127 posts • joined Thursday 17th April 2008 12:37 GMT
For decades I have been plagued by idiots in front of me at the cash machine who seem to insert the wrong card. Or insert a card, check a balance, then insert another card for their cash.
These people with two cards are a total pain in the ass.
If the new tills are affecting these people by reading the wrong card, I see this as revenge for having such a stupid method of handling their personal finance. One bank account, one card, no queue at the cashpoint.
A nice bit of marketing
I, and I'm sure many others, had never heard of this game or its developer before this "story" broke. I bet many of the 214 people who bought it also hadn't heard of it before the pirate release either.
I'm not going to get into what is good or bad for any media industry but I know for sure that I have bought many games, movies and TV box sets purely on the recommendation of a load of friends who downloaded it for free. Without that, I'd often never of heard of the TV show.
Beer, because pirates drink that too.
Re: Another carbon reduction failure
I have been monitoring this page on an almost daily basis for years now:
If you ignore the electric car and comparison nonsense around it, the grid data is actually quite useful.
I've never seen the grid electric fall below 500g CO2/kWh and it is regularly above the 600g barrier - especially in the winter months when electric lights, heating etc. are used more frequently.
Obviously there are times of day, like in the early hours, where demand may be low and this may drag overall averages down and make the numbers look good. In real terms though, a mean average doesn't tell the whole picture. A modal average would probably be more realistic - e.g. for most hours of the day, the CO2 emissions are considerably higher than average.
Essentially, for people who live normal hours (e.g. not night shift workers) there is a large CO2 footprint whenever you plug in a device - larger than the DECC figures may lead you to believe. If you used that appliance in the early hours of the morning it would help a lot, but you can't really have that post-dinner coffee at 3am.
Incidentally, I try to ignore pumped hydro storage as it requires electricity to get it there which has its own CO2 footprint.
@Matthew 3 - Re: Another carbon reduction failure
In reality, the main problem here is that you chose to take a job that is based where you do not live.
Working should be seen as a workaround, not a solution, for this.
Unfortunately, running a car has become so cheap that people feel inclined to commute ridiculous distances each way. People used to relocate and employers used to offer allowances for it. Prospective employers even used to refund travel expenses for interviews.
There is no need for anybody to live in a rural area and also have a long commute, alternative options are available.
Re: Another carbon reduction failure
"IIRC DECC reckon the average UK CO2 emissions per kWh are about 450g, but that aside you are right with your general assertion."
Gotta love averages, they also vary with source. The number also varies depending what you include. For example, we buy in a LOT of electricity from the French who have excess generation from their nukes. This makes our grid cleaner but isn't really our electricity. The average CO2 emissions for electricity only produced on UK soil is considerably higher.
In real terms, all of our low carbon electricity is already allocated to customers. if you then turn on a kettle, or plug-in an electric car, the only place for that extra energy to come from is coal/gas. This has a considerably higher than average CO2 footprint.
"The flaw is that even reducing power generation emissions doesn't solve the total emissions given transport accounts for a substantial portion of total CO2 emissions."
Reducing grid emissions will make alternative lower carbon methods of transport more viable and attractive. I'm rather eco-conscious but wouldn't touch an electric car with a barge pole right now.
Another carbon reduction failure
When will the powers that be realise that most of these CO2 reduction schemes are just nonsense?
There are two simple ways to reduce CO2 emissions:
1) Use less energy, like turning stuff off when we don't need it. People still don't do this enough, too much water in the kettle etc.
2) Produce electricity more cleanly - Pretty much every process uses electricity. We're looking at around 600g of CO2 for every kWh of electricity we generate right now. This electricity fuels electric cars but is also used to generate hydrogen for fuel cells and refine oil for petrol/diesel. If we reduce the carbon footprint of electricity generation, every form of transport gets cleaner - either directly, for electric cars and trains, or indirectly for petrol/diesel cars, trucks and even aeroplanes.
It's been demonstrated over again that renewables like solar PV and wind turbines help reduce this but won't make a dent on emissions from electricity generation for decades. The only realistic solution is nuclear and, with a new power station taking 15-20 years to come on-line, we need to get this done sooner rather than later.
When T-Mobile merged with Orange to form EE, my mobile coverage went down the pan. I'm not exactly sure what they did but I got less signal in many places and in other, where I had full strength, I got no data throughput. It became unusable, nobody listened.
In the end, I decided to cancel and move to another provider - who shall remain nameless so I don't look like I'm representing them.
I called T-Mobile disconnections...there was a VERY long queue. The guy who dealt with me said I wasn't the first with the same complaint and wouldn't be the last.
There may be many people on 4G soon...but I doubt they'll be using EE.
@Mongo - Re: Ouroboros
Most of the UI issues here are familiarity. For years, refreshing a view in Notes used F9. All other apps used the same, I remember refreshing web pages in Netscape using the F9 key.
Then Microsoft decided to use the F5 key for the same function. No idea why, everything else used F5. Of course, for people switching from Outlook to Notes, this was a Notes problem. A problem that it used F9 for fresh for years before Outlook even existed. F5 was used to lock the session in Notes, so this caused more issues.
In the end, we've now ended up with two buttons for refresh in Notes. F9 is still used, for backward compatibility, but now F5 works too - to help the moaners who aren't capable of adjusting. Now, to lock the session, I have to use Ctrl+F5.
Regarding Ctrl+N, this could never work. Many databases have multiple forms, how does it know which form you want to base the document on when you press Ctrl+N? There are also many functions you may to perform at the time a document is created, which is why forms are often hidden from the Create menu. It's fair feedback from your end but, as an application developer, I know it just couldn't work.
The main issue here is familiarity. Back when I started working with Notes in the 90s, Outlook didn't even exist. For most, Notes was the only email program they had ever used. The didn't have internet at home. They seemed to manage with Notes quite well.
Since then, IT literacy seems to have gone DOWN, not up. Everybody has smartphones and computers at home and thinks they know what they are doing. Management think the same, so they train staff less. Staff don't like to admit they're clueless, so they don't call the helpdesk much.
I've turned a lot of people around from being Notes haters, simply by sitting down with them and showing them how it works. Showing them what it is good at and how it can work for them. In the majority of cases, it's simply fear of the unknown. Of course, for the MCSEs who work in a company that runs Notes on Windows, it will always been a bone of contention.
Beer - because people stress too much over this stuff.
@Stu_The_Jock Re: @ecofeco Umm, no! Leccy? No!!
Well, you said "correct me if I am wrong" and if you look a little closer, you'll see those numbers exclude consumption by the power stations themselves. For example, hydro often involves pumping a load of water uphill first for it to fall down again. Thermal requires a lot of pumping down and back up etc.
From the site you linked, is this table:
If clearly shows the net consumption, including this losses, is positive. e.g. it uses more than it generates. This was also 2011 - they've imported a lot of electric cars since then, so consumption will have gone up.
It's close but it should also be noted that Norway is a rare exception. In more usual countries, there is a vast divide between renewable generation and consumption. Norway are doing well, although not enough to justify an electric car, and they can also help Sweden. Going to be a long time until other states get anywhere near though.
@ecofeco Umm, no! Re: Leccy? No!!
You can twist the numbers however you like to make them sound nice, but the real picture is this.
There isn't a single country in the world in which renewable electricity generation exceeds the demand for electricity. Every kWh of renewable is consumed the moment it comes out of the solar panel, wind turbine or hydro generator.
The additional electricity that is needed above that is created by fossil fuels.
If we use electric cars, we need more electricity. To general that electricity, we need more fossil fuels.
Even Tesla's super duper power stations are, I believe, connected to the grid. When a car ISN'T plugged in, they are reducing demand for fossil fuelled electricity and making the grid greener. The moment you plug a Model S in, that electricity is no longer going into the grid and the demand for it has to be met from elsewhere - e.g. coal and gas.
The date on your splash screen image just goes to confirm how old your joke is.
If you're still using 10 year old software, I'm not surprised it sucks a bit on the UI side. Do you run it on Windows 2000 too?
No doubt there will be loads of Lotus Notes haters who drop by this thread today but, if they aren't using a recent version, their opinion simply isn't valid.
If you're going to compare Notes to Outlook, at least make them versions from around the same era.
Renault/Nissan frequently use Lisbon for EV launches due to the easy availability of charging points. That, combined with the warm temperature and relative lack of traffic/gradients make an EV seem like an exciting proposition.
This review did read a lot like a re-written press release.
Re: Aaand we have the obligatory idiot @Fishdog
"The B787 battery issue has nothing to do with vehicle batteries"
I believe it was the boss of Tesla that brought the two issues together...by saying his expert knowledge could fix the issue in no time.
Ultimately, a Li-ion battery is a Li-ion battery. Whether it's a Dell Laptop that's catching fire, a smoking iPhone that's been dropped, or a Fisker Karma that's buring to a cinder, it's still the same tech underneath.
@Chad HRe: Lies...damn lies...and statistics.
"1) this of course would need to be compared to 100% of petrol burned in a car comes from fossil fuels, making the grid about 35% better on this basis."
You're comparing 100% of the chalk with 65% of the cheese again. You can't compare one unit with another of a completely different type.
Sure, 100% of energy in a petrol car comes from petrol. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. I've yet to see a better alternative.
"3) So removign car emmisions wont help?"
There is no means of removing car emissions right now. We're simply moving it from one place (the car) to another (the power station). It would help greatly, but we can't. Unless we walk or similar.
"5) I fail to see your point here. At the moment we've got a lot of cars on the road effectively using dirty power. Hell of a lot easier to do about it when the power is centralised to a few power plants, than smaller petrol engines moving all around the place."
I'm all for fixing the power stations. When they are clean, we can start using more electricity again. All the true eco supporters are turning appliances off at the wall, to avoid standby consumption. They're replacing light bulbs with LEDs etc. Plugging in an electric car increases power usage, the exact opposite way to what we need.
"You see, there's this thing called a rechargable battery, perhaps you might have heard of it, that can effectively store electricity. I believe these cars use something a bit similar."
Whichever way you want to twist it, there isn't a single minute in the day where electricity demand does not exceed generation from renewable power. The only way to provide the extra power needed for electric cars is to burn more coal.
"Its ony a fact in the short term. In the long term, we add more power sources of a different nature to effectively replace the millions of mini plants we have running in cars today."
The thing is, UK power generation is going down not up. People keep pulling out of deals to create power stations and we're being threatened by brown outs. EVs aren't helping this.
"Methods such as carbon sequesteration are better applied to large central power plants than say a million cars on the road."
Sure, but all of the EVs currently on sale will be on the scrap heap long before we have a low carbon national grid.
>OK, for the EV battery the charging is not 100% efficient, but on the other hand if you charge overnight then >there tends to be a higher proportion of low-CO2 sources which should compensate somewhat.
The additional power required can ONLY come from dirty sources. There is no compensation.
>It's worth remembering that renewables such as wind and hydro power have the drawback that they still >generate power even when there is virtually no demand for it at (say) 3am. There are very few ways to store >all that potential excess electricity.. except electric car batteries are one way that it can be done.
At any time of day, day & night, weekday or weekend, power demand always exceeds the amount that comes from renewable or low carbon sources. The only way to generate extra power is from fossil fuels.
The thing that amazes me about electric cars...
...is the amount of techie geeks who believe all the marketing hype.
I know many, perfectly wise, intellligent people who just soak it all up. Some have even bought the cars. These are clever people, who normally ask the right questions. They're atheists as they like a bit of evidence and often work in IT or other science linked profession. They can do the maths, yet somehow believe the numbers they are given without challenging them.
I'm a clean air campaigner. I work in the City and breathe the pollution in central London, it's horrible. I'd love to see changes that reduce carbon emissions in the UK. But I've done the maths and EVs just don't help there.
Sure, if it were practicaly for everybody in London to switch to an EV then pollution may be better in the South. But up North in towns like Sheffield and Nottingham, where a lot of power is generated. pollution would get worse.
Maybe these EVs fans & buyers are just gadget geeks and simply can't stay away as it's a new toy with a plug on it? I admit, my interest was provoked for the same reasons but fortunately I saw through the hype before wasting my money.
Lies...damn lies...and statistics.
Ah, the obligatory person who claims the other guy is an idiot. They're usually more wrong than the first guy. Time for some corrections.
1) As I type, 65.4% of electricity on the National Grid is coming from coal or gas. Rather less than the 40% you claim is coming from low carbon sources. But this number is irrelevant - I'll explain below.
2) That percentage changes all day. It often goes lower at night as we import spare electricity from nuclear power stations in France which aren't as easy to shut down for the night as our coal/gas fired ones are. But this number is irrelevant - I'll explain below.
3) Whilst some pollution is localised, CO2 is more of a global issue. Where it comes from is irrelevant. Generating electricity in the UK generates on average about 600g of CO2 per kWh. When one kWh is only good for about 3 miles in an EV, that's quite a lot. Additionally a lot of low level pollution in City Centres is, rather amazingly, caused by crappy diesel generators that kick in to provide electricity when power supplies frequently fail. WIthout them, London would be a cleaner place.
4) Efficiency is a non-argument, unless the waste is of concern. EV fans always use the efficiency argument but it simply doesn't apply, unless we're comparing two machines that use the same fuel. We aren't. One machine is 80% efficient at burning cheese and the other is 30% efficient at burning chalk . So what? It's the best use for chalk that we have.
5) Improving the power supply will indeed improve all EVs. That's why we should be investing in a cleaner power supply, not investing in more devices to use the dirty power.
The reason the numbers in 1) and 2) are irrelevant are because EVs are only charged using "marginal" electricity. This is the crap you have left after all the green power has been used up.
Wind, solar, and other sources do not have fuel you can store. You get "green" solar electricity when the sun shines. You get wind power when it's windy. You can't simply bottle it up. As a result, green suppliers sell every last drop of it at the moment it is generated. It is all pumped directly into the National Grid...and used.
We're currently generating 48,115MW of electricity to meet demand. The entire wind power output of the UK is currently 5,228MW, or just 10.9% of demand. 1.8% (860MW) comes from hydro and solar genaration is so small it doesn't even appear on the chart except as part of "Other", which provides 696MW (1.4%).
As these green sources only make up about 15% of the current demand - or around 30% if we include nuclear - they are all consumed before they even come out of the power plant. If our demand was only 15,000MW maybe that would be OK, but we need more than three times that. The only way to get extra power is to burn fossil fuels - enter coal and gas.
If you plug in an electric car, the grid needs more power. As all the power from wind, solar and hydro is already allocated, the only option is to throw a few more coals on the fire and increase pollution in the atmosphere. This isn't an opinion, it's a fact.
The only way to improve UK air quality is to either a) Use less electricity or b) Reduce the emissions footprint of generating that electricity. As a) is highly unlikely, that leaves us with b).
Once all UK electricity comes from clean or renewable sources, then, and only then, should we start wasting our money on electric cars.
You think that's a lot of storage?
Seriously, a few TBs is nothing. I really have no idea what they are moaning about, unless this is just an attempt at promoting 4k to those who may not have heard of it.
Superman II the Richard Donner cut was made by working through a basement that contained all of the original reels of film taken during shooting. The combined weight of these tapes was SIX TONNES!
However much storage 4k may require, it's got nothing on those old film reels.
Old reels used to have to be played through by hand and cut up using scissors and tape too. Still think you have bandwidth constraints on your pro workstation?
I own one!
I'm a sucker for a new gadget so we got a Wii U for Christmas. We got the original Wii on the day it came out and played it a lot. However, since my son was born 3 or so years ago, it hasn't seen much use. Now he's hit that PEGI 3 rating age, I thought the Wii U might appeal...I wasn't wrong.
I'd not seen one before buying so when unboxing I was surprised by how big the new controller was. It's not heavy though, which is good for long gaming sessions.
Set-up was quite genius and allowed me to port everything over from the old Wii. You install the Wii U transfer app on your old Wii and the Wii U and, with the help of an SD card and your internet connection, all of your save games, store purchases etc. are transferred over.
All of our Wii games and accessories work perfectly on the Wii U, it's effectively dual boot. You tell it to go into Wii mode and it reboots to the Wii menu. Want to play Wii U games again and you click a menu item and it reboots again to the Wii U home screen. Switching to the Wii menu for the first time showed me my transferred software and inserting a game disc confirmed that all my save games, Mii characters etc. had been transferred. It worked perfectly.
As for the Wii U gaming side of things, I'm highly impressed. We got Nintendoland, Zombie U, Sonic All Star racing and the Super Mario game for the Wii U too.
Nintendoland is simply brilliant and consists of loads of mini games, many of which show off the new controller functions well. On some games, for example, it's effectively hide and seek. The player with the Wii U controller uses their "private" screen to see where they are on the map whilst up to four other players try to find them using the TV screen. We've had a lot of family fun doing this.
In other games, the controller screen is used for aiming or display of maps that would otherwise clutter the game screen. In Zombie U the Wii U controller is excellent for looking at what's in your backpack, switching weapons etc. As a gamer, I love how that works without the need for pop-up menus on the gaming screen.
Sonic All Star Racing uses the controller screen for player 2 if you're racing another local player. In fact, using this method, up to 5 people can race on the same console, with the other 4 using old skool Wii controllers.
Mario is more of the same and can be played just like the Wii version but, if you use the Wii U controller you have increased functionality. Firstly, the co-operative function allows the Wii U controller player to use the touchscreen to build extra platforms, kills monsters and other functions whilst another player controls Mario. With a 3 year old, this is really handy. When he's about to jump into a hole and die, I can put a platform right under his feet and save him.
On top of that, the apps from YouTube, LoveFilm and Netflix are a real winner if you don't already have a device connected to your TV for this. The buffering on YouTube is pretty good and I enjoy HD video from there often. The HDMI connection has also made it easier to hook up to my home cinema for audio and video.
I'm really happy with all of it, pretty much, except the DVD drive is a little bit noisy when the disc is spinning. I had a to struggle to think of that fault though as we love it and it's even got us playing our old Wii games some more..
Re: The Blame
The article clearly points out that inflation went through the roof in the late 70s and things went downhill from there. Who was in charge in the late 70s?
Of course, I blame Mrs. Thatcher for all of this. Sadly, the Champagne is still on ice...for now at least.
@Tim Parker Re: @Ben Rose : @Tim Parker Good idea, poorly executed
"As for FLAC and iTunes - it shouldn't be a problem"
They don't work together. FLAC is not a supported codec in iTunes...period.
"It can be exported via an iTunes server, or pulled from the NAS into iTunes in OSX via fluke."
iTunes and an "iTunes server" are two entirely different thing. Even Apple tried to kill the latter as it was implemented horribly on cheap NAS devices. The iTunes server function was built in to iTunes clients in an attempt to allow households to share their music in a read-only way. e.g. you rip your own music into your own iTunes library and, whilst your PC is on-line, other people can play music from that library. 3rd party iTunes servers will built to allow the same functionality to play music from NAS devices through the iTunes client. Last time I looked, it didn't work with lossless codecs - certainly not on my ReadyNAS.
I don't use OSX, never have. I just use iTunes, as it was the best music manager available when I was given my original iPod.
This evening I have converted my KLF and Prodigy albums to mp3 320 and uploaded them to Google music. It will have to do for now, until something better comes along.
Re: @Craigness Good idea, poorly executed
"Why not set the conversion program to store the mp3s in a separate folder and not delete the original tracks?"
Already a considered option, but then I end up storing two sets of my music files. Admittedly the cost of storage is peanuts these days, but it's more a convenience thing.
"This will keep Itunes intact and you can upload from the folder with the Music Manager program. "
This is the problem. It means that every time I rip a CD into iTunes, I will also need to convert it into something compatible with Google Play Music. Kinda defeats the object. They developed the upload manager to automatically monitor the music I rip into iTunes and upload it. If I have to rip it all twice, or once and convert, then Google Play Music offers me nothing. My phone already supported mp3. There were already Android iTunes sync tools available for those who used mp3 files. I thought this one would be different. I'm a huge Google fan. Love its tools, love its browser, love its phone. This tool just missed the mark completely, for me at least.
If I have to store a separate mp3 library, I may as well just drag/drop those files onto my Android phone using USB. What I wanted was a tool to seamlessly sync between my iTunes library and my Android device. Google Play Music purported to be that but failed.
"Surely even on a Mac this can't be too hard. I doubt tagging can get very broken, and Google will add tags and artwork via music matching."
I can't find any converter that will preserve my artwork and there is no hope of Google replacing it with music matching. A lot of this stuff I physically scanned the sleeves for as they simply don't exist on-line anywhere. iTunes couldn't find it. Tag & Rename couldn't find it. Scanning was the old way. I have a perfect collection, with 100% accurate tags to my own design and 100% accurate photos. It looks great on my Sonos and syncs great with an iPod Touch. Just disappointing that Google failed to support the most widely used lossless codecs.
@GregC - Re: @Ben
"From Google's point of view, how likely is someone who cares enough about quality to rip to a lossless format to buy any music from them, when they provide their music in an inferior (from your POV) format? And if the answer to that question is "not very", which I suspect it is, then where is the benefit to them of providing you with this free service?"
A good point well made.
The answer is that I currently pay both Spotify and Napster for service that doesn't meet my needs. Neither can handle my existing music. Google Play Music can, I never expected to get it for free. Quite happy to pay for a service I receive, I'm no freetard.
@AC 13:48 Re: @AC 12:29
Google Play Music integrates well with iTunes. It imports playlist, podcast and (some) music. It will even maintain the link so as you rip new CDs they automatically get uploaded to Google Music. They aren't scared to work with Apple stuff, they just clearly don't know how it works.
@AC - Re: @AC Good idea, poorly executed
"FLAC halves the size of audio, at best. 320k mp3 is about 1/6th the size. It's a resources thing."
Indeed, ALAC is about the same size as FLAC.
"Demanding lossless quality for free, scaled to Google magnitudes just seems a bit shrill and moon on a stick at this juncture, I'm afraid. Give it N years until bandwidth and storage dwarfs audio by another order of magnitude, and then maybe it will be a reasonable expectation. Right now, it isn't."
Indeed, not demanding that. It should just transcode during upload, as it does for FLAC and apparently WMAL.
"Since you're obviously listening in a properly treated listening room with good quality monitors, or in a very quiet solitary room with open-backed cans, to actually merit this, surely you can afford to store your own stuff?"
Sure, but not on my Samsung S3. My lossless library is ~300GB. No mobile handset can handle that right now, hence my excitement in migrating the data to Google Music whilst maintaining my lossless library for home use.
@hokum Re: Good idea, poorly executed
I don't ONLY use Spotify. I ripped losslessly to enjoy my music at home direct from the ripped source.
On the move, I'd be happy with a 320kbps source, as I am with Spotify, but Google Play Music refuses to convert it.
Re: Good idea, poorly executed
"The only 2 options for not using ALAC are Piracy or apathy? I don't think that washes somehow...."
It's called a sensationalist post, but it wasn't far off the mark. Google have made a decision to not allow any iTunes users who ripped in ANY lossless codec to port their music. Not just ALAC, but AIFF and WAV aren't supported either. They excludes a massive proportion of the market.
"I wouldn't use ALAC (I am not sure if you knew this, but it isn't as widely supported as many other formats)"
For sure, but it has considerably better support than FLAC.
"and you appear to be cutting your nose off to spite your face if you are forcing yourself to pay an additional monthly fee rather than convert your tracks to suitable format."
I pay for Spotify for new music anyway, it's just not as convenient to have my library cluttered with stuff I already own. There are also massive gaps in their collections, for example The KLF deleted its back catalogue years ago - the only place to hear it is on my CD rips.
@Craigness Re: Good idea, poorly executed
"If only there were some way to convert them to some format Google understands."
I'm still looking for a way that will convert ALAC to another lossless codec and preserve all tags and album art. There are many tools that will create a FLAC version or similar, but they break the tagging.
Also, I then lose iTunes support...and all my playlists break.
@Tim Parker Re: Good idea, poorly executed
"It supports FLAC"
But FLAC doesn't work in iTunes. Sure, it works in dozens of music managers that were created since then but, when I ripped, they simply didn't exist.
@Mike Judge Re: Good idea, poorly executed
"Note the APPLE bit. You ripped all your music into a Apple proprietary format, and expect someone that's not Apple to care? I have recently come to the conclusion Apple owners are too stupid to understand the word "proprietary", and what the resulting problems are..."
Could you be more anti-Apple? You just make yourself sound like a tunnel visioned fool? I don't like Apple either, but at least I'm level headed on this stuff.
"You could of course ripped it into FLAC, and everything would have been fine. All Android devices like FLAC lossless, as does the music uploader..."
Even Android FLAC support was limited until recent times. Of course, Android phones didn't exist when I ripped, I was on a Nokia Communicator back then. FLAC is nice for you digital music n00Bs though.
@AC Re: Good idea, poorly executed
"Hey fanboi, why use a proprietary codec like ALAC, when there is FLAC, which has way more support, including your precious Sonos and Google Play Music Manager...?"
I ripped all my music in mp3 (192 var) and wasn't happy with the quality or the tagging. I decided if I was going to do it again, I was going to do it properly.
I know all you digital music n00Bs like to rave about FLAC but, back when I ripped, it sucked. Firstly, there was no hardware support. Actually, there still is very little support from any manufacturer. Almost no mp3 player on sale supports that codec.
I wanted a lossless codec that supported all the tags I required, embedded album art and gapless playback. FLAC simply couldn't do this. Apple Lossless could and had greater device compatibility.
I'm no Apple fan, never owned a Mac, never wanted an iPhone. The iPod (old, B&W screen) was a gift and led me to use iTunes. It worked. It worked well. I've never bought any music from Apple either, always CDs.
Fair to say that a massive majority of the market is currently taken up by Apple devices. Those who own them and ripped their CDs are being offered a migration path to Google Play Music, they even give you an option to automatically upload new music you add to iTunes. Sadly this migration path doesn't work as it only supports a couple of codecs.
I don't expect Google to store fall lossless rips, happy for them to transcode as they do for FLAC, but to not support codecs that have been around for donkeys years seems a bit short sighted and, from what I've seen searching the net, is losing them potential customers.
Good idea, poorly executed
I got quite excited about this. I don't often carry my iPod any more and the ability to convenienly access all the old music I ripped into iTunes was appealing.
Sadly, it failed at the upload stage. Over 10,000 tracks failed to upload as they were ripped in a codec that Google Play Music doesn't support. I used Apple Lossless (ALAC) to rip my music, as I wanted to preserve CD quality for playback on my Sonos kit. Google Play Music can't handle this, neither can it handle AIFF or WAV. It seems to only be able to upload the lossy codecs used by people who download music illegally and/or don't care about quality.
I asked a Google PR type on twitter who told me that it was a DRM issue, it isn't. I don't buy DRM protected media, these are just ripped CDs and there have been open source ALAC decoders around for years now. He then pointed me to tech support who took over 12 hours to respond by sending me a link to a technote I had already seen. It didn't answer my question.
Back to Spotify it is. Seems daft that I pay them a monthly fee just to be able to listen to music I already own on CD.
All your eggs in one basket
So when the cable connection goes down you'll lose your internet, TV and now you can also lose TV Anywhere as it requires your wifi connection to be working?
The main thing stopping me getting TV from Virgin is the fact that it must be awful to be in a house to have no TV or internet. At least when my internet fails I can watch TV right now.
@peter_dtm - Re: Ben Rose --> Posted Monday 29th October 2012 10:48 GMT
You're preaching to the converted, don't think that I'm a big supporter of renewables.
Regardless of how limited and costly they are though, every kWh that comes from them is a kWh that doesn't have to come from fossil fuels. I do appreciate that efficiency of power stations may be affected by them at times though.
Renewable Energy without the hot air is a good read.
Re: @Stacy pedant alert...
I don't even know where to begin replying to that but you need to a) understand what an explosion is and b) appreciate that detonation also affect rotary engines that don't have any pistons.
You also need to appreciate that battery tech does exactly what you talk of now, it's ready, just not required.
Re: @ Those talking about dual clutch automatics...
I don't even know where to begin but, to start with, I've never owned a dual-clutch car and certainly not had one break on me.
I have driven a few though, from little SEATs to rather pokey Audi R8 V10s. I'm a motoring journalist, see, but I clearly will never know as much as your dad. LOL
@TeeCee - Re: Pointless
"Electrics and PHEVs have another trick up their sleeves. Your power station is an order of magnitude more efficient than your car's engine at turning fossil fuels into electricity. Even with all the losses thereafter getting it to your wheels, it still wins."
Depends how you measure efficiency. If you measure in terms of CO2 output, EV/PHV is not significantly better.
@Danny 14 Re: @Lee
You're believing hype I'm afraid.
"How much does a major 3 year service cost on a prius (with those batteries?)"
Batteries require no servicing, ever. They will last the lifetime of the car.
The Prius will also have a higher residual value over the same period.
Re: Yet more Uk Eco madness...
"Wow, I would love to see your battery - stopping a 1500kg car once from 100km/h is about 40kj - that's a lot of energy to store, let along dump into a battery (via a rubber belt, no less) over the few seconds when you're braking. And what's the point of doing so? Without electric drive, the battery is only used for starting - there's no requirement for that energy. Maybe things are different on stop/start cars (or you live in a seriously hot climate!), but once running, a car's electrics run on the alternator. I have a feeling you're out on this one, the physics just don't stack up."
Cars fitted with stop/start don't rely on a standard 12v. It would run flat far too quickly in a stop/start configuration. Instead they usually have an additionally battery in the boot charged from KERS.
There is a massive power draw on modern cars - A/C, stereo, GPS etc - this ticks over OK when the engine is running but when the engine goes off it kills a normal 12V very quickly.
"But whatever. Efficiency should be a concern anywhere the resource is limited, so if you believe oil is a limited resource (limited as in not made by pixies, not as in running out next month) then this stuff is worth pursuing."
Sure, oil is potentially limited and could run out in a couple of generations time. It would be a waste not to make use of what is there though, rather than deploy terribly poor alternatives.
"Batting it around here is pointless, there have been plenty of studies done on the whole cycle before and I'm not saying anything controversial or even new. Google "well to wheel efficiency", if you're genuininely interested in this stuff take a look"
Yes, I wrote many of those articles on-line and in print.
"Again, to reiterate, I'm just referring to efficiency (which is physics), not infrastructure (which is politics)."
Comparing the local efficiency of two different fuels in rather pointless. KInda like saying that boiling a kettle is more efficient than heating up an oven. You can't exactly bake a potato in a kettle.
- Geek's Guide to Britain INSIDE GCHQ: Welcome to Cheltenham's cottage industry
- 'Catastrophic failure' of 3D-printed gun in Oz Police test
- Game Theory Is the next-gen console war already One?
- Apple cored: Samsung sells 10 million Galaxy S4 in a month
- BBC suspends CTO after it wastes £100m on doomed IT system