A Good Way To Solveig Your Problem

As you guys know, I occasionally will deal with techie stuff here. Usually, it's how to fix something, but today I have a software review and a recommendation.

For a while now, I was using the SolveigMM AVI Trimmer + MKV to edit my various video files. It's a great program, and to top it off, it's freeware! That alone is enough to make me recommend their products. It's a very fast (and lossless) way to trim unwanted scenes from your AVI or MKV files.

I recently, however, got a chance to try the full version of their paid program, the SolveigMM Video Splitter, and as much as I like the freebie, I'll never go back to it.

To begin with, the Splitter works with more formats than AVI/MKV, so you can easily edit those pesky WMVs or MP4s, among others. (The full list of compatible files can be found at the above link.) That gives me more options when editing recordings made with my TV tuner card, which have to be converted from the WTV format.

In addition, with the splitter, you have a number of options when saving your edited segments. You can save individual segments, save all selected segments as one file, or use the built-in batch processor to edit now, process later. There's also an included video joiner that can join separate segments, assuming that the two files have the same characteristics.

The best thing about the program, though, is that for certain formats (not AVI, sadly) you can edit with frame accuracy. That is, instead of having to cut the segment at a K-frame (key frame), which could leave you with extra frames in your segment, you can actually cut a segment at an individual frame. Okay, let me just say that although that probably sounded like I knew what I was talking about, I'm not quite sure I did. I DO know, however, that it works, and works well.

The GUI itself is fairly user friendly, and if you've used any kind of editing software, you should have no problem figuring it out. the program window is resizeable, and you can preview your file as you work. There's even an optional "storyboard" function, which will show frames of the file to aid in finding that exact spot you need. My second complaint (the first being the lack of frame accuracy with AVIs) is that, while the storyboard is a great feature, the images are too small. I'm on a 22" monitor, and have a little trouble making them out. I hope that a resizeable storyboard is something they'll consider adding in the future because I'd much rather give up a little preview window size for an increased storyboard.

One other thing I should mention is the support. The response time to my inquiry was a quick two days (and that, I'm assuming, would have been shorter if not for the weekend), and they even sent a follow up email. There is also a user forum, and from what I could tell, it was visited regularly by the administrators. 

I just can't stress how fast and easy using this program is. I managed to trim the commercials out of an hour-long program in a matter of minutes. (I recommend learning and using the key commands, as I've found them to be a lot faster overall.) I joined together two consecutive episodes of a show with no problem,as well. (Take that, cliffhangers!) The two minor issues I have with the program are simply that--minor. Ultimately, the SolveigMM Video Splitter is well worth the money if you do any kind of video editing.

Solveig also makes a number of other video-related programs, and if you go to their website, you can find descriptions, comparisons, screenshots, and some very clear "how-to" pages, to help you do exactly what you want to do. Very impressive.

UPDATE: While double-checking my info on the Solveig website, I saw that it looks like you can also re-index WMV files, as well. I haven't tried that yet, but if that's an available option, consider my thumbs up even higher.

So...There's No App For That?

It appears that Apple has lost another of their iPhone prototypes in a bar. If you remember, the iPhone 4 prototype was lost a while back. This time, it's the iPhone 5. It was apparently left in the San Francisco bar, Cava 22. First of all, can I just say to Apple, STOP BRINGING YOUR PROTOTYPES TO BARS!! Lock. Your shit. Up. Or stop whining about it.

"Apple had contacted the police claiming the prototype is invaluable, the report says."

Yeah, but not too fucking invaluable to leave at home, I guess. This is like if Batman left the Batmobile outside a 7-11 with the Bat-keys in the Bat-ignition while he ran inside to take a Bat-dump, and then complained when someone drove off with it. At the very least, Apple, if you have to test the prototype in the wild, stop giving it to some idiot who's going to take it to the bar. You just know he was using that shit to get laid. "Hey, ladies! Look what I got!"


But that's not even the real story. The real story, and the reason this pisses me off so much is that Apple searched some guy's house, looking for the phone. That's right--I said Apple searched the guy's house. Not the police (although they "escorted" the Apple investigators). Not only did they not find the phone, they also declined to file a report, which means that they didn't even have to file a police report to get the cops to escort them there in the first place.


A couple of points:

1. "Apple's team searched the home, car and computer files" Computer files? Is Apple making virtual phones now? Why on earth are they searching computer files looking for an actual, physical phone. Without a search warrant either, obviously, since no police report was filed.
2. Why did they have to search the guy's house at all? You know what I do when I've lost my cell phone? I CALL MYSELF. How's that for genius, Apple? Yeah, just listen for the ringtone instead of tearing a guy's house up. Oh, I know what you're thinking--suppose it was on "vibrate"? My cell phone also has the ability to punch in a code from another phone and start an ear-splitting alarm. But then what do I know; my phone's not "invaluable." (It's also not an Apple.) 
3. "The man, who reportedly said he's a U.S. citizen who lives with relatives, told SF Weekly that the people searching his home questioned his family's immigration status." So apart from being douchebags that can't keep track of their shiny baubles, Apple is apparently also racist. No wonder so much of their stuff is white.
4. "Nor did Apple enlist the Federal Bureau of Investigation."  Nor should they, unless I missed something. Is "iPhone prototype" secret code for "dead hooker"? Last I heard, the FBI had real crimes to investigate, such as murder, kidnapping, and drug trafficking. I think "losing your phone in a bar" falls a little short of their jurisdiction. So Apple, you can just do what the rest of us do when someone walks off with our stuff: fill out a report and wait until Doomsday to hear something, because that shit is gone.

I just find this whole thing distasteful, mostly because of the way Apple has handled it. This wasn't corporate espionage. Nobody broke and entered. Tom Cruise wasn't hanging on little wires, dressed in black neoprene. This was Apple's fault. They were careless with their phone, and then, when they lost it, they impersonated police officers to search a guy's home without so much as a reported crime, much less a warrant, most of which has to violate any number of laws, I would imagine. (That's probably why the actual police stayed outside--they knew better.)

So you know what, Apple? I hope that your employee got shitfaced and dropped the phone on his way out of the bar, where it was found by some homeless dude who's now using it to level off the fourth corner of his refrigerator box under the highway somewhere. Good luck getting that back.

Hat tip to Ken.

The Party of No...Coverage, That Is.

Can we please dispense with the idea that the Republicans have no ideas for the economy? Please?

Why has this not been getting press? Ryan is one of the smartest guys on the hill.

Yippie-Kay-Ay, Perfumesniffer!

Just in case you wondered what "badass" smells like... (hopefully not like bad ass.)

"Bruce Willis cologne: when you want to blow shit up, but smell good doing it."

No No No No No!!!

Just saw a Dodge commercial with the line "and oh yeah--it literally gave birth to all other minivans."

If I have to explain to you why this is so wrong, you won't care that it is.

It's All In The Slogan

Toyota: There's No Stopping Us!!

Somebody Went To Jared

So today, Jared Bernstein, Biden's chief economist, said "I challenge you, or anyone watching me right now, to come up with any program like this federal, state, or local that has obligated $90 billion in 77 days with the level of oversight that we need to enforce this very important trail."

Ninety billion. In 77 days. Like it's a good thing.

He also kept skirting the line between money "obligated," "contracted," and "dispersed."

TEA, Anyone?

In case you didn't realize how successful the TEA Party movement was (and why wouldn't you, with all the coverage it's been getting in the mainstream media....hahahahahaha!!! Oh, man...I almost got it all out without laughing!) Michele Malkin has some pictures over at her site.

Never Underestimate Stupidity

see more pwn and owned pictures

Hypocritical Thinking

In today's AIG hearing, Massachusetts Representative Stephen Lynch (not to be confused with comedian Stephen Lynch, who has penned such masterpieces as "Hermaphrodite") along with others committee members, lambasted AIG CEO Edward Liddy for the bonuses to be paid to AIG executives. A couple of points:

1) Liddy was not the CEO when the bonuses were drafted. He made that clear to the committee, and added that he would not have done them this way. Despite this, Lynch still went after him personally, so much so that Liddy took offense. "Offense was meant, Sir," replied Lynch.

2) Liddy was there voluntarily, because he was asked, much like he was asked to take over the failing AIG, by the government. His salary as CEO? One dollar.

3) One committe member said (condescendingly, I thought) that Liddy should just not pay the bonuses, pointing out that the bonuses amount to only about a tenth of one percent of the bailout money AIG received. I guess the idea is that because it's not that much, it's not worth causing all this trouble. The trouble is, you could argue that same point the other way: since it's only a fraction of the bailout money, and is contractually required, it's not worth causing all this trouble. Just pay it and move on. Institute measures to prevent it in the future, if you want, but this is done. Seriously, how much is it costing in time and money just to hold the hearings, not to mention the probable resulting lawsuits should either AIG or congress try to renege on the contracts. I'm no happier than anyone else that some of these people are getting bonuses, but a contract is a contract. I think it's a dangerous precedent to let congress decide what contracts should or should not be upheld.

4) So...Democratic congressmen are going after the current CEO of AIG, even though he wasn't presiding over the company at the time everything happened? The same group of congressmen who keep insisting that the current crisis isn't the fault of the current administration, and keep reminding people that they inherited it? Really? Pot...kettle...you know the drill.

5) I can't say this enough: these bonuses are contractual. Not only are they contractual, but the legislation, written by Congress, that provided the bailout monies to AIG had language in it to preserve the bonuses!! Chris Dodd and Barack Obama were the top two recepients of AIG contributions from 2000-2008, so one might wonder how that language got in there...but I digress. All that is happening here is that Congress is trying to deflect their own incompetence in passing this bill (obviously without having read it) by going after Liddy, who frankly is the only innocent in the whole shebang.

6) This didn't happen today, but I just wanted to say that Chuck Schumer is a miserable fuckin' lowlife for a lot of reasons, but lately it's because of his statement that if the bonuses weren't returned voluntarily, "we will do it for you." Frankly, I'm surprised we even heard the statement, considering that his head was, as usual, up his ass. Someone should remind this assdart, who recently remarked that the American people didn't care about "porky" amendments, that like AIG after receiving bailout money, he also is responsible to the American people! I wonder how he would respond if he was asked to give back his salary because of Congress's miserable approval numbers and track record, including failure to prevent this economic crisis. It would actually be easier to influence that money, I think--let's just not vote him back to office. I just can't express strongly enough my dislike for Chuck Schemer.

It's a Simple Question, Really.

I'm a single guy. I make an honest living. And I live in an apartment, primarily because I'm afraid of getting into a housing situation that I can't afford. It's a big commitment, and one I don't take lightly.

So why on earth should I have to pay taxes to help bail out those people who didn't take the same care that I did?

I've denied myself one of the most basic aspects of the American dream--one's own house--to avoid overreaching and making a costly financial mistake, and now with the administration's decision to bail out homeowners, many of whom spent beyond their means, I find myself literally paying for someone else's.

Doctor Obam...I Mean, Utopia.

This is a cartoon produced by Harding College in 1948, but it seems particularly relevant today also. Ken says it's required viewing by all, and I agree with him.



My only criticism is that it uses the invention of the auto as an example of "American" ingenuity. (It doesn't specify that this is America, but it obviously is supposed to be.) The auto was invented by a Frenchman (steam-powered) and a German (internal-combustion engine).

It's still a damn good cartoon.

What's Next? The Knights Who Say "Nike"?

So I just watched that Gatorade commercial that references Monty Python & The Holy Grail, and I can't help wondering if they've missed their target audience ever so slightly...

And then I saw a Burger King commercial where a couple of nerdy guys unveil mini burgers, which draw a crowd of hands-on, attractive ladies who "just want to squeeze them." Bravo, BK...Bravo.

"Well, It's Not This Bill..."

This is one of the best responses I've seen to the President's (kinda snarky) comments regarding the "stimulus" bill:

So then you get the argument, well, this is not a stimulus bill, this is a spending bill. What do you think a stimulus is? (Laughter and applause.) That's the whole point. No, seriously. (Laughter.) That's the point. (Applause.)

And the best line in the response:

"Government spending is never a stimulus package, because the government cannot create wealth--it can only transfer wealth in the form of taxes. Government than spends and redistributes the taxes to programs and populations it deems worthwhile. The government sponsored economy is a a zero sum game."

I was trying to come up with some clever observation, such as "Stimulus is all spending, but not all spending is stimulus," or something like that, but I have a DVD I want to watch, so screw it.

"Dude...Is That Maui Wowie?" "No, It's Schadenfreude!"

So Kellogg's has decided not to renew Michael Phelps's contract.

Frankly, this whole thing is such bullshit. We have a president in office who has admitted to doing "blow," and the two before him have (I'm sure) smoked a little ganja themselves, inhaling or not. (Oh, and the president's half-brother was just arrested for possession.)

Kellogg's has the right to do as they see fit, but the press was being a little hypocritical by going after Phelps, while holding up Obama as a paragon of virtue.

If you ask me, anyone who smokes a bong and still manages to win 14 medals for swimming is a great spokesman for what human beings can accomplish. Remember, this is the guy that gave his one million dollar Speedo bonus to start a foundation for young swimmers, to help teach swimming safety. He's a good guy. People like Phelps, and maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think the general public sees marijuana as the "demon weed" it once was. About half the country admits to trying it, and I'll bet many of the other half lied.

Prediction? This will come back to bite Kellogg's in the ass.

("Kellogg's Ass Bites" could be the worst cereal name ever.)

What The Hell??

Thanks to Doug Ross, I got a look at the details of The Stimulus Package. Here's a look at it from The Wall Street Journal. Doug calls it "The SS Titanic of Stimulus Packages." If only it were that good. This is like the cartoon version of the Titanic, where the ship itself stays up, and the entire world around it (i.e. us) sinks.

I've gone from worried to frightened in ten seconds flat. I'm nearly speechless.

Isn't this thing supposed to actually stimulate something? Besides my ire, that is. You know what this is like? This is like loaning money to relatives who claim to have trouble paying rent and grocery bills, only to find out later that they spent it on a Playstation 3.

Hat Tip: Infidelsarecool

I'm Sorry, Blockbuster Online Customer Service; I Can't Hear You!

Must be because you have you have your head up your ass.

I'm a member of both Netflix and Blockbuster Online. Looks like I may have to drop Blockbuster. I've had a few problems with the films over the years, but lately it seems to be getting worse. And the customer service? Well, it all started when I noticed something wrong with my "recommendations...."

(Cue flashback harp music)

On both online sites, you rate movies you've seen and--based on your ratings--new movies you might like are suggested. At least that's how it's supposed to work. That's how it works on Netflix. On Blockbuster Online, though, about half of my shown recommendations were movies I had already rated. It really wasn't that big of a deal...until I got involved with Blockbuster's customer service. I sent them an e-mail alerting them to what was happening. My first response was this (I changed the tracking number):

------ Please do not remove your unique tracking number! ------
<<#8-675309#>>

That's it. Nothing else. No message. Frankly it was a little creepy. Of course I wrote back to ask what the deal was. Then I got a response which included this:

Our system is designed to not recommend movies that have previously been rated by the customer. The recommendations area should only display non-previously rated movies confirmed by the stars being only blue (yellow would indicate that they've been rated.)

There is, however, a limitation to this feature. Once the customer has rated over 1,000 movies, this function is no longer available and the customer may see previously rated items.

There is an enhancement request to up this limit to 2,000 and we hope that will be completed sometime in the near future.

I again responded, letting them know that their system wasn't working the way it was supposed to and that I hadn't rated anywhere near 1,000 films.

From the next e-mail:

Your comments are taken very seriously and we welcome them as a valuable tool needed to improve the quality of our service. I will make sure to forward your feedback to the appropriate department for review.

"Your comments are taken very seriously," which means nothing. I waited for the next e-mail:

I apologize if your issue about the rating system in our website is still not being addressed properly. Since addressing the issue through e-mail is a bit complicated, I kindly advice you to contact us at our Customer service hotline at 1-866-692-2789, we are open from Mondays to Fridays 8:00 am to 8:00 pm Central standard time. Our customer service representative will be happy to assist you and guide you through the website. We will try and come up with a solution or an answer to the recommendations issue in the websiste. We kindly appreciate your patience and understanding.

This was the nicest response yet, but seemed to still be foisting me onto someone else. I grabbed my phone.

After being on hold for about 20 minutes, listening to a recording ("We take your calls very seriously...") I finally got an agent who spoke what I'm pretty sure was English, as I recognized a few words. I briefly explained the problem, at which point she put me on hold again for five more minutes. When she came back, she told me with what I can only assume was a straight face that Blockbuster doesn't use personal recommendations. I explained to her that a previous e-mail from them explained to me that they did indeed have them. This began a strange dance where she would repeat my problem back to me ("You are saying that...") and after I affirmed the problem, she would repeat her claim that there were no recommendations. I eventually gave up, and she asked me if I would care to participate in a satisfaction survey.

You bet your ass I wanted to.

The next thing I know, I'm listening to another recording, asking me to enter my agent number followed by the number I want to transfer my customer to. Over and over and over again. Apparently she couldn't ever transfer me properly.

What started as a non-issue had grown into an "I'm pissed off at your complete lack of competence" issue. I sent yet another e-mail. This one contained this little gem from the Blockbuster help web page on recommendations:

To give you personalized recommendations, we need to know what you think about the titles you've already seen. Start rating movies and let us know what you love and what's not your style....The more movies you rate, the better we are st[sic] recommending titles that you're sure to like. Once you've rated at least 20 movies, we'll be able to provide personalized recommendations. [emphasis mine]

I also pointed out the typo. You'd think that a big company like Blockbuster could afford to hire people to find and correct those kinds of errors. I thought so, too, until I got the latest e-mail today. If anyone can figure out what this means, please let me know:

I am sorry to learn that you were having concern with the personalized recommendation in our movies in our website. I am glad that you have informed us of your concern. The star ratings or personalized recommendation in our website was replaced by the shopping cart. Because majority of our customer is asking for it because of the convenience on purchasing movies on line. I sincerely apologize for any inconvenience that this concern brought to you.

It was then I began to suspect that it was not a real person answering my e-mails, but one of those computer programs that's designed to sound like an actual person. I'm going to try including the phrase "open the pod bay doors" in my next e-mail and see what happens.

And here's the kicker....

Today the personal recommendation function that I've twice been told doesn't exist is working fine.

Where's The Happy Medium?

The other day, I noticed that the finance charge on one of my credit cards had gotten a lot higher, despite the fact that the balance on the card had not. The bank shall remain nameless. (It rhymes with Swashington Smutual.) Upon further investigation a noticed that my interest rate on the card had just about doubled. Determined to get to the bottom of things I called dear 'ol SS Bank and asked them about it. All the representative could tell me on the phone was that it had gone up, and apparently I was sent a notice, which gave me the opportunity to avoid the increase, but only by closing the account. I never got the notice, as far as I know.

A short time later, I received a letter from SS which said, basically, "We appreciate your business, but you represent an 'increased risk.'" Now, as I told the representative on the phone, I've never paid the bill late, I've always paid more than the minimum due, twice in the past year, I've paid off the complete balance (which has never been more than $1,500), and in the last six months, my salary has increased about $10,000. My credit score hovers somewhere around 700, give or take. I have to wonder: Where's the 'increased risk'?

The banks are in the mess they're in because they decided it would be a good idea to loan money to...well...anyone and everyone, regardless of circumstances. Then the roof caved in, and they demanded money from the government, which they got. Now it seems like they've gone too far the other way: they've got their money and they're sitting on it. The only people who are going to be able to get credit are the people who won't need to ask, it seems. I know, I know...the evidence is anectdotal. But I've heard a number of stories like mine, of rates increased like a thief in the night for the thinnest of reasons. I've also heard stories of people who are denied credit, who probably shouldn't be.

Can't the banks find a happy medium? You don't have to give the money away like lollipops, but you don't have to pile it in your mattress and sleep on it, either. In fact, the latter option seems about as dangerous to the economy as the former, considering the situation we're in. No credit to buy cars, houses, televisions, etc. would--I think--contribute even more to a recession/depression. But I'm no economist, so who knows. I do have one last question, though...

If we're a nation built on credit, and most of us have credit bills, then what happens if we receive our "stimulus" payment promised by our soon-to-be-president, and most of us spend that money on those credit bills, only to find the banks still aren't giving credit, or have increased the rates on the credit we already have? Will that "stimulate" anything at all?

If you're wondering about my situation, here's what happened: I called them back to give them an opportunity to correct the problem, which they passed up. So, I made a balance transfer to a card from another bank (which had a MUCH lower rate), and sent a letter to SS bank, telling them that while I have appreciated doing business with them, doubling my interest rate without adequate notification represents too much of an increased risk for me to continue to do so.

I still smile when I think about it.

A Pressing Matter

Let me start by saying that I don't really expect much of my fellow man. I think we're motivated primarily by selfishness, and that there isn't much altruism out there. Not only am I not that shocked by it, I actually find it fairly logical. I tell you this so you'll understand when I say how this next bit disgusted me, and made me ashamed to be a human being, you'll understand just how severe I think it is.

A Wal-Mart worker died early Friday after an "out-of-control" mob of frenzied shoppers smashed through the Long Island store's front doors and trampled him, police said.

Four other people were injured in the incident, including a woman who was eight months pregnant. And just when you thought you couldn't add insult to injury, it appears that the shoppers complained...because the store had to be shut down by the police.

[Police spokesman] Fleming said criminal charges were possible but that it would be difficult to identify individual shoppers in surveillance videos.

I dearly hope they can prosecute a few of these assholes.

The Proof Is In The Pudding...I Mean Voting

So you think McCain doesn't know much about the economy? Think he's out of touch with what the people want? Just in case you'd better take a quick look at this. It's a report on the Senate, put out by the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW).

The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW) is the lobbying arm of CAGW. The CCAGW mission is to advocate the elimination of waste and inefficiency in government through nonpartisan public education programs and lobbying activities. Each year, CCAGW tabulates its Congressional Ratings, evaluating how each member of Congress measures up on key tax and spending votes.

The report on the Senate covers 35 key votes from last year, explains whether the taxpayers "won" or "lost" the vote, and follows up by tabulating how often each senator was on the side of the taxpayers. Some very interesting results:

• Obviously, Sarah Palin is not on the list since she isn't a senator, but John McCain? On the side of the taxpayers 100% of the time. That's right--he voted against waste and to benefit the taxpayers every single time. And his lifetime record is 88%. Not too shabby. In fact no other senator had a 100% rating for last year.
• Barack Obama, who claims to be on the side of the taxpayers, measured fairly close to the bottom of the barrel at 10% (18% lifetime). But that's not even the worst percentage...
• Obama's running mate, Joe Biden (along with a bunch of other senators) came in at 0% (22% lifetime). That means in every single vote that he cast for those 35 key votes, he voted on the side that would hurt you, the taxpayer. Every single time.

I think it's pretty clear who's really got our best interests in mind.

*To be fair, though, most Democrats score consistantly poorly on these rankings, mainly because they always want to--you guessed it--raise taxes. They're generally for bigger government, also. So if you see the government taking more of your money and spending it to spread its influence into more and more of your life as a good thing, then maybe you're all right with the Obama/Biden rankings.