EXS 24 Logic Sampler Users Group

Although some of you may have already seen the following
information, it will probably be new to others of you. It is
important, especially now that your privacy is being threatened on
so many fronts simultaneously. This concerns ANYONE who is either on
any Yahoo mailing list, or who is a member of Yahoo but is not on
any list . Yahoo! is now using something called "Web beacons" to
track Yahoo! users around the Internet and see what you are doing.
Seems these beacons work like cookies. Go to this URL:
http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us/pixels/details.html

About halfway down the page (on the right side), in the "Outside the
Yahoo! Network" section, there is a "click here" link at the end of
the paragraph that lets you OPT OUT of their electronic snooping.
Protect your privacy. Pass this info along to all your
buddies/groups too." Also note that:

Note: This opt-out applies to a specific browser rather than a
specific user. Therefore you will have to opt-out separately from
each computer or browser that you use.

At 04:27 PM 12/5/02 +0200, you wrote:
>Although some of you may have already seen the following
>information, it will probably be new to others of you. It is
>important, especially now that your privacy is being threatened on
>so many fronts simultaneously. This concerns ANYONE who is either on
>any Yahoo mailing list, or who is a member of Yahoo but is not on
>any list . Yahoo! is now using something called "Web beacons" to
>track Yahoo! users around the Internet and see what you are doing.

Thanks Colin, Yeah, although Yahoogroups are really well done, they do try 
to wedge in and have some advantage to it. I'd feel better if they would 
inform all users of these things - maybe they do, but I didn't see it. 
(Junk mail most likely.)

The best thing to do is to have users "police" or "alert" themselves, as 
you have done - thanks.

Garth Hjelte
Sampler User

On Thursday, December 5, 2002, at 01:56  PM, Rubber Chicken Software 
Co. wrote:

>
> Thanks Colin, Yeah, although Yahoogroups are really well done, they do 
> try
> to wedge in and have some advantage to it. I'd feel better if they 
> would
> inform all users of these things - maybe they do, but I didn't see it.
> (Junk mail most likely.)

No they don't. I read the titles of all the junk mail I receive and 
I've never have been alerted by Yahoo about their subscription 
maneuvers.

And thank you Colin from me as well.

--------
Edmund Eagan
www.twelfthroot.com

--- In exs-users@yahoogroups.com, Colin Shapiro <musos@i...> wrote:
Yahoo! is now using something called "Web beacons" to
> track Yahoo! users around the Internet and see what you are doing.
> http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us/pixels/details.html

an excerpt:
 
>> Information Sharing and Disclosure
>> Yahoo! does not rent, sell, or share personal information about 
>> you with other people or nonaffiliated companies except to 
>> provide products or services you've requested, when we have 
>> your permission,

so far so good, but ...

>>  or under the following circumstances: 
>> (O) We provide the information to trusted partners who 
>> work on behalf of or with Yahoo! under confidentiality 
>> agreements. 
>> ... (etc)

So Yahoo can rent, share, sell or share personal information about 
you with other companies, as long as they've signed some sort of 
confidentiality thing with Yahoo, the details of which are presumably 
private between Yahoo and those outside companies or people. 


>> These companies may use your personal information to help 
>> Yahoo! communicate with you about offers from Yahoo! and 
>> our marketing partners. However, these companies do not have 
>> any independent right to share this information. 

So it looks like Yahoo can collect information about your browsing 
habits to sell on, without your permission or knowledge (and 
presumably with your email and ISP details attached), but the people 
they sell it to or pass it on to don't have an independent right to 
sell or pass it on to even more people ("fourth parties"??) ... 
unless Yahoo says that they can.

Hmm.
As safeguards go, that's not exactly watertight, is it?

So (for instance) if you were a market research company working for 
political party X, you could presumably buy a list from Yahoo of 
account details of people who visit gay or lesbian chatrooms or sites 
(or whatever), then do a datamining search to cross-reference and 
isolate ISP details belonging to computers used by politicians' 
families of party Y, and end up with a sorted hit-list of which 
politician's spouses or kids were likely to be "usable" for blackmail 
purposes.

The blackmailee might never know that they'd been fingered with the 
help of personal data sold by Yahoo (it might even be part of the 
deal that the buyer doesn't tell people what their arrangement with 
Yahoo is), and even if it did somehow come out, Yahoo could say that 
they hadn't done anything wrong, and that it was all the fault of the 
people who bought the info, and then misused it.

Not good. 
If I was a journalist, I'd be asking Yahoo to provide a list of all 
the companies they've been selling personal details to, and copies of 
the exact agreements under which the information was transferred, so 
we can find out the sort of organisations who have been buying this 
data, who they work for, and what they are allowed to do with it.
You might not want, say, a right-to-life organisation being able to 
get hold of a Yahoo-generated list of ISP id's for people who'd 
visited an abortion counselling site, or a foreign power getting hold 
of lists of politians whose families had been looking for info on 
sexual diseases, or alcoholism, or mental illness, or whatever.

Does anyone know of any official info regarding the sample streaming feature
and how much or how little ram it likes to use, or can make use of, relative
to the amount of sample data being loaded?

I used EXS for the first time on a gig this weekend, and the sound I was
using was a 500 meg Rhodes sample. But on my Tibook with 256 meg of ram, I
figure the exs only had about 40 meg to work with, and, somewhat to my
amazement, it just sat there and quietly streamed the whole sound flawlessly
all night long! Sounded fantastic.

However, I think it's working close to full capacity, because every time I
change anything it takes a long time to redraw the icons on the desktop
behind. Still, it didn't crash, but I don't think it's totally stable
either.

Would I be right in assuming that adding another 512 meg to my system would
help?

Thanks all! Darcy

Can't say this is official, but as far as my experience go, and this 
may sound obvious, any system benefits from more RAM. 
The not so obvious part being that Logic not especially gains 
power by actually assigning it more RAM. The more you can 
leave working in the background, the better I think.
(Logic will go bzerk and drop total audio capacity when it's forced 
to look into more than 1 Gig of free Ram, at least on my machine.
Before I had my current system Logic worked much more stable 
when it was assigned only about 60 Mb. These days I run 1536 
Mb RAM, so I'm forced to give Logic at least 501 Mb).

To cut it short, the more RAM Logic is able to assign to the EXS, 
the smoother your system will run.
Best,
O.








--- In exs-users@yahoogroups.com, Darcy Phillips 
<darclist@s...> wrote:
> Does anyone know of any official info regarding the sample 
streaming feature
> and how much or how little ram it likes to use, or can make 
use of, relative
> to the amount of sample data being loaded?
> 
> I used EXS for the first time on a gig this weekend, and the 
sound I was
> using was a 500 meg Rhodes sample. But on my Tibook with 
256 meg of ram, I
> figure the exs only had about 40 meg to work with, and, 
somewhat to my
> amazement, it just sat there and quietly streamed the whole 
sound flawlessly
> all night long! Sounded fantastic.
> 
> However, I think it's working close to full capacity, because 
every time I
> change anything it takes a long time to redraw the icons on the 
desktop
> behind. Still, it didn't crash, but I don't think it's totally stable
> either.
> 
> Would I be right in assuming that adding another 512 meg to 
my system would

> help?
> 
> Thanks all! Darcy

Thoughts from the mind of Darcy Phillips, 08-12-2002:

>I used EXS for the first time on a gig this weekend, and the sound I was
>using was a 500 meg Rhodes sample. But on my Tibook with 256 meg of ram, I
>figure the exs only had about 40 meg to work with, and, somewhat to my
>amazement, it just sat there and quietly streamed the whole sound flawlessly
>all night long! Sounded fantastic.
>
>However, I think it's working close to full capacity, because every time I
>change anything it takes a long time to redraw the icons on the desktop
>behind. Still, it didn't crash, but I don't think it's totally stable
>either.
>
>Would I be right in assuming that adding another 512 meg to my system would
>help?

Simple answer: yes.  Having the system so maxed out that the Finder 
doesn't even have enough memory left to redraw the desktop is 
potentially dangerous.  And, at the very least, it's annoying.  With 
ram-prices being what they are, you should simply get as much as 
possible.

-- 
Hendrik Jan Veenstra  <h@...>

*** NEW LOCATION *** Omega Art: http://www.omega-art.com

Hendrik,

Thanks for your reply. It made me realize that what I really wanted to
confirm was whether the slow redrawing of the desktop was a symptom of low
available memory, as I suspected. You confirmed that for me. Thanks!

Darcy

>Would I be right in assuming that adding another 512 meg to my system would
>help?

Simple answer: yes.  Having the system so maxed out that the Finder
doesn't even have enough memory left to redraw the desktop is
potentially dangerous.  And, at the very least, it's annoying.  With
ram-prices being what they are, you should simply get as much as
possible.






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]