to 48kHz for most units) - and you get video recording and viewing options as well. probably not worth it if you just want audio, but most people want video cameras as well. File transfer is easy with Firewire.
Which is much easier on an MP3 player. Instead of filling 5 separate discs, you just set up your software to autmoatically change the contents of the HDD or Flash memory as your mood dictates. Essentially, unless you are on a desert island and don't ever go near a computer, an MP3 player has "limitless" capacity - and it is much easier to manage.
What features are you talking about that don't exist on an iPod? You can record on an iPod, and the iPods are really quite rugged - and there are thousands of different protective cases available. the iPod is also not tied to iTunes. The article was uninformed about the iPod, and you appear to be perpetuating these misconceptions.
I highly doubt that. How do you know that no-one found it unpleasant?
So far all your posts have done is hurl around 'facts' and situations that you claim make this an unworkable technology.
You are putting words in my mouth. I never said it was unworkable. I like 3D technology, but I can recognize that it is not ready for the mainstream, especially with things like sports. At the moment, it is a novelty - and IMAX proves that. Mainstream movies do not use it, and most consumers have no desire to use it at home. We are still, culturally, dealing with the implications of the insights of Dada, Picasso and Marshall McLuhan. Filmmakers who use this technology have not yet worked out how to use it compellingly, outside of a few niche areas like documentary or scientific visualization.
Perhaps you are very skilled and have spent a good long time in the industry. I dont really care. If you cant provide something to back your argument up (and burden of proof is definately on you for making the claims in the first place.)
I'm not the one who made the claims. It is the article that made the claims that this would be the new wave in theaters and sports. People have been saying that kind of thing for over 50 years. As for the evidence, it isn't cut and dried like that. We are talking about art and entertainment, which are subjective areas. Not the kind of thing you can reduce to numbers. It's more the realm of philosophy, entertainers and artists.
'Michael Lewis, chairman of privately held REAL D, which created 3D prints for the Disney's "Chicken Little," said 3D technology has tested successfully on National Football League games'
Right - like you'd believe the PR words of a Disney executive with something to sell. not to mention that "audience testing" is notoriously unreliable. It has led to movies like Bladerunner and Brazil being watered down based on stupid tests. Art does not work by seeking the lowest common denominator. they are also very short sessions, not extended viewing. Many people have been excited over the promises of new technology, but have blaked when it actually comes to adopting it.
3D and holography has great promise, but at the moment it remains at about the level of "Smell-O-Rama" when it comes to pratical mainstream application, outside of videogames or scientific visualization. the biggest success of 3D graphics has been in 2D composites in feature films. The reason this was a success was that it allowed complex virtual sets and objects to be constructed without the physical space or equipment of traditional sets and effects, saving money and fitting with the existing model. The kind of thing discussed by the article is a LOT of extra work and expense, for almost no perceived viewer benefit. How many people say "that film was OK, but it would be awesome if it were in 3D"? Almost nobody.
As for the studios and engineers, the amount of extra bandwidth and complexity to do this properly is staggering. You aren't just going to replace existing TV cameras with 3D cameras and have 3D sports.