Page 3 of 3
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 3:33 am
by mjrpes
[xeno]Julios wrote:Foo wrote:[xeno]Julios wrote:so then Itunes downloads the mp3 from the location embedded in the feed, and uploads it into the player right?
So it just saves time - if you didn't have the latest version of itunes you could still use other software to figure out the location of the mp3, download it onto your harddrive, and then upload it to your mp3 player right?
Yep. Dead on.
awesome - i understand now
thanks.
Foo has made your day fucking wonderful too, no?
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 3:39 am
by Chupacabra
i'm with you mjrpes. foo has made my day.
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 3:47 am
by mjrpes
And here I was, thinking the methamphetamines would put a smile on my face today. Yet all it took was a little patience with the one-question-ahead-of-the-answer Julios to make three people unabashedly squealing with joy. Well done, good Foo.
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 3:48 am
by Foo
aww shucks
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 5:03 am
by saturn
it isn't that hard to understand, K-rist!
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 5:11 am
by [xeno]Julios
saturn wrote:it isn't that hard to understand, K-rist!
it is if you have no idea about rss feeds and their relationship to mp3 files
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:36 am
by Grudge
this thread is funny
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 11:18 am
by Jackal
Foo wrote:Jackal wrote:How is "multimedia" a buzzword? And exactly how does it not mean anything? Lets see what multi media is:
1. Of or relating to the combined use of several media: a multimedia installation at the art gallery.
2. Computer Science. Of or relating to an application that can combine text, graphics, full-motion video, and sound into an intergrated package.
Now lets check out the word itself. Multi = multiple, Media = a conduit for communication.
Seems pretty spot-on to me. But then again, I'm not an idiot.
You've highlighted exactly what I was saying. Multimedia doesn't apply to newspapers, does it? Yet that's a form of media. Does it apply to music? Maybe, if it's on the PC. So does it apply to media specifically on a PC? Again no, a piece of C++ code is unlikely to be considered multimedia.
Multimedia was a buzzword designed to describe, loosely, a PC with the ability to play DVDs, or surf the internet. But it's meaningless.
Multimedia is a word that describes ANY process in which multiple forms of media are being used. A piece of C++ code isn't multimedia because it is just textual. Why would it be specifically on a PC? If a painting has little army men glued to it as part of the art then that would be considered multimedia, in the same way a film is. Just because we don't refer to something as "multimedia" doesn't mean that it isn't so.
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 11:26 am
by Foo
Do a google search for 'What is multimedia' and check out how many people (including lecturers at educational institutions) directly disagree with the definition you just put forward.
There are some that state it's strictly a computing term, some that state even talking to another person and gesticulating is multimedia (and if this is the right definition, then doesn't that back up my point about it being a vague idea rather than something tangible?)
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 2:55 pm
by Jackal
Foo wrote:Do a google search for 'What is multimedia' and check out how many people (including lecturers at educational institutions) directly disagree with the definition you just put forward.
There are some that state it's strictly a computing term, some that state even talking to another person and gesticulating is multimedia (and if this is the right definition, then doesn't that back up my point about it being a vague idea rather than something tangible?)
I'd rather just go with the official dictionary definition rather than what a search engine tells me.
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 4:35 pm
by Chupacabra
even though a dictionary might not adopt the common usage of the word til years later?
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 4:55 pm
by +JuggerNaut+
i love how some people regard wikipedia as the second coming of Christ.
..BUT WIKI SAID..
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 5:21 pm
by Foo
+JuggerNaut+ wrote:i love how some people regard wikipedia as the second coming of Christ.
..BUT WIKI SAID..
Since I'm the only person here who linked to it, I'm assuming this is a flame against me.
So would you do us the service of actually explaining what on earth you're talking about?
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:33 pm
by +JuggerNaut+
Foo wrote:+JuggerNaut+ wrote:i love how some people regard wikipedia as the second coming of Christ.
..BUT WIKI SAID..
Since I'm the only person here who linked to it, I'm assuming this is a flame against me.
So would you do us the service of actually explaining what on earth you're talking about?
actually, i didn't bother looking who posted what. but, since you ask, since anyone can edit content there it doesn't make it the be all end all source of information. you're a smart guy, so something you've linked to from there i would imagine that you've actually
read what it says. some gonads prefer to use it as their ONLY source of information. laff-able at best.
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 10:33 pm
by Iccy (temp)
i think jules was fucking with us lol
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 11:12 pm
by [xeno]Julios
Iccy (temp) wrote:i think jules was fucking with us lol
heh - no i seriously was frustrated. Sometimes the best way to learn about something is to keep asking incisive questions until you get to the heart of the issue.