|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 187 responses total. |
jor
|
|
response 100 of 187:
| 
Aug 8 01:28 UTC 2003 |
ah, heavenly bodies
|
tod
|
|
response 101 of 187:
|
Aug 8 02:39 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
russ
|
|
response 102 of 187:
|
Aug 8 02:54 UTC 2003 |
Not only can you see satellites from the sunlight reflected off of
them, certain "birds" (Iridiums in particular) can appear brighter
than any star or planet.
If someone just launched a satellite, it might be in orbit in close
formation with its spent booster and perhaps parts of a payload
adapter. That could account for several items moving together
across the sky. To be certain, you'd have to check one of the
web sites devoted to such things; I suggest heavensabove.com.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 103 of 187:
|
Aug 8 17:22 UTC 2003 |
These were definitely *3* objects in a well defined formation heading
approximately northwest to southeast.
> web sites devoted to such things; I suggest heavensabove.com
Hmmm, when I go there, I don't see a web site devoted to star gazing, I see
a page pull of links to a variety of things, none of which is an obvious
selection for star gazing or related diversions.
|
micklpkl
|
|
response 104 of 187:
|
Aug 8 17:51 UTC 2003 |
try http://www.heavens-above.com/
|
tpryan
|
|
response 105 of 187:
|
Aug 9 20:39 UTC 2003 |
I also take it that when you do see a reflection of sunlight off
of a satellite, it is a bigger circle of light that you see than the
size of the satellite. The true size would be seen in the last moments
of it pasting from *its* daytime to nighttime.
|
russ
|
|
response 106 of 187:
|
Aug 11 00:02 UTC 2003 |
Re #105: The eye does not focus perfectly, especially in the dark
when the pupil is wide open. This causes light from bright point
sources to hit a circle of receptors intensely enough to cause the
impression of a much larger object.
The same is true of telescopes. Even the biggest star is too small
to resolve to a disc in an image, but the brightest stars leave rather
large spots in astrophotographs because of diffraction in the optics.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 107 of 187:
|
Aug 14 01:36 UTC 2003 |
I'd like to make CDs of exercise routines, primarily my own voice and blank
spaces of the appropriate time duration.
I was wondering if there was a something inexpensive that would work. I'm
using a ThinkPad running Windows XP (ducks as the rotten tomatoes come my
way).
Any suggestions?
|
goose
|
|
response 108 of 187:
|
Aug 14 12:24 UTC 2003 |
CoolEdit 2000. www.syntrillium.com
|
micklpkl
|
|
response 109 of 187:
|
Aug 14 14:09 UTC 2003 |
I wouldn't call CoolEdit2000 (at $70, I think) "inexpensive" but I
suppose that's subjective.
My suggestions for truly inexpensive solutions:
* use the built-in Sound Recorder applet (there's still one of these
in winXP, right?)
* try Total Recorder from http://www.highcriteria.com/
the standard edition should be more than powerful enough to record
simple .wav files (which can then be turned into CD audio with any
CD mastering software) from a microphone input.
The standard version of Total Recorder is $12.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 110 of 187:
|
Aug 14 14:23 UTC 2003 |
Sound Recorder applet only records 60 seconds of information. I'll take a
look at Total Recorder. Thanks.
|
gull
|
|
response 111 of 187:
|
Aug 14 14:37 UTC 2003 |
I haven't tried 2000, but older versions of Cool Edit would work for
most stuff without being registered. You just couldn't use all the
functions at once. Since all you need is the ability to record and
save, that should be enough. I have CoolEdit 98, and when I start it it
gives me some checkboxes to choose what subset of the functionality I'll
get to have for that session.
|
goose
|
|
response 112 of 187:
|
Aug 14 17:46 UTC 2003 |
Sorry Mick $70 is inexpensive ;-) But it does have 30 days of free use
or some features are turned off...I forget which. I use Cool Edit Pro
for some things, it's $250...and I use ProTools for other things, it starts
at $400 and goes up to about $10k. So what was that about expensive? ;-)
I use the $1000 version of ProTools at home, the $10k version at a couple
of the studio where I do work.
Get Cool Edit 2000 while you can (at least the demo version) as Syntrillium
was bought by Adobe and some changes are coming down the pipe, and they will
likely be dropping CE2000. CEP is becoming Adobe Audition (bad name)
|
goose
|
|
response 113 of 187:
|
Aug 14 17:59 UTC 2003 |
Oh, and a short question: Where can I get something electroplated (1 piece,
not 1000 pieces) in the ann Arbor area? I'd buy a kit, but it looked to be
about $500 (and that's expensive! okay, not as expensive as buying plating
equipment like Marsh Plating has, but still...;-) )
|
gull
|
|
response 114 of 187:
|
Aug 14 19:28 UTC 2003 |
Bad news. Adobe will no doubt suck up what used to be a pretty nice
software package.
|
goose
|
|
response 115 of 187:
|
Aug 16 14:31 UTC 2003 |
Well, we're hoping for better than that, but the track record......
as for now however, as I understand it, Adobe is using the whole Syntrillium
team, so things might be okay.
|
gregb
|
|
response 116 of 187:
|
Aug 18 15:44 UTC 2003 |
You can still get CE2K for free, but like previous versions, you can
only choose two features to use at a time. Also, there's a free
version of ProTools called, well, ProTools Free (go figger!) You can
DL it at www.digidesign.com/free. Another good audio editor for free
is Audacity. You can get that from audacity.sourceforge.net.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 117 of 187:
|
Aug 18 18:04 UTC 2003 |
Thanks. I'm still trying to find the right bits and pieces to do what I want
now, plus give me a bit of growth room for future creativity.
|
gregb
|
|
response 118 of 187:
|
Aug 18 19:29 UTC 2003 |
Well, I'm no expert, but I've been doing a lot of reading and
experimenting. Maybe I can help.
|
goose
|
|
response 119 of 187:
|
Aug 19 15:25 UTC 2003 |
I see that Adobe Audition is now available from adobe.com...so there's
probably little more than cosmetic differences from CEP 2.1 at this point.
Also, CE2k looks to be gone....did anyone here grab a copy of that? I wouln't
mind having one in the archives....
|
gregb
|
|
response 120 of 187:
|
Aug 19 17:43 UTC 2003 |
Whew! I'm glad I got ahold of CEP. I didin't even know about Adobe's
takeeover until I read it here. I've been using CE since they started
as shareware.
|
gull
|
|
response 121 of 187:
|
Aug 19 20:18 UTC 2003 |
I've got copies of CE95 and CE98. Nothing newer, though.
|
goose
|
|
response 122 of 187:
|
Aug 20 14:37 UTC 2003 |
I found a copy of CE2000 if anyone needs/wants it.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 123 of 187:
|
Aug 20 15:45 UTC 2003 |
Goose, I'd like to try it.
|
goose
|
|
response 124 of 187:
|
Aug 20 18:10 UTC 2003 |
try http://people.internet2.edu/~goose/ce2kmain.exe
|