Toadfish Monastery

Here's a really bad picture of my dog that I uploaded to Google a while back.

Quote from: anthrobabe on August 04, 2007, 03:47:36 PM
Want to see something disturbing?
It is fairly PG--- no nudity or prawn that I saw
Celebrity Fury
http://www.celebrityfury.com/

I was trying to find a photo of a Depp Cake I could post for Sibling Chatty- and found this instead


Last  Post

I'm going to avoid comment on that site itself, and just ask one simple question.

Who thinks, "Why, I've had a swell idea! I'll photoshop pictures of celebrities to make them into vampires! And I'll make a website, complete with RSS feed, about it," and then actually does it?

Last ^disturbed Post

True, but what'll be worse is when they try to make up a sequel, which will end up being vaguely adapted from Macbeth.

The sibling below me prefers to say, "The Scottish Play."

Horse and Buggy

Oh, good, Swato, you broke the pattern. Now I can have a subscript-less

Last Post

and not feel pangs of guilt about it.

Most definitely. It gets the job done, does it well, and so unless you find something that you really don't like with it, switching will probably be more painful than not.

Ah, well, it's typical.

Last _{Am I noticing a pattern of behavior here?} Post

Heh - as far as slickness is concerned, I'd vote for imeem. You can make shoutcast slicker than anything else in the world to the end-user (i.e. listener) if you set things up in a cute enough way. From my perspective as a techie, though, the ultimate in slickness is being able to make something work with five minutes of point-and-click. (For the record, you can hypothetically do that with shoutcast, but my personal experience deviates significantly from the hypothetical.)

And yes - if it was to go on the dedicated server, it would have to leave the http interwebs running unhampered, which all depends on available resources and traffic, in the end.

Edit: As far as content is concerned, I can't help right now - I'm afraid piano at this hour would wake the other inhabitants of this house.

That depends on the nature of the server. If it's a dedicated server from some evil hosting company, probably not. If he has access to the box itself - well, that would be perfect.

On the other hand, I've heard that part of the dedicated server motivation comes from speed issues. I dunno how big a pipe we'd have (I've heard FiOS tossed around, and that would certainly be a lot, but it's still not a specific value), but streaming radio takes up a LOT of that. It would be a shame to invest in a dedicated server and not get an improvement in performance, methinks, but again, that depends on how much is available to us and how much the radio will actually use up, which in turn all depends on the number of listeners.

Y'know, I think I ought to get to keep this one for a great long while - it's been so long since I've had the

Last Post

Eep. That depends.

See, I'm not experienced with any of these nifty "make-a-radio-for-you" services. What I messed around with back at TOP was hosting a shoutcast server on my own computer.

Advantages:
->Unless you have a weird and completely fascist ISP, there are no additional costs associated with it, since you put stuff on the interwebs using the stuff you have anyway.
->Ergo, unlimited (hypothetically - see disadvantages:speed) bandwidth.
->Infinitely customizable. You can play anything any way you want, have live shows, have robots do things when no live person is there, have data from your radio integrated into other parts of the interweb at your beck and call, etc.

Disadvantages:
->Speed: Non-issue if it's a few Toadfish listening at spread-out times. No way, however, to sustain any sort of not-tiny audience with reasonable sound quality, which, again, is a non-issue if you don't have too many listeners. Still, if you're planning to grow, it's not a sustainable solution. Note that results may vary. I have a fiber optic cable running up to my house. Some people have an ordinary phone line.
->Techie-ness: It takes a bit of setup. Granted, I've figured most of that out on my own, and can probably bring it back to mind, although adding more nifty features will require more effort. Web-based stuff offers a nice pre-packaged deal, but it's less customizable. Trade-off, in essence.
->Your computer: Unless you have a spare box that you don't use in the garage (which would actually be awesome), you might have some slowdown if you're trying to play that 3D video game while broadcasting. When using the internet, the impact on your download speed should be unnoticable. Impact on upload speed depends on number of listeners. If you have a bunch of people connected, that photo album might not get to flickr as fast.

That's about it. There's also legal stuff, but since we aren't doing copyrighted music anyway, it should be irrelevant.

All in all, I think that Imeem looks like a good product, although I haven't seen much of it so far. (So far, all I see that's lacking is the ability to listen to it directly from your desktop, through, say, iTunes. And that may be me not noticing.) In any case, using it does not appear to doom you to failure. If you're specifically dissatisfied with it, or if you foresee problems in the future, look at switching. In any case, be aware that the more effort you put into it, with playlists and such, the harder a switch is gonna be.

I play piano, and have done so for the last eleven years. I haven't composed anything "real" ever (i.e. I've spontaneously come up with stuff to plug aural holes where necessary, but nothing worth writing down). If anyone has any ideas (maybe for short things, like jingles or background noise for announcements, or something), maybe I could throw something together.

More like, YaBBa YaBBa YaBBa. (I think this is going too far.)

Here in Florida, I don't hear people referencing any particular state... does that indicate something about us?

Quote from: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/03/opinion/garver/main3011862.shtmlHouse press secretary Dana Perino came up with an ingenious defense for Cheney claiming to be a member of the Legislative branch, not the Executive. She said his paycheck came from the Senate.

Clearly, this explains it all. Maybe we can extend this reasoning a little bit. Since Cheney gets more money from Halliburton than from his salary as a government worker, I'd say he's part of the Halliburton branch of government. Ergo, Halliburton is a branch of government. Ergo, the no-bid contracts for Iraqi reconstruction were simply appropriations to a branch of government.

What else can we now account for?