Hi all,
I have a TV which has a built in USB record feature (which basically
dumps DVB-T MPEG TS in 2GB chunks). I'd like to pull the audio track
out of something I recorded. VLC happily plays the file and identifies
the video, audio and EPG info in the transport stream, but if, for
example, I run:
avconv -i ... -acodec copy audio.mp3
... I end up with about 2 seconds of silence.
It seems there's a couple of dummy streams and also that the overall
file is prefixed with what looks like null garbage. I know that if vlc
can play it, there's gotta be a way of extracting it, but must admit
that I haven't had any luck thus far.
Any ideas on recommended tools for stubborn MPEG TS demuxing?
Anthony
Hey folks,
Anyone use an Android remote control solution?
Not using Android to remote control something else, but another device
to control Android? Preferably over WiFi..
I've used Airdroid and SSHDroid to do file, SMS etc. access, but
looking for something that'll provide remote GUI access. There are a
few things about that I found, but some seem to be rather old and
unmaintained, of dubious background (not many reviews etc.). One even
suggested "chmod 777" on one of the Android system areas... Uh.. NO..
How do you folks go about remote control of Android devices?
Anthony
Does anyone have SATA disks that they don't need? My stockpile of spare disks
is running low and even 40G disks would do. Any SATA disk that isn't known to
be defective will do.
If anyone has such disks could they please bring them to the next LUV meeting?
If you have more than one disk to donate then please let me know in advance.
Naturally any disks that are excess to my own needs will end up in the LUV
hardware library.
As an aside, I've got plenty of IDE disks and DVD drives available if anyone
needs them. Contact me by private mail if you'd like me to bring some to the
next LUV meeting.
--
My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
>> From: Petros
...
>Table 4: Risk of poverty - proportion of people from different groups
living below poverty lines in 2009-10 (%) 50% of median - At risk
group 60% of median
>Single, no children: 25.3 41.5
>Lone parent: 25.0 36.4
>Couple, no children: 8.4 18.5
>Couple, children: 9.0 14.0
>Obviously living as a couple decreases your risk of being poor.
Correlation does not imply causation. For example, it is no secret
that men with high incomes are regarded as better 'catches' than the
unemployed, all else being equal.
Tim Josling
Quoting "Michael Scott" <luv(a)inoz.net>
> One big difference is that migrants immigrated to Australia, whereas
> Europeans encroached on Aboriginal territory (originally).
> Aborigines didn't CHOOSE to come here and integrate into Australian
> culture. Immigrants did.
>
> Alcohol is an issue in a great deal of Aboriginal society, but it,
> too, was introduced by Europeans.
That is true.
But does it have to change how to deal with the problem at hand?
Imagine
- You have a mess and have to fix it
- You have a proven method to fix it
- You tried many other ways since 1967 and failed
If I have a "mess" in my network, as I had yesterday, I do not care
who caused it, I am working on a solution.
I would not think: Well, that was Lisa's problem this time, so I do
not try the normal way to fix it, I just walk over and give her a hug
so she may feel better;-)
The mess does not disappear that way.
> If recognition of the Aboriginal people as the first Australians
> will help, without harming the body of the constitution, I'm all for
> it and I don't see any harm in it, only good.
If it means that I have to give a hug to Lisa every time, and are not
allowed to fix her computer problem?
Regards
Peter
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan(a)affinityvision.com.au>
> To: luv-talk(a)lists.luv.asn.au
> Cc:
> Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 13:48:32 +1100
> Subject: Re: [luv-talk] Fwd: local government
>
> It won't, but it will cause significant damage to our rights under the
> Australian Constitution instead.
>
> Unfortunately, ANY change to the constitution will put the whole
> constitution at risk. This is not just an issue over local governance,
> it is much more encompassing ... the recognition of Aboriginals for
> instance, is another area of reform that is not necessary; Aboriginals,
> like any other Australian person are already protected by out
> constitution (as are "illegal" immigrants that enter our shores by
> whatever means).
>
> I cannot stress enough, that ANY change to the constitution will be a
> serious risk to our rights and has the potential to make our entire
> constitution absolutely worthless. It is simply not worth the risk, no
> matter what is proposed -- and that is irregardless of whether or not
> you agree with the any assertions that have been made above or at the
> following link.
>
>
> [1]
>
> http://www.religiousword.com/2012/04/the-1975-victorian-constitution-is-inv…
>
> --
> Kind Regards
> AndrewM
>
>
>
Ignoring your arguments about local government, concerns which in some
respects I share, I must take you up on your claim that *any* change to the
Australian constitution puts the entire document at risk.
This claim patiently absurd and shows little understanding of the
Australian political system.
Since Federation, Australia has seen forty-four proposals to change the
constitution go to referendum. To change the constitution, a referendum
needs to pass the relatively high hurdle of a 'double majority' (majority
of voters in the majority of States). Due to this, of the forty-four
referenda held, only eight have been carried. None have resulted in the
constitution, or our political system, being 'endangered' in any way.
In addition, the double majority requirement means that to be carried, a
constitutional amendment really needs bipartisan political, as well as
popular support. A contentious change to the constitution is unlikely to
reach this hurdle. And, in fact, none have ever done so. I would imagine
if, as you claim, a proposed change to the constitution is dangerous in any
way, it would fall at this hurdle. As was a similar proposal to recognise
local government in July 1988.
You also ignore the role of convention within our political system. It was
the breakdown of convention that was largely the cause of the only
'constitutional crisis' this nation has faced. This crisis had little to do
with the document itself and much to do with the actions of certain people.
It had certainly nothing to do with the kinds of changes you hold up as
examples. If we are to face another crisis, it is more likely to be the
result of a breakdown in convention than changes to our constitutional
document.
The most recent constitutional change illustrates this point nicely.
Carried in 1977, it changed the rules surrounding the filling of casual
Senate vacancies (along with two other changes, both also carried), an
issue that, in part, led to the crisis of 1975. Contrary to your claim that
any changes to the constitution endanger the document, this change actually
strengthened our system of constitutional government by not allowing a
shift in numbers on the floor of the Senate without an associated election.
Finally, I suggest the exact opposite of your assertion is true. For our
constitution to remain relevant, stable and enduring we must have the
ability and courageousness to change it. If not often, when it is
necessary. The second example you cite, the constitutional recognition of
Indigenous Australians, is exactly a case in point.
Indigenous Australians have long been marginalised in this country and they
have *not*--in the strongest possible terms--*not* been adequately
protected by our constitution; before or after the changes to the document
made in 1967.
The current proposal, however, is different. It calls for Indigenous
recognition via a non-legally binding preamble to the constitution. That
is, even though it would require a referendum, the reality is any change
would be a largely a symbolic measure. Nonetheless, there remains a strong
case for constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians within the
legally binding body of the document. I do not believe that such a proposal
would in any way endanger the constitution, our political system or our way
of life. Again, I assert the opposite, any debate on the subject can only
strengthen our polity and our nation.
Excuse the length of this post, it is a subject I feel strongly about.
Regards,
Tim Hamilton
PS. In this instance, ignore my quip for that is all it is. A quip.
--
Vote NO in referenda.
Russell Coker wrote:
----- Original Message -----
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2013, Andrew McGlashan
> <andrew.mcglashan(a)affinityvision.com.au>
> wrote:
>> There may be areas where Aboriginals need extra support, but that
>> is > also true of every other group of Australians whom make up our
>> > population today.
>
> I really don't think that straight white men need extra support.
I read Andrew as:
People with drug problems need support.
People with alcohol problems need support.
People with violence problems need support.
Unemployed people need support.
I find it interesting that most migrants from all backgrounds find
their feet in the Australian society over time.
To the credit of Australians, there is a lot of goodwill and support
to make it happen. Compared to many other societies Australia is a
very open tolerating place.
People want to live here. Yes, they want to celebrate their own
culture - and are able to do so - but they want to live an Australian
life of freedom in their daily life, tolerated, with less stress than
where they come from, most of them better off than where they come
from, and other attributes they enjoy to have here.
There is some pressure to accept Australian values (e.g. to respect
the law system and not resorting to violence in disputes, as some will
have experienced in their place of origin) but that is widely accepted.
Until now we have not been able to integrate the Aboriginals that
well, and there is still some dispute about how to achieve it.
Until now, we do not think it is a good idea of having a Sharia based
system for Muslims in our country even if some Muslims may claim it
would suit them. And there will be Muslims who would not like that at
all. They are happy to be escaped a society that punishes them like
that.
We are very uncertain how far autonomy for Aboriginals should go.
Should we tolerate spearing to settle disputes, as it is still
practised?
And, what about an Aboriginal who does not want to live that way?
It is not that the Aboriginals where noble savages in paradise before
"white men came". Their was violence, the average life expectation far
below our "white society" standards, many kids did not survive their
childhood etc.
Coming back to the people who need support.. it is complex without
"cultural problems". Everybody who had experienced a friend with
alcohol problems will say that - and I have a close friend who is just
"lost". His very supporting wife left him after 14 years because she
and her daughter could not cope with it any longer.
And what to do with a group, a place where many of them are drinking,
as I remember the outskirts of Alice Springs, e.g. There will be many
families where mother drinks, father drinks, uncle drinks. How do you
help here?
And will be a constitutional recognition help them in any meaningful ways?
I do not have an answer but I don't think anybody knows.
Goodwill is there, I believe. "What to do?" is another question.
There is struggle between thoughts of assimilation and thoughts of
giving them wide cultural autonomy.
There are three reasons to support the first one:
- It works for most migrants
- They still value their own culture
- Even some older Aboriginal seem to look back at mission times as
better for them, as today's life.
A note about the last one: I don't support missions in the way they
worked 50 years ago. But our "Western society" evolved since too. E.g.
a lot of children born out of wedlock were subject of forced adoption
then.
And, at the moment there is a lot of uncertainty about the "how to"
leading to a mess and lack of continuity in dealing with this issue.
Regards
Peter
From: "Rohan McLeod"
> Well referendums are usually to change the constitution;
> so I am interpreting "governmental recognition" as 'constitutional
> recognition'.
> Whether constitutional recognition of local government would necessarily
> increase their power,
> would seem to depend on the proposed change.
The local governments seem to work in a grey area now, as far as I
understand it.
It starts with the election process which is violating the most basic
of all democratic rules, the "one man one vote" rule.
"I want to have a say where I pay my taxes" does not cut it.
If so, Coca Cola, Apple and Shell should be allowed to vote for the
Australian Parliament.
(Or they are getting exempt from paying taxes;-)
Well, we already sell the position of the City of Melbourne Mayor to
some Chinese property businesses. Welcome to the Chinese Democrazy! It
works on the similar base over there, governments and business side by
side for the great mutual benefit of the biggest and the best.
A constitutional amendment to recognise the role of local governments
could be good if it cuts back some of these irregularities.
I wonder why they exist here and are not thrown out by now. Did nobody
go to court to defend his democratic voting rights?
Regards
Peter
The first of a series of discussions about this project starts at the site on Tuesday 26th of February, 6:30-7:30pm.
This is being organised via Eventbrite
https://footscraymakerlab1.eventbrite.com.au/
> I thought this was just about the triangular building at
> the stated address.
> No!
> OmiGORE NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
> Tony Smith http://www.ynotds.com/ looked around
> there Friday. He said the possibilities blew his mind.
>
> Lonely Planet is staying but most of the block between
> Moreland, Parker, Maribynong & Lyons Streets is to be
> repurposed, including that huge building along Lyons st.
> One of Tony's associates, John Martin is hoping to establish
> the Docklands Science Park somewhere on this site.
> http://docscipark.com.au/index.html
>
> The other side of Maribynong St is a broad gauge rail line
> which has just been cut off by the Regional Rail Link so
> this could be used for a tourist rwy or I dunno railgun or
> rocket sleds? The other side of that is the Maribynong River
> & a canal runs along the other side of Lyons street.
>
> THIS. COULD. BE.
> AWESOMENORMOUSOMETHINGREATERRIFICOLOSSALICOUSTUNNING.
> Or the biggest missed opportunity since the Docklands
> Redevelopment.
> Probably some of each, but let's not leave it up to others
> & chance!
>
>
> I guess we need to be a bit careful who we tell how much
> right now. I know one person in the mass media who I think
> already knows about the meeting.
> Fortunately she won't rush to beat everyone else with a
> counter-productive piece of populist excreta. Even if she
> wasn't about to go on maternity leave.
>
> Even Rachel Buchanan can wait.
> http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/industrial-landscape-becoming-a-deser…
If you needed a reason NOT to support any referendum giving local
councils full governmental recognition, you cannot ignore this shocking
news story!
This link avoids the pay wall of The Australian newspaper and has more
information than the summary below the link:
http://www.news.com.au/top-stories/councils-snooping-on-phone-use/story-e6f…http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/councils-snooping-on-phone-us…
Local councils snooping on phone use
by: Jared Owens
From: The Australian
February 18, 2013 12:00AM
LOCAL councils are seizing data from residents' mobile phones without
warrants to chase unregistered pets, illegal rubbish dumping and
unauthorised advertising.
Federal surveillance laws enable enforcement agencies -- such as police,
corruption watchdogs and the Australian Taxation Office -- to seize
telecommunications data to conduct criminal investigations, enforce
fines or protect public revenue. But the laws are increasingly being
used by other public bodies, such as local governments and Australia
Post, which have collectively made more than 800 self-authorisations for
personal data in the past three financial years.
