Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Its a false choice (Score 2) 48

Lightworks has some happy customers. (Windows, Linux). It is free-ish, but there is a cost associated with the use of some codecs.
iMovie (Mac) and Windows Movie Maker are also available.

These should fill the need for "casual video production", or the "want to try editing a video or two but have no idea if you're going to be good enough that it will be worth spending money on video editing software" scenario. Given that the free version of WeVideo drops a watermark on any exports, someone who just wants to have a go at this stuff could alternatively download a trial version of Premiere Elements, FCP X or something from Corel if they want a more professional system that won't watermark their videos.

In addition, some video cameras come with rudimentary video editing software.

Others may be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_video_editing_software

Comment Re:Good luck with that (Score 4, Funny) 110

A Swedish VPN once bit my sister ...

    No realli! She was Karving her initials on the Swedish VPN
    with the sharpened end of an interspace tøøthbrush given
    her by Svenge - her brother-in-law - an Stockholm dentist and
    star of many Swedish møvies: "The Høt Hands of a Stockholm
    Dentist", "Fillings of Passion", "The Huge Mølars of Horst
    Nordfink".

Comment Re:Purposeful (Score 2) 519

Must be to compete with Microsoft. Their Office for Mac is a piece of junk

Absolutely it is. Office on a low end PC is OK and the interface is usable. Office on a Mac takes forever just to start, takes forever to save, always seems to be converting something to something else and just generally gets in the way. It's just terrible stuff.

Comment Re:Yawn (Score 1) 367

Comment Re:Yawn (Score 1, Informative) 367

The IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report suggests that the Earth will warm rapidly in the 21st century. However, this is not being borne out by observations.

No-one disputes that the earth's atmosphere is warming - this has been going on for some time now. What is disputed is the contribution that human activity makes to the degree/acceleration/rapidity of warming. The original models had man's contribution to an increase in warming as minimal at best. Then the IPCC re-jigged the models to take into account the theory that CO2 (and other emissions) would cause a climate forcing, i.e. the effect of the increasing CO2 levels would not be linear but would drive GW at a much higher rate than what would be expected naturally. These models have all predicted rapidly increasing global temperatures with no pausing. In order to account for small variations in the annual results, the IPCC et al initially said you needed 10 years of no warming to invalidate the models. Then as 10 years got close, that became 15 years.* Then 17 years. That has now come to pass. Even the most conservative of models do not match the observed results, therefore it's time to revisit the modelling.

*"The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate. From: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf
It's a very large PDF.

Slashdot Top Deals

...when fits of creativity run strong, more than one programmer or writer has been known to abandon the desktop for the more spacious floor. - Fred Brooks, Jr.

Working...