maerlyn
Jan 2, 08:00 PM
Hi all,
Does anyone have experience ripping audio from a concert DVD using VLC?
Whenever I use VLC using the "Open Disc" from the File tab and choosing the "Quicktime" encapsulation and only checking the audio transcoding option to mp3 (video transcoding is unchecked) it gives me a large file with both the video and sound. I only want to extract the audio so that I can play it on my ipod. Any help?
Does anyone have experience ripping audio from a concert DVD using VLC?
Whenever I use VLC using the "Open Disc" from the File tab and choosing the "Quicktime" encapsulation and only checking the audio transcoding option to mp3 (video transcoding is unchecked) it gives me a large file with both the video and sound. I only want to extract the audio so that I can play it on my ipod. Any help?
Dr Kevorkian94
Apr 5, 03:46 PM
He is perfectly right, the iPad apeals to the people who need something easy to use. Many people who don't know how to use/take care of there computer find there computer breaking (at least with a pc). People download things let there computer go to hell; folders,sub folders, clutter, and death lol. Even tho people do that with iPads too it won't break and it is an easy fix unless they physically drop it etc. Us tech geeks use everything for one reason or another, we are educated users. That is his point not that it only appeals to the regular people, but it is less confusing than a computer (not to say a mac is confusing but it is more expensive).
valkraider
Aug 19, 10:43 AM
While I am never going to use Places - or anything else like it - I think all these worries may be a little misplaced.
People can sit outside your home and watch to see if you are home. People can look at your lights or your windows or even send someone to knock on your door - and find out if you are home.
People were getting robbed long before Facebook.
And also - status updates like "Having fun on vacation in Hong Kong - two weeks seems too short" make it painfully obvious that you are not at home....
And even though you can set this stuff only visible to friends - and even set up groups within your friends like "trusted" and "not trusted" or "work" and "personal" and you can adjust visibility that way at a granular level - even though you can do all that: There are ways that the rest of the world can "mine" all of your posts and data.
Just assume that anything you put on facebook is visible to the entire world and will be so for the rest of time...
But I won't use Places. People I want to know where I am - I tell them.
People can sit outside your home and watch to see if you are home. People can look at your lights or your windows or even send someone to knock on your door - and find out if you are home.
People were getting robbed long before Facebook.
And also - status updates like "Having fun on vacation in Hong Kong - two weeks seems too short" make it painfully obvious that you are not at home....
And even though you can set this stuff only visible to friends - and even set up groups within your friends like "trusted" and "not trusted" or "work" and "personal" and you can adjust visibility that way at a granular level - even though you can do all that: There are ways that the rest of the world can "mine" all of your posts and data.
Just assume that anything you put on facebook is visible to the entire world and will be so for the rest of time...
But I won't use Places. People I want to know where I am - I tell them.
opmaroon
Jul 20, 03:52 AM
F&%K THE CHIP!!!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7Dr6poEl_0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7Dr6poEl_0
more...
nixd2001
Sep 14, 07:48 PM
Originally posted by onemoof
Someone asked the difference between RISC and CISC.
First thing, there isn't that distinction anymore. RISC originally meant that the processor had fixed width instructions (so it wouldn't have to waste time asking the software how big the next instruction will be). CISC mean that the processor had variable width instructions (meaning time would have to be taken to figure out how long the next instruction is before fetching it.) However, Intel has addressed this problem by making it possible for the processor to switch to a fixed-width mode for special processor intensive purposes. The PowerPC is stuck with fixed-width and has no ability to enjoy the flexibility of variable-width instructions for non-processor-intensive tasks. This means that CISC is now better than RISC. (Using the terms to loosely define Pentium as CISC and PowerPC as RISC.)
Originally it was Reduced versus Complex instruction set computer. Making simpler processors go faster is generally easier than making complex processors go faster as there is less internal state/logic to synchronise and keep track of. For any given fabrication technology, this still generally holds true. Intel managed to sidestep this principle by investing massive sums in their fab plants, effectively meaning that the fab processes being compared weren't the same.
The opposite end of the spectrum from RISC is arguably the VAX line. With this instruction set, massive complexities arose from the fact that a single instruction took so long and did so much. It was possible for timers, interrupts and "page faults" to occur midway during an instruction. This required saving a lot of internal state so that it could later be restored. There were examples of performing a given operation with a single instruction or a sequence of instructions that performed the same effect, but where the sequence achieved the join quicker because the internal implementation within the processor was able to get on with the job quicker because it was actually a simpler task being asked of it.
The idea of fixed sized instructions isn't directly coupled to the original notion of RISC, although it is only one step behind. One of the basic ideas with the original RISC processors was that an instruction should only take a single cycle to complete. So a 100MHz CPU might actually achieve 100M instructions per second. (This was often not achieved due to memory latencies, but this isn't the "fault" of the processor core). In this context, having a variable length instruction means that it is easy for the instruction decoding (especially if it requires more than one "word") to require for effort than any other aspect of executing an instruction.
There are situations where a variable width instruction might have advantages, but the argument goes that breaking the overall task down into equal sized instructions means that fetching (including caching, branch predicting, ec) and decoding these instructions becomes simpler, permitting optimisations and speed gains to be made elsewhere in the processor design.
Intel blur RISC and CISC into gray by effectively executing RISC instructions internally, even if they support the apparent decoding of CISC insructions. They only do this for legacy reasons.
Apple will never switch to IA32 (Pentium) because 32 bit processors are a dead-end and maybe have a couple years left. The reason is because they can only have a maximum of 4 GB of RAM [ (2^32)/(1 Billion) = 4.29 GB ]. This limit is very close to being reached in current desktop computers. Apple MAY at some point decide to jump to IA64 in my opinion, and I think they should. Obviously the Intel family of processors is unbeatable unless they have some sort of catastrophe happen to them. If Apple jumped on they'd be back on track. Unfortunately I don't believe IA64 is yet cheap enough for desktops.
I think this "unbeatable" assertion requires some qualification. It may be that Intel will achieve the best price/performance ratio within a suitable range of qualifications, but this is different from always achieving best p/p ratio whatever. Indeed, IA64 versus Power4 is going to be an interesting battle because Intel has bet on ILP (instruction level parallelism) whereas IBM has bet on data bandwidth. Ultimately (and today!), I think IBM's bet has more going for it. But that's if you want ultimate performance. The PC space is often characterised by people apparenntly wanting ultimate performance but actually always massively qualifiying it with severe price restrictions (such as less than 5 digits to the price).
Someone asked the difference between RISC and CISC.
First thing, there isn't that distinction anymore. RISC originally meant that the processor had fixed width instructions (so it wouldn't have to waste time asking the software how big the next instruction will be). CISC mean that the processor had variable width instructions (meaning time would have to be taken to figure out how long the next instruction is before fetching it.) However, Intel has addressed this problem by making it possible for the processor to switch to a fixed-width mode for special processor intensive purposes. The PowerPC is stuck with fixed-width and has no ability to enjoy the flexibility of variable-width instructions for non-processor-intensive tasks. This means that CISC is now better than RISC. (Using the terms to loosely define Pentium as CISC and PowerPC as RISC.)
Originally it was Reduced versus Complex instruction set computer. Making simpler processors go faster is generally easier than making complex processors go faster as there is less internal state/logic to synchronise and keep track of. For any given fabrication technology, this still generally holds true. Intel managed to sidestep this principle by investing massive sums in their fab plants, effectively meaning that the fab processes being compared weren't the same.
The opposite end of the spectrum from RISC is arguably the VAX line. With this instruction set, massive complexities arose from the fact that a single instruction took so long and did so much. It was possible for timers, interrupts and "page faults" to occur midway during an instruction. This required saving a lot of internal state so that it could later be restored. There were examples of performing a given operation with a single instruction or a sequence of instructions that performed the same effect, but where the sequence achieved the join quicker because the internal implementation within the processor was able to get on with the job quicker because it was actually a simpler task being asked of it.
The idea of fixed sized instructions isn't directly coupled to the original notion of RISC, although it is only one step behind. One of the basic ideas with the original RISC processors was that an instruction should only take a single cycle to complete. So a 100MHz CPU might actually achieve 100M instructions per second. (This was often not achieved due to memory latencies, but this isn't the "fault" of the processor core). In this context, having a variable length instruction means that it is easy for the instruction decoding (especially if it requires more than one "word") to require for effort than any other aspect of executing an instruction.
There are situations where a variable width instruction might have advantages, but the argument goes that breaking the overall task down into equal sized instructions means that fetching (including caching, branch predicting, ec) and decoding these instructions becomes simpler, permitting optimisations and speed gains to be made elsewhere in the processor design.
Intel blur RISC and CISC into gray by effectively executing RISC instructions internally, even if they support the apparent decoding of CISC insructions. They only do this for legacy reasons.
Apple will never switch to IA32 (Pentium) because 32 bit processors are a dead-end and maybe have a couple years left. The reason is because they can only have a maximum of 4 GB of RAM [ (2^32)/(1 Billion) = 4.29 GB ]. This limit is very close to being reached in current desktop computers. Apple MAY at some point decide to jump to IA64 in my opinion, and I think they should. Obviously the Intel family of processors is unbeatable unless they have some sort of catastrophe happen to them. If Apple jumped on they'd be back on track. Unfortunately I don't believe IA64 is yet cheap enough for desktops.
I think this "unbeatable" assertion requires some qualification. It may be that Intel will achieve the best price/performance ratio within a suitable range of qualifications, but this is different from always achieving best p/p ratio whatever. Indeed, IA64 versus Power4 is going to be an interesting battle because Intel has bet on ILP (instruction level parallelism) whereas IBM has bet on data bandwidth. Ultimately (and today!), I think IBM's bet has more going for it. But that's if you want ultimate performance. The PC space is often characterised by people apparenntly wanting ultimate performance but actually always massively qualifiying it with severe price restrictions (such as less than 5 digits to the price).
TMRaven
May 10, 01:51 PM
Choosing to run it in osx over windows is just stubborness if you ask me. When all's said and done, you're getting the exact same experience on windows side while in-game, except higher performance.
The current mobility 4850s in the iMacs CAN run sc2 at native resolution with fluidity. I run max settings and native resolution, spare portraits to 2d, and get 30 fps-- never dip below 24fps. (This is on windows side, the mac osx side gets 20 less fps on average, which is pretty pathetic)
The current mobility 4850s in the iMacs CAN run sc2 at native resolution with fluidity. I run max settings and native resolution, spare portraits to 2d, and get 30 fps-- never dip below 24fps. (This is on windows side, the mac osx side gets 20 less fps on average, which is pretty pathetic)
more...
thatisme
Mar 29, 09:03 AM
It's not. That is exactly what I have said in every post since the start. You are the one who said that a 200mm EF lens would produce a different image than a 200mm EF-s lens when mounted on the same camera. That is the quote is a complete sentence from your post. It is 100% wrong. You are not saying something completely different to what you were saying. It is not "out of context". There is no context in which that sentence contains correct information.
Re-read THIS POST....YOUR post.
You agree, then you disagree with the exact same statement
Re-read THIS POST....YOUR post.
You agree, then you disagree with the exact same statement
fishkorp
Mar 28, 03:15 PM
Question for folks who have gone (or purchased ticket voucher). From the looks of it, you buy a voucher, which you then redeem online for a ticket, correct? Can you buy the voucher now, but fill in the attendee ticket details at a later time? I'm going to buy, but there's the off chance I won't be able to attend, so I'd like to give the ticket to someone else. The ticket holder needs photo ID to get in, so they obviously can't use my ticket. So I'd have to wait until I know for sure to claim the voucher, or put the other developer's information in.
Can that be done? Or do I need to claim the ticket at time of purchase? Based on the recent track record of WWDC selling out in a week, I'd like to make the purchase ASAP. Thanks.
Can that be done? Or do I need to claim the ticket at time of purchase? Based on the recent track record of WWDC selling out in a week, I'd like to make the purchase ASAP. Thanks.
more...
hismikeness
Mar 23, 01:24 PM
Streaming straight to a TV would be nice. I have a TV dedicated to movie watching, so if I could stream without having any other device (ATV2) hooked to it, not only could I use the ATV2 for another TV, but I wouldn't have anything on the cabinet appearing unsightly.
jayP1201
Jan 6, 05:12 PM
I have the Push working for Facebook but I cant hear anything... The notifications just come up... How do I set the sound?
more...
nagromme
Dec 28, 09:38 AM
This just means everyone in NYC is about to get a free iPod Tablet with lifetime 3G service and video calling. Hang in there.
LimeiBook86
Oct 27, 02:27 PM
Well here's a screenshot form my Dot Mac Web Mail. I must say I like the new layout, the only thing I think it's missing is a Junk Mail feature, you know if you can sync the Junk preferences from your Apple Mail app to the Web Mail app, now that would be a nice improvement but, other than that. This is pretty darn good. Now just lower the price and bump the storage or features and we'll be good ;)
more...
skunk
Feb 26, 05:15 PM
Where's Bill Gates?Not in California. This was for people based in California.
bduvinmac
Mar 11, 09:46 AM
I have been at legacy since 7:30. They set up where the lines would go abOut an hour ago. Quite a few people have shuffled in and out of the store but no one is lined up outside. I'll just have to keep waiting.
more...
r1ch4rd
Mar 27, 08:56 AM
I think it was Japan that taxed cars based on the engine displacement - I believe that would be worth considering here. For anyone who "needs" a big engine - and 98% of you who claim you do - actually do not. But for those who insist - should have a commercial-type registration. (like we currently do with large work vehicles) That said - we were lax, stupid or I don't know what - but allowed 4 ton vehicles to be called passenger cars, and now every 90 pound soccer mom drives a Superduty pickup because it makes them feel safe... :rolleyes:
Here in the UK the amount of tax is based upon the CO2 emissions from a car, so larger engines generally incur a higher penalty. However, if you are insistent on buying a large expensive 4x4 for example, I don't think the amount of tax is really going to put you off.
I pay �125 per year for a 2.0 litre TDI
Here in the UK the amount of tax is based upon the CO2 emissions from a car, so larger engines generally incur a higher penalty. However, if you are insistent on buying a large expensive 4x4 for example, I don't think the amount of tax is really going to put you off.
I pay �125 per year for a 2.0 litre TDI
talmy
Mar 14, 10:53 AM
Ah, right. In the developer site there is an implication that the server version would be separate. But I'm still expecting some sort of gimmick. With the Mac Store one could end up paying for each little feature as an option.
more...
wackymacky
Nov 8, 02:03 PM
No spy chips, thank you.
http://spychips.com
Umm. Doesn't my cellphone already have a unique identify number that it comuncates with my carrier while it is switched on and tells them where I am within the cell network. (And with the GPS chip I can be pin-pointed withing a couple of meters).
Ummm... I wonder..... Does Apple track when ever a iPhone onwer enters a Apple Store, Or Wallmart? They have the technology.
http://spychips.com
Umm. Doesn't my cellphone already have a unique identify number that it comuncates with my carrier while it is switched on and tells them where I am within the cell network. (And with the GPS chip I can be pin-pointed withing a couple of meters).
Ummm... I wonder..... Does Apple track when ever a iPhone onwer enters a Apple Store, Or Wallmart? They have the technology.
scaredpoet
Dec 27, 08:57 PM
Also you would have to say the Consumerist (well-respected blog) is lying and AT&T isn't. Do you really believe that?
I believe the Consumerist will be more than willing to hype incorrect information it has received from an uninformed rep if it means increased site traffic, especially if it furthers the aim of hyping up a theme that's en vogue right now. It's a blog with a business interests and it receives revenue based on traffic, and that means it, like any other blog with business interests, has an agenda to pursue.
So like every other "news" source on the internet, I take what I read with a grain of salt.
I believe the Consumerist will be more than willing to hype incorrect information it has received from an uninformed rep if it means increased site traffic, especially if it furthers the aim of hyping up a theme that's en vogue right now. It's a blog with a business interests and it receives revenue based on traffic, and that means it, like any other blog with business interests, has an agenda to pursue.
So like every other "news" source on the internet, I take what I read with a grain of salt.
SmileyDude
Oct 26, 06:26 PM
Of course I can see the other side of this. Writing universal apps is not just a matter of "checking a box" in XCode; despite what I've heard some non-coders say on the subject.
I call bull -- I have a lot of code that I compile as universal at home and work. Sure it's a little more than checking a box, but for a lot of code, it's not much more.
And for an app that started as Intel, making the reverse transition is probably much easier. There is no CodeWarrior legacy crap, MPW, etc, etc. It already compiles in GCC 4 and will continue to do so under PPC. The only remaining issues are endian issues and maybe the possible use of assembly code.
I call bull -- I have a lot of code that I compile as universal at home and work. Sure it's a little more than checking a box, but for a lot of code, it's not much more.
And for an app that started as Intel, making the reverse transition is probably much easier. There is no CodeWarrior legacy crap, MPW, etc, etc. It already compiles in GCC 4 and will continue to do so under PPC. The only remaining issues are endian issues and maybe the possible use of assembly code.
hulugu
May 2, 12:50 PM
No major changes. Some new wacko will step up and fill the fresh void.
That being said, it is a HUGE moral victory for us and our troops.
I'm not so sure that the void can be filled. Osama Bin Laden had become a figurehead, split away from his funding and logistical support, and existed as a symbol.
A new leader would have to fulfill that same roll, but Al Qaeda's money trail has been cut to ribbons, their logistical support is broken, and the organization's ability to recruit may be blunted by the 'Arab Spring.'
The Taliban, however, will keep on rolling, but they have always operated as a separate group, although their operational structures were intertwined.
Remember that Al Qaeda has been 'franchising' itself since before 9/11, so expect to see clones popping up in Africa and the Mid East that claim the same lineage, with leaders who will claim to be the next Osama Bin Laden.
However, that moment has passed.
That being said, it is a HUGE moral victory for us and our troops.
I'm not so sure that the void can be filled. Osama Bin Laden had become a figurehead, split away from his funding and logistical support, and existed as a symbol.
A new leader would have to fulfill that same roll, but Al Qaeda's money trail has been cut to ribbons, their logistical support is broken, and the organization's ability to recruit may be blunted by the 'Arab Spring.'
The Taliban, however, will keep on rolling, but they have always operated as a separate group, although their operational structures were intertwined.
Remember that Al Qaeda has been 'franchising' itself since before 9/11, so expect to see clones popping up in Africa and the Mid East that claim the same lineage, with leaders who will claim to be the next Osama Bin Laden.
However, that moment has passed.
macfan881
Oct 9, 07:44 PM
http://kotaku.com/5659811/konamis-x+men-arcade-classic-headed-for-xbla-and-psn
Heck yes! I loved this game when i was a kid got i forgot how much money I spent on this but it will be a day 1 buy for sure.
Heck yes! I loved this game when i was a kid got i forgot how much money I spent on this but it will be a day 1 buy for sure.
redeye be
May 27, 07:57 PM
you can find your user number in the panel to the left of your profile, above user summary. In my case the number is 125107.
Thx for pointing this out, must have missed it somehow.
Added to the FAQ.
Good to know it runs in Amnesty!
Thx for pointing this out, must have missed it somehow.
Added to the FAQ.
Good to know it runs in Amnesty!
wizard
Mar 25, 10:23 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
I once sat on a plane next to an intellectual property lawyer who was commuting to NYC for work from Rochester. As it turned out he had once worked for EK and was now working in the city.
When I conveyed my surprised over how strange it was that Eastman Kodak was lagging behind in digital imaging and still focused on film considering they were responsible for much of the technology behind digital imaging, he basically inferred that EK's leadership mismanaged their patent goldmine.
i bet they had people there with MBA's from good schools running financial what if's and telling management to avoid digital because they will make less money due to not selling the film or anything other than the camera
Living outside of Rochester and working in the city I've have associated with a number of Kodak people (both current and former, there are lots of former). Frankly in this town MBAs have become associated with idiots, that seem to engage in heard mentality.
It isn't that they miscalculated the rise of digital, as miscalculations happen in business, it is the silly decision they made that resulted in the company divesting itself of businesses that had a future. The point is you can miscalculate a bit when it comes to how rapid you core tech will become useless but your planning should recognize that is going to happen and that you need to grow in a different direction. Instead Kodak shrunk itself down around a dying business.
I've not read the patent so I can't say much to that but I do hope they loose and loose big time. I just think the management team needs a big slap in the face.
I once sat on a plane next to an intellectual property lawyer who was commuting to NYC for work from Rochester. As it turned out he had once worked for EK and was now working in the city.
When I conveyed my surprised over how strange it was that Eastman Kodak was lagging behind in digital imaging and still focused on film considering they were responsible for much of the technology behind digital imaging, he basically inferred that EK's leadership mismanaged their patent goldmine.
i bet they had people there with MBA's from good schools running financial what if's and telling management to avoid digital because they will make less money due to not selling the film or anything other than the camera
Living outside of Rochester and working in the city I've have associated with a number of Kodak people (both current and former, there are lots of former). Frankly in this town MBAs have become associated with idiots, that seem to engage in heard mentality.
It isn't that they miscalculated the rise of digital, as miscalculations happen in business, it is the silly decision they made that resulted in the company divesting itself of businesses that had a future. The point is you can miscalculate a bit when it comes to how rapid you core tech will become useless but your planning should recognize that is going to happen and that you need to grow in a different direction. Instead Kodak shrunk itself down around a dying business.
I've not read the patent so I can't say much to that but I do hope they loose and loose big time. I just think the management team needs a big slap in the face.
codymac
Apr 4, 10:38 AM
You're right that this state does have one of the highest deficits and tax rates for high incomes. However, if you look at the figures, despite the tax rate, Californians still earn more per capita on average than Texans. If you're looking to save money, it doesn't necessarily make sense to move.
Without going into the chicken/egg of it, Californians have to earn more since their housing costs are roughly 2/3 higher than Texas (per bankrate.com's cost of living comparison calculator as of this morning).
We earn less, but pretty much everything also costs less here.
Without going into the chicken/egg of it, Californians have to earn more since their housing costs are roughly 2/3 higher than Texas (per bankrate.com's cost of living comparison calculator as of this morning).
We earn less, but pretty much everything also costs less here.
0 comments:
Post a Comment