Why not go whole-hog, and engineer us a slig?
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
Heh... the whole 4000 field seemed a bit messy in my time. Was assigned MOS of 4063 (cobol programmer), but the training was all ADA... and eventually somehow my MOS got officially changed to 4067 (ADA programmer). At the school they even told us up front we'd probably never see a lick of coding work again once we left.
They were pretty much right for a while... was basically everything from helpdesk to sys/netadmin. So then they came up with a new MOS for that (4066), and offered it to all of the 67's already doing that work.
Too bad I was on both advance and rear-party for an op in Korea at the time... by the time word filtered down to my platoon, and then finally way out to me, there was no way to meet the deadline. Weird... all of the guys back in Oki got switched, and those who'd been temp assigned to this Korean thing didn't.
Lo & behold... my next duty station was an actual programming job, in a programming unit. At a base I'd never even heard of previously. Oh, The Suck.
Not that many of us 4067's around, so thought I'd say "hi".
>There shouldn't even be an Air Force. The Army Air Corps were some ballsy sons of bitches, innovative, and part of the entire team. That Army Air Corps invented close in ground support for the grunts fighting on the ground, among other things.
What the hell? And in the same paragraph claiming not to be forgetting the Marines? Come on...
Sure, everyone did some of that in WWI. But the French and Germans were the first to think of coming up with real tactics specifically for that purpose, and the Germans built the first aircraft designed for it.
But the Marines were the ones who really developed the concept of coordinated air-ground support as we know it today. Putting it into practice and refining it (for better or worse) during the Banana Wars. When WWII rolled around, they were prepared to use it. (The island hopping campaign relied heavily on Marine Aviator support.)
Meanwhile the Army Aviators wanted to focus on large bombers and air-air fighters... both easier than ground support, and "more efficient", and they WANTED to be separate from the Army. WWII taught them that yes, air-ground support was neccessary, and they learned (the hard way) how to do it to some extent. But then after the war they went off on their old ways and ideas again, forgetting how to do close ground support soon after getting their way. (To become a separate Air Force.)
The Marines started using helicopters first, too. Though I think the Army may have been the first to use them as gunships.
Huh? Change the gain of what? Why?
Is a firetruck responsible for maintaining proper water pressure at the fire hydrant it is hooked up to? No. That's not its job.
It's a DAW, not a preamp. If you have to change the "gain" of something in Ardour, you're already doing it wrong. If it could... all it'd be doing is allowing you to continue to do it wrong.
If you are feeding it a weak signal, fix the damn signal.
If you are feeding it an overly strong signal, fix the damn signal.
"Fix the damn signal" means adjust your outboard equipment (preamp, mixer, noise generator, or whatever) and/or your soundcard's mixer to get a proper signal happening to begin with. Don't feed your DAW a crappy signal, unless you WANT to record a crappy signal. Get it right as early in the chain as possible, because once you are in the DAW, it's too late. You're already past the AD conversion... any gain is nothing more than a little math to make it louder, which can be done at any time. It'll never make it "better".
If it is too late fix the signal, and you are dealing with pre-recorded audio that is too weak (or outboard equipment that isn't up to snuff), fix it right (permanently) with an audio editor. That way you aren't wasting CPU doing that same digital math over and over again every time you hit play.
And if you absolutely, positively can't do it the right way, and insist on changing your gain in the DAW itself... yes, you can do it with a plugin. (Not exactly hard to find... I found no less than three already installed, and I've never installed any but the most common/basic plugin packages. And that's on a plain vanilla Ubuntu machine, not a studio machine with lots of goodies on it.) In the end, doing this with a plugin is no different than having it built in. It is better, because it gets it off the damn screen for most people, who will not and should not need it 99% of the time.
Sounds like a lack of either minimal effort or minimal understanding of recording in general. Go get a Mac and use Garageband. It was made for you.
(And hey, I'm not knocking it. I do have a Macbook, and have used GB for sketching around with. It's not bad. Inability to export midi is probably the only really major drawback.)
If you wanna knock Ardour, say something like "it lacks MIDI functionality found in most other DAWs", which would be true. Until v3 comes out, at least.
Neither of you is correct. The parent is using a specific terms, denying broader terms. You are using a broad term, disregarding the role context plays in determining an acceptable level of specificity. There is at least one level within each definition at which a Marine is not a Soldier.
In broad terms, a Marine is a soldier. In narrower terms, as in "especially in the army" vs "a member of the United States Marine Corps" a Marine is not a Soldier.
Since this thread is in fact about the United States Marine Corps, it is reasonable for someone to demand use of the more specific term, since the subject being discussed does not apply to all that fall under the broader term. The parent simply should have used caps to make the particular level of distinction they were trying to make more clear.
Marines are not Soldiers = TRUE
Marines are not soldiers = FALSE
Parent claimed the latter, so calling it false is accurate. However the context should have made it clear that they intended the former, so... you're just being pedantic. As am I. How's that for an old jarhead?
Right from Merriam Webster:
Main Entry: (2) marine
1 a: the mercantile and naval shipping of a country b: seagoing ships especially in relation to nationality or class
2: one of a class of soldiers serving on shipboard or in close association with a naval force ; specifically : a member of the United States Marine Corps
3: an executive department (as in France) having charge of naval affairs
4: a marine picture : seascape