DudeAsInCool

No different than the jukebox if you think about it - here you get to take the song and packaging home. The price is still too high - 25/50 cents would be more reasonable -but this idea should have been born from Tower, Best Buy, et tal, a long time ago. At least youre getting the songs you want...

:reallymad:

My mom has one - she also has a Tippy Canoe and Tyler too medal

If you look at Magical Mystery Tour as a series of music videos ( the Beatles pretty much invented the form) for TV then the thing sorta works in segments. At least they had the Magical Tour idea as a concept...most music videos never have any theme at all A Hard Days Night and Yellow Submarine still hold up as films today

Umma, could I borrow a topless photo? :P

This means only 22 people saw the danger in this on freedom of speech--unbelievable. The Senatorial side is a bit more in tune with the real world.... hopefully

Certainly the most polished one--I think Im partial to Revolver though, because that is when the experimentation really began to work... George seemed to have eye on the pulse of things, and was less egocentric.. Kind of refreshing to hear things from him..

It was bad enough seeing Kooper's ass...

I think...just to be safe...that I better give my mac a shot of penicillen

Ive chosen to ignore the rankings...I agree, CD, theyre silly. But I do think its a good idea to have a comopendium of the best guitarists though..so this forum is just a start...

nice pic, homes

The cant help it they are growing OLD, ASUM. :P

Since you are a music man, check out this cool 80s french movie in the video bins: Diva (I prefer the subtitled version)... Its sort of a heist movie with a twist, very cool cinematography, and an operatic score and one of my favorite movies

Re: Ladder Theory Criticism:I have lots of male friends who would never think of me that way blah blah blah. Answer:Your friend doesn't find you attractive, or he's currently doing better, or he's gay or you're wrong. Criticism:That's not true Answer:Yes it is. :frog:

excluding NPR, ive never heard one

State of the Art: Hand-Helds That Offer Video to Go March 11, 2004 By DAVID POGUE IF you hadn't noticed, audio inventions are inevitably followed by corresponding video versions. Radio begat TV; audio tape begat videotape; CD's begat DVD's. It was only a matter of time, then, before it occurred to somebody to invent, for want of a better term, the video iPod: a hand-held personal-entertainment gizmo with a color screen capable of playing movies. That idea has certainly occurred to Microsoft. At the Consumer Electronics Show in January, Bill Gates demonstrated prototypes of something un-catchily named the Microsoft Portable Media Center. Creative Labs, iRiver, Samsung, Sanyo and ViewSonic all intend to unveil Microsoft-based video players by year's end. But you don't have to wait. Two hand-held video players are already on the market, each marching to its own non-Microsoft drummer: the Archos AV320 and the RCA Lyra RD2780. You can find them online for $336 and $420, respectively, not bad considering that music-only players with the same capacity (20 gigabytes) cost about $300. Now, video players will never be quite the smash hit that audio players have been. One significant difference is that there aren't as many times and places for using one. For example, it's O.K. to listen to music as you drive, jog or perform surgery, but probably not such a great idea to watch movies. You have to load your player with video a lot more often, too; you might listen to a favorite song 100 times in your life, but you probably have a lower tolerance for repeated viewings of, say, "2 Fast 2 Furious." Still, the video pod concept has much to offer. Such a device can turn any airline into JetBlue, with its personal seat-back TV screens, except that you control what's available and you don't miss the ending of "Friends" when the guy in front of you reclines into your lap. When you finally get to your secluded vacation cabin, you can hook the video pod up to a TV for a whole weekend of VHS-quality movie viewing. The Lyra even has a Compact Flash card slot, so when you've filled up your digital camera with nature photos, you can empty out the memory card onto the player and return to the field, ready for more shooting. In many ways, the Archos and the Lyra video players are two peas in an electronics store. Each is an 11- or 12-ounce rectangular slab too big and too heavy for a pocket. The Lyra is thinner but longer (5.4 inches by 3.1 inches by 1 inch); the Archos is smaller but thicker (4.4 by 3.2 by 1.2). The bright, clear color screen measures 3.5 inches (Lyra) or 3.8 inches diagonally (the Archos). A permanent rechargeable battery plays video for a little over three hours; the Archos provides 10 hours of music playback by shutting off its screen (a feature RCA plans to add to the Lyra in a software update later this month). Inside, a 20-gigabyte hard drive holds about 20 movies, 5,000 songs, or 200,000 photos. (The Archos is available in 40- and 80-gigabyte models for those who feel constrained by that repressive 200,000-picture limit.) A home screen shows icons for the player's contents: Video, Audio, Photos, and Files, for example. (Oh, that's right - you can use a video pod as an external hard drive for transporting Mac or PC files back and forth.) Using a cheap-feeling, often-exasperating plastic joystick next to the screen, you open the "folder" you want, choose a song, picture or movie, and then press Play. So how did those songs, pictures and movies get onto the machine to begin with? When you hook the player up to a Mac or PC with a U.S.B. 2.0 cable, the player appears on the screen as though it's a hard drive; you drag your pictures and music into the corresponding folders. (The Archos can also use a special FireWire cable, although the company has the gall to charge $60 for it.) Getting video onto the player is a more complicated story. The easiest way is to use the video pod as a glorified VCR, using its Record button. As your VCR, camcorder or TiVo plays, the player records its video feed in real time. The Archos can even record from commercial tapes and DVD's. (The RCA is designed to prevent that sort of lawyer bait, although the Web is full of workarounds.) If you prefer to transfer video directly from your Mac or PC - a movie you've made, for example, or one you've downloaded - buckle your seat belts; it's going to be a geeky ride. These machines require something called MPEG-4-encoded Divx 4 or 5 files. Converting movie files into this special format requires special software - Archos provides it, RCA does not - and a good deal of technical expertise. Nobody ever said that 1.0 versions of anything are perfect, but that's especially true of the Lyra, whose software is appallingly half-baked. Many actions - trying to adjust the brightness of a photo, change the graphic equalizer or push the joystick up or down - produce only a message that says: "Feature will be available in future upgrades. Visit rca.com/lyra for details." RCA has indeed released several software upgrades since the machine's debut in November, but Lyra owners online (including some of those posting reviews at Amazon.com) grumble that they've paid for the privilege of doing RCA's beta-testing. Apparently trying to compensate, RCA includes an especially generous assortment of accessories right in the box: a carrying case, cigarette-lighter adapter, and even an adapter that plays the music or soundtrack through your car's cassette player. You feel as though you've just bought a car with the most expensive options package and then, when you step on the brake at 65 miles an hour, a message says, "Feature will be available in future upgrades." Nor is that the only surprising lapse in the Lyra's design. The whole operating system is, to use the technical term, dog slow; you'll practically spend as much time looking at the hourglass icon as at your movies. Dark scenes in movies frequently fall apart into bursts of pixel crumbs. There's no Back button, so if you want to change songs or movies, you must return to the main menu screen and begin drilling down again. You don't get an instruction book, not even on a CD. (You're told to download the electronic manual from the Web.) In short, Lyra self-help groups are surely forming in church basements all around the country. The Archos player lacks those particular inanities, and even offers perks like a remote control and a built-in microphone for voice notes, but it's not perfect, either. It could really use something like the Lyra's kickstand to hold it upright on a table. The various input and output jacks on the player's edges are labeled, but on a different face of the device; more than once, you'll inadvertently stick the headphones into the identical-looking microphone jack. Similarly, onscreen labels often appear to identify the changing functions of the three vertically stacked physical control buttons, but the labels are arrayed across the bottom of the screen, rather than vertically beside the buttons themselves. Make no mistake: it's quite a technical feat to build a personal video player that does so much and costs so little. And compared with, say, personal DVD players, these early players cost less and take up a lot less space; they also offer recording features and play a lot more than just Hollywood movies. Apparently, adding polish and coherence to this seething mass of features is an even greater feat, however. RCA ought to send the young Lyra to its room without supper, so that it can think about what it means to be a well-behaved video pod. Archos, on the other hand, has the first truly usable video pod on its hands - a little rough in spots, but otherwise ready for prime time. Alas, that prime time may be only a short time. You know how, near the end of "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King," Aragorn and his tiny band take a hopeless, desperate stand against the vast Orc armies that pour from evil Sauron's gates? As RCA and Archos watch Microsoft's own video-pod armies amassing behind a different sort of Gates, they probably know exactly how Aragorn felt. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/11/technolo...670cf765694054b

That smile is suspicious - is that a baggy of pot behind you? B) J/K--You got Hollywood looks, dude - I think Im gonna cast you with Slum Goddess in a heist pic.

Off the top of my head, alot of these guys put some of the guys above to shame! Stephen Hunter (Lou Reed's Rock & Roll Animal/Detroit) Pat Metheney (Jazz/Rock) BBKing/Albert King/Chuck Berry/John Hammond/Albert Collins/John Lee Hooker,etc. Dave Edmunds (early days) Mick Taylor Prince Funkadelic Guitar Player Martin Barre Steve Miller Bruce Springsteen Tom Petty Robin Trower Robbie Robertson Dave Navarro I'll be back to add more...

Here's their list (Thanx, Reg)... Who are they missing? 1. Jimi Hendrix 2 Duane Allman of the Allman Brothers Band 3 B.B. King 4 Eric Clapton 5 Robert Johnson 6 Chuck Berry 7 Stevie Ray Vaughan 8 Ry Cooder 9 Jimmy Page of Led Zeppelin 10 Keith Richards of the Rolling Stones 11Kirk Hammett of Metallica 12 Kurt Cobain of Nirvana 13 Jerry Garcia of the Grateful Dead 14 Jeff Beck 15 Carlos Santana 16 Johnny Ramone of the Ramones 17 Jack White of the White Stripes 18 John Frusciante of the Red Hot Chili Peppers 19 Richard Thompson 20 James Burton 21 George Harrison 22 Mike Bloomfield 23 Warren Haynes 24 The Edge of U2 25 Freddy King 26 Tom Morello of Rage Against the Machine and Audioslave 27 Mark Knopfler of Dire Straits 28 Stephen Stills 29 Ron Asheton of the Stooges 30 Buddy Guy 31 Dick Dale 32 John Cipollina of Quicksilver Messenger Service 33 & 34 Lee Ranaldo, Thurston Moore of Sonic Youth 35 John Fahey 36 Steve Cropper of Booker T. and the MG's 37 Bo Diddley 38 Peter Green of Fleetwood Mac 39 Brian May of Qeen 40 John Fogerty of Creedence Clearwater Revival 41 Clarence White of the Byrds 42 Robert Fripp of King Crimson 43 Eddie Hazel of Funkadelic 44 Scotty Moore 45 Frank Zappa 46 Les Paul 47 T-Bone Walker 48 Joe Perry of Aerosmith 49 John McLaughlin 50 Pete Townshend 51 Paul Kossoff of Free 52 Lou Reed 53 Mickey Baker 54 Jorma Kaukonen of Jefferson Airplane 55 Ritchie Blackmore of Deep Purple 56 Tom Verlaine of Television 57 Roy Buchanan 58 Dickey Betts 59 & 60 Jonny Greenwood, Ed O'Brien of Radiohead 61 Ike Turner 62 Zoot Horn Rollo of the Magic Band 63 Danny Gatton 64 Mick Ronson 65 Hubert Sumlin 66 Vernon Reid of Living Colour 67 Link Wray 68 Jerry Miller of Moby Grape 69 Steve Howe of Yes 70 Eddie Van Halen 71 Lightnin' Hopkins 72 Joni Mitchell 73 Trey Anastasio of Phish 74 Johnny Winter 75 Adam Jones of Tool 76 Ali Farka Toure 77 Henry Vestine of Canned Heat 78 Robbie Robertson of the Band 79 Cliff Gallup of the Blue Caps (1997) 80 Robert Quine of the Voidoids 81 Derek Trucks 82 David Gilmour of Pink Floyd 83 Neil Young 84 Eddie Cochran 85 Randy Rhoads 86 Tony Iommi of Black Sabbath 87 Joan Jett 88 Dave Davies of the Kinks 89 D. Boon of the Minutemen 90 Glen Buxton of Alice Cooper 91 Robby Krieger of the Doors 92 & 93 Fred "Sonic" Smith, Wayne Kramer of the MC5 94 Bert Jansch 95 Kevin Shields of My Bloody Valentine 96 Angus Young of AC/DC 97 Robert Randolph 98 Leigh Stephens of Blue Cheer 99 Greg Ginn of Black Flag 100 Kim Thayil of Soundgarden

:rotfl:

Mr. Jipper - You are the KING of one liners

Sunnyvale-Based Yahoo Teams with Top ISPs to Sue Spammers Sunnyvale, Calif. -- Several prominent Internet service providers, including Sunnyvale-based Yahoo, America Online, Earthlink and Microsoft, have teamed to file lawsuits against hundreds of habitual Internet spammers. The companies say they have shared information and resources in targeting several hundred defendants, who they say collectively sent out millions of unwanted commercial e-mails to their subscribers in violation of the new U.S. "Can Spam" Act. The law, which went into effect Jan. 1, allows for harsh new penalties against large-scale spammers that use fraud, deceit and evasion to try to send junk e-mail to consumers. "Congress gave us the necessary tools to pursue spammers with stiff penalties, and we in the industry didn't waste a moment," said Randall Boe, AOL's executive vice president and general counsel. The suits have been filed in California, Georgia, Virginia and Washington state. http://media.aoltimewarner.com/media/press...se_num=55253838

Part II Does javascript Affect Ranking? by Jon Ricerca http://www.SearchEngineGeek.com Almost all SEO's agree that using too much javascript can harm your rankings and might confuse the search engines. Is it true? We decided to answer this extremely simple question for the two leading search engines using a simple statistical analysis. The methodology: I gathered the results of the queries that were naturally performed last month by myself and three associates using the two leading search engines and analyzed them. I had to visit each page and check the HTML source code to see if javascript was being used. I counted the number of pages found that utilized javascript for the first 8 rankings. The results for each of the two leading search engines were kept separate so that we could discover any differences between the two leading search engines for this factor. The resulting graphs show the number of pages utilizing javascript for each ranking. The Y-axis shows the number of pages found utilizing javascript, while the X-axis shows rankings 1 through 8. Here are the graphs for each of the two leading search engines: http://www.SearchEngineGeek.com/graphs/dcy02.jpg http://www.SearchEngineGeek.com/graphs/dcg02.jpg The result is very conclusive and very surprising. Both leading search engines rank pages that utilize javascript higher than pages that do not utilize javascript. This is another example of how the guesses of the SEO community are often just that... guesses... They have a 50% chance of being correct on any particular factor. In this case, the majority of the SEO community guessed wrong. Notes: 1. There was no exercise to attempt to isolate different keywords. I merely took a random sampling of the queries performed by myself and three associates during the month. Conclusion: Pages which utilize javascript rank higher than pages that do not utilize javascript on both of the leading search engines. This is merely a correlation study, so it cannot be determined from this study whether the leading search engines purposefully entertain this factor or not. The actual factors used may be far distant from the factor we studied, but the end result is that these search engines do, in fact, rank pages with javascript higher than pages without javascript in the study. Jon Ricerca is one of the leading researchers and authors of the Search Engine Ranking Factor (SERF) reports at SearchEngineGeek.com. For access to the other SERF reports, please visit: http://www.SearchEngineGeek.com