Anyone Who Prefers Tracks Over Roles is Delusional. http://t.co/oewCXfWqSy via @fcpxpert1
I’m beginning to need more advanced output options when finishing work in FCPX and I can already see some of the potential power with this metadata-centric tool. However, I know I’m already missing one thing, and probably just the one, so far [four years in FCPX]: Bussing. You could kind of do this in FCP7 by dropping audio and video filters on clips while they were still in the browser, (many complained that there was no effects buss for the master audio buss in FCP7), but of course, PP does this best. I really loved the fact that I could create a realtime mixer from audio tracks that were setup on the timeline, even without clips! So I could have a dialog track with preset EQ and processing and every clip I dropped onto that track took on those charactersitics. At times that is/was a big plus for me, but, still not worth giving up FCPX.
I really have to wonder about the behind-the-scenes politics of people and organizations that create previously non-existent malware. On the surface I get it, but it seems dubious that a person or group that creates mechanisms that break the average desktop or handheld computer have only altruistic motivations. Here’s just a concern or three that I have:
- What happens when this person’s or group’s admiration for the computing system they portend to love wanes?
- How long does it take for that love to wane in light of the admitted lack of appreciation that comes from the manufacturer/developer.
- Whether or not there is/was any real admiration by the malware creator, what would it take to buy that particular creator’s particular creation?
- I see no regulation or oversight of any kind for this practice.
Certainly germ warfare development [bio-germs] takes place, but it is somewhat regulated by the realization of the people doing the hands-on development, of just how really dangerous what they’re working with is. I would also argue that, whatever of this kind of thing goes on in the USA is watched very closely, even if it is not strictly regulated, (and I’m not saying it’s not – I don’t know if it is or not). Why would it be closely watched? For two reasons: To keep it secret and because it’s just dangerous to all concerned, and no risks can afford to be taken.
Now back to the malware lab where it seems to me that this kind of thing is carried out with no oversight of any kind, and if this thing shows up in the wild 12-24 months from now this person will have no culpability except, “I told you so”.
Sorry, but I don’t believe this practice should be geek fodder, because there is a lot at stake – potentially, even human life – since computers are so indelible to our existence now. The more this is contemplated the more I think this practice needs to be reigned in – there needs to be official oversight. It’s really too bad that giant companies like Microsoft and Apple, and Google, and all the rest, don’t do this all in-house – with government oversight. Software development has too long enjoyed the luxury of getting us to completely depend on products that take absolutely no responsibility for outcomes or losses due to the product’s shortcomings.