Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » OT:movie on 911-you'vre got to see this
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT:movie on 911-you'vre got to see this [message #71437 is a reply to message #71436] |
Fri, 18 August 2006 22:12   |
DC
Messages: 722
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
violent religion in the world.
We
> >> ignore
> >>>>>>>> car
> >>>>>>>>>>>> bombings, suicide bombers, torched churches, thousands of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> tortured
> >>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> murdered, exiled and ostracized people in favor of blaming
the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> administration for anything and everything, as if Bush made
the
> >>>> Pope
> >>>>>>>> quote
> >>>>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Byzantine emperor by going to war in Iraq.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Islam isn't the passive, peaceful, non-threatening,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> all-accepting
> >>>>>> religion
> >>>>>>>>>>>> our country seems to blindly want to believe. Some western
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Muslims
> >>>>>>>> might
> >>>>>>>>>>>> be, but just ask anyone who tried to believe in anything else
> >> in
> >>>> many
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT:movie on 911-you'vre got to see this [message #71467 is a reply to message #71444] |
Sat, 19 August 2006 16:12 |
LaMont
Messages: 828
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
rality on MY religion.
Well,
> > >> you
> > >>>>>>>>> just dissed the majority of religions. No problem because THEY
> ARE
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> WRONG. And people who believe in those religions may just be
> saying
> > >>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>> same thing about you and your religion. For those religions
who
> are
> > >>>> not
> > >>>>>>>>> tolerant of other ideas, you may just have started a war.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> So perhaps it's BETTER, in our time, to have a system of
justice
> > >> that
> > >>>>>> is
> > >>>>>>>>> NOT based on a religion. But one which guarantees everyone the
> > >>>>>>>>> right
> > >>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>> practice the religion of their choice, guarantees other
freedoms
> > >> such
> > >>>>>> as
> > >>>>>>>>> we in the USA do in our Bill of Rights, encourages honesty and
> > >>>>>>>>> integrity, while enforcing some common sense limits such as no
> > >>>>>>>>> human
> > >>>>>>>>> sacrifices, a minimum age for marriage, no incest, no slavery,
> no
> > >>
> > >>>>>>>>> murder, no rape, no stealing, those sorts of things.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> What is viewed as morality beyond a fair justice system and
> common
> > >>>> sense
> > >>>>>>>>> rules of behavior can be left to each freely chosen religion
to
> > >>>>>>>>> sort
> > >>>>>>>>> out, like whether to restrict diet in some way, whether to
wear
> a
> > >>
> > >>>>>>>>> certain type of clothing, how to pray, etc. But none of these
> > >>>>>>>>> additional
> > >>>>>>>>> practices should be imposed on society as a whole.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> The Golden Rule may also be of use as a basic moral
foundation.
> > >>>>>>>>>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT:movie on 911-you'vre got to see this [message #71477 is a reply to message #71467] |
Sat, 19 August 2006 23:02 |
Deej [1]
Messages: 2149
Registered: January 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
ux, "Uptown Jimmy"
> > >>>>>>>>>> <johnson314@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> The idea that one needs to believe in a god in order to have
a
> > >> strong
> > >>>>>>>> morals
> > >>>>>>>>>>> is absurd, I think.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Jimmy
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> "Dedric Terry" <dterry@keyofd.net> wrote in message
> > >>>>>>>>>>> news:C1325038.358D%dterry@keyofd.net...
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Gene -
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> You probably didn't realize it (so no offense), but your
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> response
> > >>>>>> pretty
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> much confirms my assertion that the tendency of our country
> and
> > >>>> even
> > >>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> world society, is to place blame for religious conflict,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> violence
> > >>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> religiously motivated terrorism anywhere but with the
single
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> largest
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> growing, and currently most violent religion in the world.
> We
> > >> ignore
> > >>>>>>>> car
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> bombings, suicide bombers, torched churches, thousands of
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> tortured
> > >>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> murdered, exiled and ostracized people in favor of blaming
> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> administration for anything and everything, as if Bush made
> the
> > >>>> Pope
> > >>>>>>>> quote
> > >>>>>>>>>>> a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Byzantine emperor by going to war in Iraq.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Islam isn't the passive, peaceful, non-threatening,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> all-accepting
> > >>>>>> religion
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> our country seems to blindly want to believe. Some western
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Muslims
> > >>>>>>>> might
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> be, but just ask anyone who tried to believe in anything
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT:movie on 911-you'vre got to see this [message #71479 is a reply to message #71477] |
Sat, 19 August 2006 23:59 |
LaMont
Messages: 828
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
;>>>>>> guideline for living life and having respect and compassion
> for
> > >>>> others?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> It isn't the administration's fault that the Pope quoted a
> guy
> > >> Islam
> > >>>>>>>>>>> doesn't
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> like just because he called like he saw it - something we
do
> on
> > >>>> this
> > >>>>>>>> forum
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> every single day, ironically. It also isn't Christianity's
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> intent
> > >>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>> take
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> over the world, or the government. Far from it. The only
> goal
> > >>>> is
> > >>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>> give
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> people a chance to decide. Yet, those that want to decide
to
> > >> not
> > >>>>>> believe
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> would rather take that right away and remove Christianity
> from
> > >> public
> > >>>>>>>>>>> view.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> The only way to force someone to remove their belief from
> public
> > >>>> in
> > >>>>>>>> a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> country that promotes the freedom to believe as one wishes,
> is
> > >> to
> > >>>>>> outlaw
> > >>>>>>>>>>> it.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Yet another paradox.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Through our short sighted political glasses we want to see
> the
> > >> world
> > >>>>>>>> as a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> black and white, free-will, partisan vote where one's party
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> always
> > >>>>>> wins
> > >>>>>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> the decisions are always in our favor, but fail to see any
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> validity
> > >>>>>>>> in
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> believing a God that gave us the very moral compass to
> maintain
> > >>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>> balance
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> that kind of choice affords us. In essence we put our
trust
> in
> > >>>> the
> > >>>>>>>> very
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> thing we prove day in and day out to be one of the most
> fallible
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> characteristics of humanity - political and relativistic
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> ideology.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> I guess I ignored my own first comment....sorry about that.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> I should get back to mourning NI Battery 2's destruction of
> 10
> > >> hours
> > >>>>>>>> of
> > >>>>>>>>>>> work
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> :-((....
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Dedric
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/16/06 9:09 PM, in article 450cbc70$1@linux, "gene
> Lennon"
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> <glennon@NOSPmyrealbox.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dedric Terry <d
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT:movie on 911-you'vre got to see this [message #71481 is a reply to message #71479] |
Sun, 20 August 2006 00:15 |
Deej [1]
Messages: 2149
Registered: January 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
>>> Great
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Awakening"
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of the international religious struggle. This is a good
> thing
> > >> as
> > >>>>>> he
> > >>>>>>>> sees
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> it and it has been partially brought on by the new fight
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> against
> > >>>>>>>>>>> terrorists
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> (Translation - Due to his good work in God's name). A war
> that
> > >>>> he
> > >>>>>>>>>>> depicts
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> as "a confrontation between good and evil."
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> In 2001 he used the word "crusade" and got into quite a
bit
> of
> > >>>> trouble
> > >>>>>>>>>>> (as
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> has the Pope), but he seems to have the gloves off now.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Can anyone imagine a worse direction for the world to be
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> headed?
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course he also believes in the Rapture, so things could
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> easily
> > >>>>>> go
> > >>>>>>>>>>> down
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> hill from here.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> More on the "Third Awakening":
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09 /12/AR2006091201
> > >>>>>>>>>>> 59
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 4_pf.html
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Gene
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> `
> > >>>>
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
>Wait a minute: Paris atuo-compenstaes for EDS plugins?!
I'm very surprised, if true.
Jimmy
"Chris Ludwig" <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote in message
news:450ff34f$1@linux...
> HI,
> It only matters under 2 scenarios.
> 1. Playing VST INstruments in real time.
> 2. Processing native effects on a live input.
>
> Otherwise you can set the buffer high to free up resources.
> When using Direct monitoring the software monitor inputs at the hardware
> level so no latency.
>
> ADC becomes more useful in the mixing stage Cubase will keep all the
> plug ins including external plug ins sample accurate. Paris will do this
> only with its EDS effects not with native. Actually most programs didn't
> only had this type of compensation on inserts only forever. Steinberg
> were the first to figure out how to do it across the whole path. I wish
> Steinberg would stop with all the innovation stuff so I wouldn't have to
> keep track of all the new features the competitors have in their
> programs. :0
>
>
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> Uptown Jimmy wrote:
> > What do buffer and latency matter for anymore, what with ADC on native
> > systems?
> >
> > I seriously have no idea, being a Paris junkie since the beginning.
> >
> > Jimmy
> >
> > "Chris Ludwig" <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote in message
> > news:450f2d33@linux...
> >
> >>HI Mike,
> >>
> >>
> >>Mike R. wrote:
> >>
> >>>Hope it's ok to post this question here.
> >>>A friend of mine is going to buy a new Mac laptop. She is running
> >
> > Cubase SE
> >
> >>>on her current
> >>
> >>No Universal Binary yet for Cubase not till 4.0 comes out so I don't
> >>think it will work if it is a Intel based one.
> >>
> >>'pute and wants a bigger faster, but portable, machine.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>I'm
> >>
> >>>most interested in your thoughts regarding both an audio card and what
> >
> > sort
> >
> >>>of external audio drive she could/should use.
> >>
> >>On a budget the Presonus Firebox is a great unit. If she want quality
> >>Mic-Pres and AD/DA, etc then the RME Fireface 400.
> >>Also the Mackie Spike or Onyx 400f might be a good option sense they
> >>come with the Tracktion software already.
> >>
> >>If she is only recording 2 tracks or so then there is no need for an
> >>external drive. It would only be needed fore backs ups but the projects
> >>would more than likely be small enough to easily fit on DVDRW.
> >>Using an internal 80 or 100 gig drive on the PC would easily allow for
> >>32 tracks of 24/48 at 3 ms buffer on the RME Fireface 400. If you raise
> >>the buffer then 48 tracks should be no problem.
> >>
> >>
> >> She generally won't be
> >>
> >>>recording more than two tracks at a time, four absolute max. I don't
> >
> > think
> >
> >>>she'd be mixing more than eight tracks at any one time either. I will
> >>>certainly be surfing myself to see what's out there, but I'd take you
> >
> > folk's
> >
> >>>recommendations, even over say... Mr. Spock's --although he did some
> >
> > pretty
> >
> >>>nifty stuff analyzing those whale sounds.
> >>>Thank you, thank you.
> >>>MR
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>T
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT:movie on 911-youve got to see this [message #71488 is a reply to message #71481] |
Sun, 20 August 2006 09:12 |
LaMont
Messages: 828
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
:451010bb$1@linux...
>>
>> "John" <no@no.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >Ok, so who do you consider to be a great diplomats period?
>>
>> It depends on the definition of diplomacy, of course, so I'd say probably
>> the best diplomat we've had as a president in a while was Bush Sr. When
> you
>> compare the quality, quantity, and staying power of his coaltion in Gulf
>> I to the phony coalition of the bullied and bought for Gulf II it says a
>> lot. I'm no Bush Sr. fan at all, he was a warmongering bastard like every
>> president since at least McKinley, but he was shrewd and rational. I
>> think
>> Colin Powell had a real chance until he got neo-conned. I think he had
>> the
>> temperment and the fact he was non-white gave him a different sort of
> credibility
>> than, say, James Baker when he would talk to non-European countries. I
> think
>> Saudi ambassador prince Bandar was given enviable cards to play (best oil
>> fields in the world) but has managed them impressively considering his
> country
>> leads the world in beheadings and funding Islamists.
>>
>> Historically, in the west, I'd say Metternich has to take the cake even
> though
>> he believed everything I despise. Austria by rights was a bit player on
> the
>> European stage but their chief diplomat remade most of Europe.
>>
>> For the US, I'd say nobody has come close to Benjamin Franklin, with John
>> Adams as a second. Adams was able to convince both finance and political
>> bigshots to believe in a country that didn't exist, and to lend us lots
>> of
>> money and a Navy. Franklin did much the same with the French, exquisitely
>> managing a relationship with Talleyrand, another stunningly nimblefooted
>> (or treacherous depending on your opinion) diplomat. And Franklin managed
>> this while being adored by the French and banging lots of hot French
> aristobabes
>> on the side. So that goes along ways with me.
>>
>> Just my ideas off the top of my head. The US has been starved for true
> diplomats
>> and strategic thinkers for some time. That's part of the reason we're in
>> the mess we're in now.
>>
>> TCB
>
>Hi Jimmy,
As far as I've ever seen the EDS plugins have little or no latency as
they exist in the hardware just like on a Pro Tools HD system.
Chris
Uptown Jimmy wrote:
> Wait a minute: Paris atuo-compenstaes for EDS plugins?!
>
> I'm very surprised, if true.
>
> Jimmy
>
> "Chris Ludwig" <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote in message
> news:450ff34f$1@linux...
>> HI,
>> It only matters under 2 scenarios.
>> 1. Playing VST INstruments in real time.
>> 2. Processing native effects on a live input.
>>
>> Otherwise you can set the buffer high to free up resources.
>> When using Direct monitoring the software monitor inputs at the hardware
>> level so no latency.
>>
>> ADC becomes more useful in the mixing stage Cubase will keep all the
>> plug ins including external plug ins sample accurate. Paris will do this
>> only with its EDS effects not with native. Actually most programs didn't
>> only had this type of compensation on inserts only forever. Steinberg
>> were the first to figure out how to do it across the whole path. I wish
>> Steinberg would stop with all the innovation stuff so I wouldn't have to
>> keep track of all the new features the competitors have in their
>> programs. :0
>>
>>
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>
>> Uptown Jimmy wrote:
>>> What do buffer and latency matter for anymore, what with ADC on native
>>> systems?
>>>
>>> I seriously have no idea, being a Paris junkie since the beginning.
>>>
>>> Jimmy
>>>
>>> "Chris Ludwig" <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote in message
>>> news:450f2d33@linux...
>>>
>>>> HI Mike,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mike R. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hope it's ok to post this question here.
>>>>> A friend of mine is going to buy a new Mac laptop. She is running
>>> Cubase SE
>>>
>>>>> on her current
>>>> No Universal Binary yet for Cubase not till 4.0 comes out so I don't
>>>> think it will work if it is a Intel based one.
>>>>
>>>> 'pute and wants a bigger faster, but portable, machine.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm
>>>>
>>>>> most interested in your thoughts regarding both an audio card and what
>>> sort
>>>
>>>>> of external audio drive she could/should use.
>>>> On a budget the Presonus Firebox is a great unit. If she want quality
>>>> Mic-Pres and AD/DA, etc then the RME Fireface 400.
>>>> Also the Mackie Spike or Onyx 400f might be a good option sense they
>>>> come with the Tracktion software already.
>>>>
>>>> If she is only recording 2 tracks or so then there is no need for an
>>>> external drive. It would only be needed fore backs ups but the projects
>>>> would more than likely be small enough to easily fit on DVDRW.
>>>> Using an internal 80 or 100 gig drive on the PC would easily allow for
>>>> 32 tracks of 24/48 at 3 ms buffer on the RME Fireface 400. If you raise
>>>> the buffer then 48 tracks should be no problem.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> She generally won't be
>>>>
>>>>> recording more than two tracks at a time, four absolute max. I don't
>>> think
>>>
>>>>> she'd be mixing more than eight tracks at any one time either. I will
>>>>> certainly be surfing myself to see what's out there, but I'd take you
>>> folk's
>>>
>>>>> recommendations, even over say... Mr. Spock's --although he did some
>>> pretty
>>>
>>>>> nifty stuff analyzing those whale sounds.
>>>>> Thank you, thank you.
>>>>> MR
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> The current laptops well use the new Core 2 Duo CPUs.
>>>>
>>>
> http://www.adkproaudio.com/systems/saved_system.cfm?systemid =103&saved_id=89
>>> 35
>>>
>>>> :)
>>>>
>>>> Chris
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Chris Ludwig
>>>>
>>>> ADK Pro Audio
>>>> (859) 635-5762
>>>> www.adkproaudio.com
>>>> chrisl@adkproaudio.com
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Chris Ludwig
>> ADK
>> chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
>> www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
>> (859) 635-5762
>
>
--
Chris Ludwig
ADK Pro Audio
(859) 635-5762
www.adkproaudio.com
chrisl@adkproaudio.comI would pay (nearly) any amount of money for the following capabilities:
1. Delay compensation on inserts and auxes.
2. Ability to use VSTs on aux busses.
This would keep me using Paris as my primary app for a LONG time.
"Mark McCurdy" <gmmccurdy@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Count me in.
>
>"Nappy" <mgrant01@san.rr.com> wrote in message news:45100198$1@linux...
>>
>> I'm willing to pay for any upgrades as well.
>>
>> respect
>> Nappy
>>
>>
>> "Aaron Allen" <Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT:movie on 911-you'vre got to see this [message #71490 is a reply to message #71481] |
Sun, 20 August 2006 09:25 |
LaMont
Messages: 828
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
ring his heart out to the passenger about how
his life had taken a downward turn and how he had fallen on
hard times. It wasn't long before the drunk had tears streaming
down his face. The Aikido man, somewhat ashamed thought to
himself 'That's Aikido!'. He realised in that instant that the
passenger with a comforting arm around the sobbing drunk was
demonstrating Aikido, and all martial art, in it highest form.
"Martin Harrington" <lendan@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>So John,
>Why don't you tell us who your pick would be...
>--
>Martin Harrington
>www.lendanear-sound.com
>
>"DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote in message
>news:45101602@linux...
>> Historically, in the west, I'd say Metternich has to take the cake even
>> though
>> he believed everything I despise. Austria by rights was a bit player on
>> the
>> European stage but their chief diplomat remade most of Europe.
>>
>> I agree that he was aboslutely brilliant.
>>
>>>Just my ideas off the top of my head. The US has been starved for true
>> diplomats
>> and strategic thinkers for some time. That's part of the reason we're
in
>> the mess we're in now. <
>>
>> Well, IMHO, we are faced with what we've got now (and could be improved)
>> or
>> with the return to the Talleyrands of the left and the wet finger in the
>> wind.
>>
>>
>>
>> "TCB" <nobody@ishere.com> wrote in message news:451010bb$1@linux...
>>>
>>> "John" <no@no.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >Ok, so who do you consider to be a great diplomats period?
>>>
>>> It depends on the definition of diplomacy, of course, so I'd say probably
>>> the best diplomat we've had as a president in a while was Bush Sr. When
>> you
>>> compare the quality, quantity, and staying power of his coaltion in Gulf
>>> I to the phony coalition of the bullied and bought for Gulf II it says
a
>>> lot. I'm no Bush Sr. fan at all, he was a warmongering bastard like every
>>> president since at least McKinley, but he was shrewd and rational. I
>>> think
>>> Colin Powell had a real chance until he got neo-conned. I think he had
>>> the
>>> temperment and the fact he was non-white gave him a different sort of
>> credibility
>>> than, say, James Baker when he would talk to non-European countries.
I
>> think
>>> Saudi ambassador prince Bandar was given enviable cards to play (best
oil
>>> fields in the world) but has managed them impressively considering his
>> country
>>> leads the world in beheadings and funding Islamists.
>>>
>>> Historically, in the west, I'd say Metternich has to take the cake even
>> though
>>> he believed everything I despise. Austria by rights was a bit player
on
>> the
>>> European stage but their chief diplomat remade most of Europe.
>>>
>>> For the US, I'd say nobody has come close to Benjamin Franklin, with
John
>>> Adams as a second. Adams was able to convince both finance and political
>>> bigshots to believe in a country that didn't exist, and to lend us lots
>>> of
>>> money and a Navy. Franklin did much the same with the French, exquisitely
>>> managing a relationship with Talleyrand, another stunningly nimblefooted
>>> (or treacherous depending on your opinion) diplomat. And Franklin managed
>>> this while being adored by the French and banging lots of hot French
>> aristobabes
>>> on the side. So that goes along ways with me.
>>>
>>> Just my ideas off the top of my head. The US has been starved for true
>> diplomats
>>> and strategic thinkers for some time. That's part of the reason we're
in
>>> the mess we're in now.
>>>
>>> TCB
>>
>>
>
>Yeah, 2 samples of latency (at 44.1) for eds plugs
Rod
Chris Ludwig <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote:
>Hi Jimmy,
>As far as I've ever seen the EDS plugins have little or no latency as
>they exist in the hardware just like on a Pro Tools HD system.
>Chris
>
>
>Uptown Jimmy wrote:
>> Wait a minute: Paris atuo-compenstaes for EDS plugins?!
>>
>> I'm very surprised, if true.
>>
>> Jimmy
>>
>> "Chris Ludwig" <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote in message
>> news:450ff34f$1@linux...
>>> HI,
>>> It only matters under 2 scenarios.
>>> 1. Playing VST INstruments in real time.
>>> 2. Processing native effects on a live input.
>>>
>>> Otherwise you can set the buffer high to free up resources.
>>> When using Direct monitoring the software monitor inputs at the hardware
>>> level so no latency.
>>>
>>> ADC becomes more useful in the mixing stage Cubase will keep all the
>>> plug ins including external plug ins sample accurate. Paris will do this
>>> only with its EDS effects not with native. Actually most programs didn't
>>> only had this type of compensation on inserts only forever. Steinberg
>>> were the first to figure out how to do it across the whole path. I wish
>>> Steinberg would stop with all the innovation stuff so I wouldn't have
to
>>> keep track of all the new features the competitors have in their
>>> programs. :0
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Uptown Jimmy wrote:
>>>> What do buffer and latency matter for anymore, what with ADC on native
>>>> systems?
>>>>
>>>> I seriously have no idea, being a Paris junkie since the beginning.
>>>>
>>>> Jimmy
>>>>
>>>> "Chris Ludwig" <chrisl@adkproaudio.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:450f2d33@linux...
>>>>
>>>>> HI Mike,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike R. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hope it's ok to post this question here.
>>>>>> A friend of mine is going to buy a new Mac laptop. She is running
>>>> Cubase SE
>>>>
>>>>>> on her current
>>>>> No Universal Binary yet for Cubase not till 4.0 comes out so I don't
>>>>> think it will work if it is a Intel based one.
>>>>>
>>>>> 'pute and wants a bigger faster, but portable, machine.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm
>>>>>
>>>>>> most interested in your thoughts regarding both an audio card and
what
>>>> sort
>>>>
>>>>>> of external audio drive she could/should use.
>>>>> On a budget the Presonus Firebox is a great unit. If she want quality
>>>>> Mic-Pres and AD/DA, etc then the RME Fireface 400.
>>>>> Also the Mackie Spike or Onyx 400f might be a good option sense they
>>>>> come with the Tracktion software already.
>>>>>
>>>>> If she is only recording 2 tracks or so then there is no need for an
>>>>> external drive. It would only be needed fore backs ups but the projects
>>>>> would more than likely be small enough to easily fit on DVDRW.
>>>>> Using an internal 80 or 100 gig drive on the PC would easily allow
for
>>>>> 32 tracks of 24/48 at 3 ms buffer on the RME Fireface 400. If you raise
>>>>> the buffer then 48 tracks should be no problem.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> She generally won't be
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT:movie on 911-you'vre got to see this [message #71491 is a reply to message #71481] |
Sun, 20 August 2006 09:42 |
Dedric Terry
Messages: 788
Registered: June 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
>>>>
>>>>>> recording more than two tracks at a time, four absolute max. I don't
>>>> think
>>>>
>>>>>> she'd be mixing more than eight tracks at any one time either. I
will
>>>>>> certainly be surfing myself to see what's out there, but I'd take
you
>>>> folk's
>>>>
>>>>>> recommendations, even over say... Mr. Spock's --although he did some
>>>> pretty
>>>>
>>>>>> nifty stuff analyzing those whale sounds.
>>>>>> Thank you, thank you.
>>>>>> MR
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> The current laptops well use the new Core 2 Duo CPUs.
>>>>>
>>>>
>> http://www.adkproaudio.com/systems/saved_system.cfm?systemid =103&saved_id=89
>>>> 35
>>>>
>>>>> :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Chris
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Chris Ludwig
>>>>>
>>>>> ADK Pro Audio
>>>>> (859) 635-5762
>>>>> www.adkproaudio.com
>>>>> chrisl@adkproaudio.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>> Chris Ludwig
>>> ADK
>>> chrisl@adkproaudio.com <mailto:chrisl@adkproaudio.com>
>>> www.adkproaudio.com <http://www.adkproaudio.com/>
>>> (859) 635-5762
>>
>>
>
>--
>Chris Ludwig
>
>ADK Pro Audio
>(859) 635-5762
>www.adkproaudio.com
>chrisl@adkproaudio.comThe Dems are completely screwed because they _at least_ rolled over to a one.
On the whole program, from start to finish. People forget Patriot I was Clinton
legislation in reaction to Oklahoma City, Patriot II just took another nibble
at what (little) was left of the constitution.
Unlike most people, I was a loud critic of this war _before_ it started.
This was because I know what the US has done previously in Southeast Asia,
Central America, and so on. We've invaded nearly every country south of the
Mexican border at least twice, some more. The Dominican Republic had Marines
there five time in the twentieth century, a country that couldn't defeat
the Albany PD on a good day. Every time we've invaded another country it
was to save it from a) itself or b) the evil empire. After reading in the
1980's about the terrifying strategic threats posed by Guatemala, Grenada,
Nicarauga, and Panama I decided I'd be a bit skeptical henceforth.
But I remember seeing two of the most prominent Dems, Joe Lieberman and Hillary
Clinton, on TV in the run up the war. Both were demanding to know why Bush
hadn't invaded Iraq already. Why we weren't using bigger bombs on more people
far faster etc. and so forth. And I said to myself, 'Well, that's the end
of the Democratic party.' And it's hard to feel terribly nostalgic for it.
And, as you say Deej, now all effort is being made to blame the CIA because
if we don't blame them we might actually blame the cringing sycophants we
elected to represent We the People in Congress Assembled. Ironically it was
the CIA that was most cautious about the Iraq war. The CIA may be a bunch
of loathesome spooks who the US would assassinate if they did to us what
they do to other countries in our name, but that doesn't make them wrong
or stupid.
But I always say, think of two things about the current various wars on terror.
Who at the very least paid for the training and equipping of Osama and his
boys? During the brutal ten year Iran-Iraq war, did the US support one side
with money or military equipment, and if so which side?
Both parties should pay for what they've done, neither will,
TCB
"DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote:
>The dems you mentioned authorized the military attack on Iraq as a last
>resort and I don't believe they were satisfied it was done as such.
>
>How convenient for them when it was the intelligence service that they
>created over 8 years of hard work that they now attempt to slag and blame
>for their decisdions so they can vote for the war before they vote against
>it.
>
>"Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:450f8aec@linux...
>>
>> There is plenty of finger pointing to go around. No doubt specific
>> things could have been handled better under the previous government.
>>
>> The transition of power between the previous and current governments was
>> pretty rocky, and a "not invented here" syndrome may have doomed the
>> hand-off of some al-Qaida related work that was in progress.
>>
>> In any case, no government gets a pass by blaming the previous
>> government. The current government, for example, failed to follow
>> through and prioritize the al-Qaida threat ahead of 9/11 and failed to
>> prevent 9/11; failed to find and capture Bin Laden in Afghanistan;
>> failed to overcome Taliban control of large areas of Afghanistan;
>> allowed record drug production to reestablish itself there; failed to
>> plan for post Iraq invasion problems predicted by their own state
>> department; and they have continually exploited the "war on terrorism"
>> for domestic political ends.
>>
>> You assert the WMDs were there. However Bush's chief inspector, and Bush
>> himself, say they weren't there after all. It was a bluff. One of the
>> Iraqi expatriate promoters of the bluff got the ear of our government,
>> was believed, and, last I heard, had parlayed it into a position of
>> power in Iraq after the invasion.
>>
>> The dems you mentioned authorized the military attack on Iraq as a last
>> resort and I don't believe they were satisfied it was done as such.
>>
>> Preemptive invasion is new as part of the "Bush (Jr.) Doctrine."
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>> DJ wrote:
>> > "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:450f3862@linux...
>> >> Neither, actually. And what we ought to do would depend on the nature
>of
>> >> the threat.
>> >
>> > Agreed.
>> >
>> >> We might want to start with recommendations published in 1999, well
>> >> before the 9/11 attack.
>> >>
>> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Commission_on_Terroris m
>> >>
>> >> We can disagree about whether our current policy is one of overreacting
>> >> or not. We can probably really disagree about the newly minted
>> >> preemptive attack policy. :^)
>> >
>> > I don't think there is any newly minted attack policy. There has always
>been
>> > the *clear and present danger* perogative but it needs to be based on
>> > accurate intelligence. Had this been available, then I doubt that Bush,
>> > Kerry, Kennedy Pelosi and the rest would have authorized the invasion
of
>> > Iraq, or perhaps they would have been able to find the WMD's before
they
>> > were shipped out of the country or hidden. I just find it hard to
>stomach
>> > the hypocracy of the democrats whose policies neutered our intelligence
>> > services in the '90's when they trun around and blame Bush for the
>decisions
>> > made based on the intellegence blunders they created in the first place.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > Deej
>> >
>> >
>> >> Cheers,
>> >> -Jamie
>> >> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> DJ wrote:
>> >>> I don't see us overreacting Jamie. However, if there is indication
of
>> > some
>> >>> sort of major threat, do we run and tell the NY times or do we blow
>the
>> >>> threat away before it pays us a visit?
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>news:450f0b12@linux...
>> >>>> Of course they came out with a blustery ultimatum. That's not news,
>> > it's
>> >>>> an old pattern. It works for them to sit back and suggest that others
>> > do
>> >>>> something via terror-grams such as this. If it makes you afraid as
>> > well,
>> >>>> my guess is they would see that as a bonus.
>> >
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT:movie on 911-youve got to see this [message #71496 is a reply to message #71488] |
Sun, 20 August 2006 11:33 |
Deej [1]
Messages: 2149
Registered: January 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
t;>>>>> unanimously condemned Pope Benedict XVI. Lebanon's top Shiite
>> >>>>>>>>> cleric demanded an apology. And in Turkey, the ruling party
>> >>>>>>>>> likened the pontiff to Hitler and Mussolini and accused him
of
>> >>>>>>>>> reviving the mentality of the Crusades.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> “Across the Islamic world Friday, Benedict's remarks on Islam
>and
>> >>>>>>>>> jihad in a speech in Germany unleashed a torrent of rage that
>> >>>>>>>>> many fear could burst into violent protests like those that
>> >>>>>>>>> followed publication of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad.”
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Reuters quoted other sources expressing fears for the Pope’s
>> >>>>>>>>> safety and even fear of an attack on Vatican City.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> The Islamist reaction proves Manuel II’s 600-year-old point.
>The
>> >>>>>>>>> reaction is not one of anger but a calculated attempt to force
>> >>>>>>>>> the Pope to parrot the PC line on Islam. Since Islam need not
be
>> >>>>>>>>> internally consistent and it is not bound by reason, it’s only
>> >>>>>>>>> objective can be to assert the power of a God who is so
>> >>>>>>>>> transcendent that He is not bound by anything. If man is created
>> >>>>>>>>> in God’s image then by extension Islamic man is not bound by
>> >>>>>>>>> anything. (This explains the predilection on the part of some
>> >>>>>>>>> Muslims to lie.) Islamists are not responding to any ‘offense’
>to
>> >>>>>>>>> their non-existent morality. They are asserting the only
>> >>>>>>>>> ‘morality’ they have—the will to power.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> “Will to Power” is a key element of Nietzsche ’s
>philosophy—hence
>> >>>>>>>>> the root of the term, Islamofascist. Moreover the Western “Left’
>> >>>>>>>>> is today guided far more by Nietzsche existentialist thought
>than
>> >>>>>>>>> by Marxist thought—hence the alliance between the Western “Left”
>> >>>>>>>>> and the Islamofascist ‘Right.’
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Reuters quotes an Indian Muslim leader doing precisely what
>> >>>>>>>>> Manuel II said they would: “Syed Ahmed Bukhari, the chief cleric
>> >>>>>>>>> of New Delhi's historic Jama Masjid, India's largest mosque,
>> >>>>>>>>> extolled Muslims to ‘respond in a manner which forces the Pope
>to
>> >>>>>>>>> apologize.’” Note they intend to use “force” not reason.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Reuters quotes an unnamed diplomat pointing out the Pope was,
>> >>>>>>>>> “calling a spade a spade”.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> The secularist mouthpiece, New York Times,editorializes, “Pope
>> >>>>>>>>> Benedict XVI has insulted Muslims….” This is false. The Pope’s
>> >>>>>>>>> description of the Islamic God as being unbound by reason is
not
>> >>>>>>>>> an insult, it is an Islamic article of faith. What Muslims
and
>> >>>>>>>>> secularists fear is the Pope’s decision to choose to enter
>> >>>>>>>>> dialogue asserting his belief in Christianity. How dare he
not
>> >>>>>>>>> “apologize” for being a Christian? That is the so-called
>> >>>>>>>>> “insult.”
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> One might “reasonably” ask when will Muslims “apologize” for
>> >>>>>>>>> being Muslim? But they are not bound by reason to the point
is
>> >>>>>>>>> lost on them.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Amazingly the Times continues: “Muslim leaders the world over
>> >>>>>>>>> have demanded apologies… For many Muslims, holy war — jihad
— is
>> >>>>>>>>> a spiritual struggle, and not a call to violence.” In saying
>> >>>>>>>>> this, the Times implicitly recognizes the Islamists are waging
a
>> >>>>>>>>> propaganda jihad against the Pope and by extension against
>> >>>>>>>>> Christianity—and they explicitly endorse and join this jihad.
>> >>>>>>>>> The Times is saying to Islamists, ‘we can join your ‘spiritual’
>> >>>>>>>>> jihad, but not your violent jihad.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> The Times editors are living in a fool’s paradise. The
>> >>>>>>>>> “spiritual” non-violent jihad of propaganda is merely the flip
>> >>>>>>>>> side of the violent jihad. Nowhere is that more clear than
in
>> >>>>>>>>> the Islamist reaction to the Pope.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> With the Pope scheduled to visit Turkey in November the
>Islamists
>> >>>>>>>>> are rejecting any apology from Vatican spokespersons and demand
>> >>>>>>>>> to hear from the Pope himself. This would place raging mobs
of
>> >>>>>>>>> semi-literate Islamist thugs in the position of forcing the
>> >>>>>>>>> leader of Christendom to bow before them.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> In this demand for submission they are joined by the secularist
>> >>>>>>>>> mouthpiece. In its September 16 edition the Times
>editorializes:
>> >>>>>>>>> “He needs to offer a deep and persuasive apology…” The
>> >>>>>>>>> secularists too seek the Pope’s submission. Like the Islamists,
>> >>>>>>>>> the secularists are driven only by their will to power. While
>> >>>>>>>>> the Islamists represent their demented version of
>> >>>>>>>>> God--unrestrained by reason, the secularists represent their
>> >>>>>>>>> demented version of reason--unrestrained by God. They are
>united
>> >>>>>>>>> by their self-worshipping world view.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> It should be noted that the carefully staged “anger’ from the
>> >>>>>>>>> Islamic world does not condemn Benedict’s characterization of
>> >>>>>>>>> Islam as a religion where God’s “will is not bound up with any
>of
>> >>>>>>>>> our categories, even that of rationality...(The Islamic) God
is
>> >>>>>>>>> not bound even by his own word….” This is not seen as an
>insult.
>> >>>>>>>>> Islam embraces this description. In offering this description
>of
>> >>>>>>>>> Islam, Benedict refers to the views of leading modern French
>> >>>>>>>>> Islamist R. Arnaldez as discussed in the writings of Professor
>> >>>>>>>>> Theodore Khoury of Munster.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Likewise the secularists express no dismay at the pope’s
>> >>>>>>>>> characterization of a secularist as: “(A) subject (who) then
>> >>>>>>>>> decides, on the basis of his experiences, what he considers
>> >>>>>>>>> tenable in matters of religion, and the subjective ‘conscience’
>> >>>>>>>>> becomes the sole arbiter of what is ethical.”
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Benedict asserts that without reason, or without God, there
can
>> >>>>>>>>> be no modern system of morality. He explains, “In this
>> >>>>>>>>> way…ethics and religion lose their power to create a community
>> >>>>>>>>> and become (instead) a completely personal matter.”
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Both Islamist and secularist seek to break God and reason apart.
>> >>>>>>>>> Each claims superiority over the Christian West. They believe
>> >>>>>>>>> absolute moral license makes them powerful. As globalization
>> >>>>>>>>> carries the Western tradition of reason throughout the world,
>> >>>>>>>>> both are in decline.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Where the force of reason is defeated, Islamist and secularist
>> >>>>>>>>> will meet in combat, just as Hitler’s fascists broke their pact
>> >>>>>>>>> with the Soviet Union, invading in June, 1941 after the collapse
>> >>>>>>>>> of the allied forces on the western front.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> What the Islamists and the New York Times both fear is having
to
>> >>>>>>>>> reply to the Pope’s key point, borrowed from the Byzantine
>> >>>>>>>>> Emperor: “‘Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos (word
>or
>> >>>>>>>>> reason) is contrary to the nature of God,’.… It is to this
>great
>> >>>>>>>>> logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners
in
>> >>>>>>>>> the dialogue of cultures.”
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Their fear of reason can only lead the world to disaster.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>
>> >
>> >
>
>"DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote:
>
>
>Well.....if I get something going with this, I'll let you know. I'm not
=
>sure exactly what happened with the AES thing at this point. All I can =
>say is that the intent was certainly there and sincere on everyone's =
>part, but for reasons that are still unknown to me, this has been put on
=
>hold indefinitely. I guess I'll take responsibility for the =
>disappointment though and I'm really sorry that things are still in =
>limbo regarding this.
>
>Deej
>
Hey Deej! I know this is a long shot, but could you post the plans and any
info for the DIY guys. Maybe we could find somebody to build them for us.
James
>
>
> "Tom Bruhl" <arpegio@comcast.net> wrote in message =
>news:4510129a$1@linux...
> DJ,
> I'm in for the upgrades. =20
>
> What happened to the AES box you were talking about?
> Tom
>
>
> "DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote in message =
>news:450f1a7f@linux...
> Do we have any money to pay him? I don't think he's gonna work for =
>free.
>
> ;oP
>
> "Aaron Allen" <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote in message
> news:450e9b9e@linux...
> > Find out if dude is interested in writing a windows Vista and OS-x
=
>driver
> :)
> >
> > AA
> >
> >
> > "DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote in message
> > news:450e471d$1@linux...
> > > He wrote the software program that MRI machines are using these
=
>days.
> > > Very
> > > interesting guy. I'm mastering a project for his wife. He was
=
>pretty
> > > interested in the Paris program. His wife is pretty well known =
>in the LA
> > > music community and he digs this stuff. I may ask him if he =
>could write
> a
> > > delay compensation applet for Paris. He really got a chuckle out
=
>of
> > > Frankencomp.......said he's built a few similar monstrosities =
>himself.
> > > They
> > > will be back over here tomorrow night.
> > >
> > > ;o)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> I choose Polesoft Lockspam to fight spam, and you?
> http://www.polesoft.com/refer.html
>
><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
><HTML><HEAD>
><META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
>charset=3Diso-8859-1">
><META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=3DGENERATOR>
><STYLE></STYLE>
></HEAD>
><BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Well.....if I get something going with
=
>this, I'll=20
>let you know. I'm not sure exactly what happened with the AES thing at =
>this=20
>point. All I can say is that the intent was certainly there and sincere
=
>on=20
>everyone's part, but for reasons that are still unknown to me, this has
=
>been put=20
>on hold indefinitely. I guess I'll take responsibility for the =
>disappointment=20
>though and I'm really sorry that things are still in limbo regarding=20
>this.</FONT></DIV>
><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Deej</FONT></DIV>
><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
><DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
><BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
>style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
>BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
> <DIV>"Tom Bruhl" <<A=20
> href=3D"mailto:arpegio@comcast.net">arpegio@comcast.net</A>> wrote =
>in message=20
> <A href=3D"news:4510129a$1@linux">news:4510129a$1@linux</A>...</DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>DJ,</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I'm in for the upgrades. =
></FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>What happened to the AES box you were
=
>talking=20
> about?</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Tom</FONT></DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
> <DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
> <BLOCKQUOTE=20
> style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
>BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
> <DIV>"DJ" <<A=20
> =
>href=3D"mailto:animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net">animix_spam-this-ahole=
>_@animas.net</A>>=20
> wrote in message <A=20
> href=3D"news:450f1a7f@linux">news:450f1a7f@linux</A>...</DIV>Do we =
>have any=20
> money to pay him? I don't think he's gonna work for=20
> free.<BR><BR>;oP<BR><BR>"Aaron Allen" <<A=20
> =
>href=3D"mailto:know-spam@not_here.dude">know-spam@not_here.dude</A>> =
>wrote=20
> in message<BR><A=20
> href=3D"news:450e9b9e@linux">news:450e9b9e@linux</A>...<BR>> Find =
>out if=20
> dude is interested in writing a windows Vista and OS-x=20
> driver<BR>:)<BR>><BR>> AA<BR>><BR>><BR>> "DJ" <<A=20
> =
>href=3D"mailto:animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net">animix_spam-this-ahole=
>_@animas.net</A>>=20
> wrote in message<BR>> <A=20
> href=3D"news:450e471d$1@linux">news:450e471d$1@linux</A>...<BR>> =
>> He=20
> wrote the software program that MRI machines are using these =
>days.<BR>>=20
> > Very<BR>> > interesting guy. I'm mastering a project for =
>his=20
> wife. He was pretty<BR>> > interested in the Paris =
>
> program. His wife is pretty well known in the LA<BR>> > music=20
> community and he digs this stuff. I may ask him if he could=20
> write<BR>a<BR>> > delay compensation applet for Paris. He =
>really got a=20
> chuckle out of<BR>> > Frankencomp.......said he's built a few =
>similar=20
> monstrosities himself.<BR>> > They<BR>> > will be back =
>over here=20
> tomorrow night.<BR>> ><BR>> > ;o)<BR>> ><BR>>=20
> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>><BR>><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
> <DIV><FONT size=3D2><BR><BR>I choose Polesoft Lockspam to fight spam,
=
>and=20
> you?<BR><A=20
> =
>href=3D"http://www.polesoft.com/refer.html">http://www.polesoft.com/refer=
>.html</A> </FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
>
>>But again, merely pointing fingers backwards
>in no way excuses the mistakes and failures of the current government.
Our situation is directly related to the fact that our leaders based their
decisions on disinformation that was a result of the policies of the Clinton
administration. I'm not pointing the finger backwards for any other reason
than I feel it is important to keep this in mind lest we elect the same
misguided souls with the same naieve and misguided foriegn policy ideas to
office once again and end up in an even bigger mess.........and yes.......it
could be much bigger if the liberals take control of the national
legislature.......much less, god forbid, having another Clinton in the white
House.
"Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:451035a7@linux...
>
> For most of the Clinton years the balance of power was divided between
> both parties. Again, there is plenty of finger pointing to go around.
> It's easy enough in hindsight to criticize the previous administration
> on a number of counts.
>
> And in retrospect, those dems made a mistake trusting Bush with that
> vote. OTOH, it was a moment of unity.
>
> Flash forward. Today all branches of national government are controlled
> by one party. It doesn't bother me if you want to point blame at some of
> the policies under Clinton. But again, merely pointing fingers backwards
> in no way excuses th
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT:movie on 911-you'vre got to see this [message #71507 is a reply to message #71490] |
Sun, 20 August 2006 14:33 |
Deej [1]
Messages: 2149
Registered: January 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
t;>>>>>>> jihad, but not your violent jihad.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> The Times editors are living in a fool’s paradise. The
> >>>>>>>>>>> “spiritual” non-violent jihad of propaganda is merely the flip
> >>>>>>>>>>> side of the violent jihad. Nowhere is that more clear than in
> >>>>>>>>>>> the Islamist reaction to the Pope.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> With the Pope scheduled to visit Turkey in November the
> > Islamists
> >>>>>>>>>>> are rejecting any apology from Vatican spokespersons and
demand
> >>>>>>>>>>> to hear from the Pope himself. This would place raging mobs
of
> >>>>>>>>>>> semi-literate Islamist thugs in the position of forcing the
> >>>>>>>>>>> leader of Christendom to bow before them.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> In this demand for submission they are joined by the
secularist
> >>>>>>>>>>> mouthpiece. In its September 16 edition the Times
> > editorializes:
> >>>>>>>>>>> “He needs to offer a deep and persuasive apology…” The
> >>>>>>>>>>> secularists too seek the Pope’s submission. Like the
Islamists,
> >>>>>>>>>>> the secularists are driven only by their will to power. While
> >>>>>>>>>>> the Islamists represent their demented version of
> >>>>>>>>>>> God--unrestrained by reason, the secularists represent their
> >>>>>>>>>>> demented version of reason--unrestrained by God. They are
> > united
> >>>>>>>>>>> by their self-worshipping world view.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> It should be noted that the carefully staged “anger’ from the
> >>>>>>>>>>> Islamic world does not condemn Benedict’s characterization of
> >>>>>>>>>>> Islam as a religion where God’s “will is not bound up with any
> > of
> >>>>>>>>>>> our categories, even that of rationality...(The Islamic) God
is
> >>>>>>>>>>> not bound even by his own word….” This is not seen as an
> > insult.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Islam embraces this description. In offering this description
> > of
> >>>>>>>>>>> Islam, Benedict refers to the views of leading modern French
> >>>>>>>>>>> Islamist R. Arnaldez as discussed in the writings of Professor
> >>>>>>>>>>> Theodore Khoury of Munster.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Likewise the secularists express no dismay at the pope’s
> >>>>>>>>>>> characterization of a secularist as: “(A) subject (who) then
> >>>>>>>>>>> decides, on the basis of his experiences, what he considers
> >>>>>>>>>>> tenable in matters of religion, and the subjective ‘conscience
’
> >>>>>>>>>>> becomes the sole arbiter of what is ethical.”
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Benedict asserts that without reason, or without God, there
can
> >>>>>>>>>>> be no modern system of morality. He explains, “In this
> >>>>>>>>>>> way…ethics and religion lose their power to create a community
> >>>>>>>>>>> and become (instead) a completely personal matter.”
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Both Islamist and secularist seek to break God and reason
apart.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Each claims superiority over the Christian West. They believe
> >>>>>>>>>>> absolute moral license makes them powerful. As globalization
> >>>>>>>>>>> carries the Western tradition of reason throughout the world,
> >>>>>>>>>>> both are in decline.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Where the force of reason is defeated, Islamist and secularist
> >>>>>>>>>>> will meet in combat, just as Hitler’s fascists broke their
pact
> >>>>>>>>>>> with the Soviet Union, invading in June, 1941 after the
collapse
> >>>>>>>>>>> of the allied forces on the western front.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> What the Islamists and the New York Times both fear is having
to
> >>>>>>>>>>> reply to the Pope’s key point, borrowed from the Byzantine
> >>>>>>>>>>> Emperor: “‘Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos (word
> > or
> >>
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT:movie on 911-you'vre got to see this [message #71508 is a reply to message #71497] |
Sun, 20 August 2006 15:14 |
Deej [1]
Messages: 2149
Registered: January 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
>>>>>>>>> reason) is contrary to the nature of God,’.… It is to this
> > great
> >>>>>>>>>>> logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners
in
> >>>>>>>>>>> the dialogue of cultures.”
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Their fear of reason can only lead the world to disaster.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>
> >
> >I don't have the schematics. I'll check, though I did run this up the
flagpole a while back and got no response..
DJ
"James McCloskey" <excelsm@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4510708c$1@linux...
>
> "DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Well.....if I get something going with this, I'll let you know. I'm not
> =
> >sure exactly what happened with the AES thing at this point. All I can =
> >say is that the intent was certainly there and sincere on everyone's =
> >part, but for reasons that are still unknown to me, this has been put on
> =
> >hold indefinitely. I guess I'll take responsibility for the =
> >disappointment though and I'm really sorry that things are still in =
> >limbo regarding this.
> >
> >Deej
> >
>
> Hey Deej! I know this is a long shot, but could you post the plans and
any
> info for the DIY guys. Maybe we could find somebody to build them for us.
>
> James
>
>
> >
> >
> > "Tom Bruhl" <arpegio@comcast.net> wrote in message =
> >news:4510129a$1@linux...
> > DJ,
> > I'm in for the upgrades. =20
> >
> > What happened to the AES box you were talking about?
> > Tom
> >
> >
> > "DJ" <animix_spam-this-ahole_@animas.net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT:movie on 911-you'vre got to see this [message #71516 is a reply to message #71514] |
Sun, 20 August 2006 21:17 |
Deej [1]
Messages: 2149
Registered: January 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
br />
> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:451035a7@linux...
>> For most of the Clinton years the balance of power was divided between
>> both parties. Again, there is plenty of finger pointing to go around.
>> It's easy enough in hindsight to criticize the previous administration
>> on a number of counts.
>>
>> And in retrospect, those dems made a mistake trusting Bush with that
>> vote. OTOH, it was a moment of unity.
>>
>> Flash forward. Today all branches of national government are controlled
>> by one party. It doesn't bother me if you want to point blame at some of
>> the policies under Clinton. But again, merely pointing fingers backwards
>> in no way excuses the mistakes and failures of the current government.
>>
>> They walked in stating in clear terms that they felt the previous
>> government was wrong about almost everything, and then fell flat
>> overall, domestically and internationally.
>>
>> Looking at both governments, we can do better. We must do better.
>> At some point, and we're coming up on six years, the buck stops with
>> those in charge now.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Jamie
>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>
>>
>>
>> DJ wrote:
>>> The dems you mentioned authorized the military attack on Iraq as a last
>>> resort and I don't believe they were satisfied it was done as such.
>>>
>>> How convenient for them when it was the intelligence service that they
>>> created over 8 years of hard work that they now attempt to slag and
> blame
>>> for their decisdions so they can vote for the war before they vote
> against
>>> it.
>>>
>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message news:450f8aec@linux...
>>>> There is plenty of finger pointing to go around. No doubt specific
>>>> things could have been handled better under the previous government.
>>>>
>>>> The transition of power between the previous and current governments
> was
>>>> pretty rocky, and a "not invented here" syndrome may have doomed the
>>>> hand-off of some al-Qaida related work that was in progress.
>>>>
>>>> In any case, no government gets a pass by blaming the previous
>>>> government. The current government, for example, failed to f
|
|
|
|
| Re: OT:movie on 911-youve got to see this [message #71517 is a reply to message #71503] |
Sun, 20 August 2006 21:46 |
LaMont
Messages: 828
Registered: October 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
ollow
>>>> through and prioritize the al-Qaida threat ahead of 9/11 and failed to
>>>> prevent 9/11; failed to find and capture Bin Laden in Afghanistan;
>>>> failed to overcome Taliban control of large areas of Afghanistan;
>>>> allowed record drug production to reestablish itself there; failed to
>>>> plan for post Iraq invasion problems predicted by their own state
>>>> department; and they have continually exploited the "war on terrorism"
>>>> for domestic political ends.
>>>>
>>>> You assert the WMDs were there. However Bush's chief inspector, and
> Bush
>>>> himself, say they weren't there after all. It was a bluff. One of the
>>>> Iraqi expatriate promoters of the bluff got the ear of our government,
>>>> was believed, and, last I heard, had parlayed it into a position of
>>>> power in Iraq after the invasion.
>>>>
>>>> The dems you mentioned authorized the military attack on Iraq as a last
>>>> resort and I don't believe they were satisfied it was done as such.
>>>>
>>>> Preemptive invasion is new as part of the "Bush (Jr.) Doctrine."
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -Jamie
>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
> news:450f3862@linux...
>>>>>> Neither, actually. And what we ought to do would depend on the nature
>>> of
>>>>>> the threat.
>>>>> Agreed.
>>>>>
>>>>>> We might want to start with recommendations published in 1999, well
>>>>>> before the 9/11 attack.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Commission_on_Terroris m
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We can disagree about whether our current policy is one of
> overreacting
>>>>>> or not. We can probably really disagree about the newly minted
>>>>>> preemptive attack policy. :^)
>>>>> I don't think there is any newly minted attack policy. There has
> always
>>> been
>>>>> the *clear and present danger* perogative but it needs to be based on
>>>>> accurate intelligence. Had this been available, then I doubt that
> Bush,
>>>>> Kerry, Kennedy Pelosi and the rest would have authorized the invasion
> of
>>>>> Iraq, or perhaps they would have been able to find the WMD's before
> they
>>>>> were shipped out of the country or hidden. I just find it hard to
>>> stomach
>>>>> the hypocracy of the democrats whose policies neutered our
> intelligence
>>>>> services in the '90's when they trun around and blame Bush for the
>>> decisions
>>>>> made based on the intellegence blunders they created in the first
> place.
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Deej
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>>>> I don't see us overreacting Jamie. However, if there is indication
> of
>>>>> some
>>>>>>> sort of major threat, do we run and tell the NY times or do we blow
>>> the
>>>>>>> threat away before it pays us a visit?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Jamie K" <Meta@Dimensional.com> wrote in message
>>> news:450f0b12@linux...
>>>>>>>> Of course they came out with a blustery ultimatum. That's not news,
>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>> an old pattern. It works for them to sit back and suggest that
> others
>>>>> do
>>>>>>>> something via terror-grams such as this. If it makes you afraid as
>>>>> well,
>>>>>>>> my guess is they would see that as a bonus.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> By goading the USA into overreacting it helps them grow, raise
> money
>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> convince others to actually see us as evil and act accordingly. It
>>>>>>>> works, we keep falling for it. OTOH, for those here with a declared
>>>>>>>> interest in emptying the US treasury, it's likewise beneficial to
>>> have
>>>>>>>> the specter of an enemy out there. Fear sells.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We have yet to actually declare war on anyone in this whole mess.
> How
>>>>> do
>>>>>>>> you declare war on a tactic?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Forced conversion and head taxes would go over like a lead balloon
> in
>>>>>>>> the USA. Not gonna happen. We're far more sectarian than, say,
> Iraq.
>>>>>>>> Responsible leadership is needed in the world to calm extremist
>>>>>>>> tendencies on all sides and help rational people who are trying to
>>> get
>>>>>>>> by in worsening times. At the same time we need to be, and are
>>>>>>>> attempting to be, vigilant against any self righteous group with
>>>>>>>> fantasies of violence in the USA.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Any rush to some sort of "holy war" is irrational. There is nothing
>>>>> holy
>>>>>>>> about war.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>> -Jamie
>>>>>>>> http://www.JamieKrutz.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> DJ wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I haven't seen us react with irrationality............
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Thu May 21 06:45:49 PDT 2026
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.06595 seconds
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
