there is, sadly, no way to check that they are transcodes (unless they attach log/cue, which is rare). because I'm a boring person, I generally check where the spectrals cut off in audacity to see whether the file is transcoded

pfft... I bet that app doesn't even provide a ripping log or cue sheet...

Out of interest, why did you stop using it? I love what.cd, it's an amazing resource and I'd be interested to hear why you quit

I am pretty sure you can still get old versions off their website

if you decide to get utorrent, I suggest you don't get the most recent version, rather go for 2.2.1.
It's the last open source version and a lot of trackers won't have the most recent client on their whitelist.

as for public websites libble.me is decent though I am sure pirate bay (via tpb or Malaysia bay) would be suitable for you

edit: i suggest you maybe don't use a youtube to mp3 converter as it is a laborious process and is really lossy and will compromise the quality of the file

#193, that is really sick, not heard that before

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DtSkw7CvVQ

recently got into Lee 'Scratch' Perry.
I had previously never enjoyed reggae/dub, but the production on this kinda track is really absorbing. Thanks based waffles FL for an opportunity I might have otherwise missed...

I feel there has been a misunderstanding and I will try and clear up what I mean.
I feel no animosity to people on this thread. At all.

It is a personal peeve of mine when people either reject things because it is incompatible with their model of the world, even when there is good evidence for it. Or looking down on people who unquestionably accept something, when they just unquestioningly accept the counterargument without looking more deeply at the argument.
This may not have been the case, and if I misinterpreted you, I apologise.

I recognise that homeopathy violates a lot of scientific theories. That on its own is not enough to discredit it. It is the large body of evidence that suggests that it is ineffective that does the work.

I had no intention to start an argument, merely to state my opinion based on my interpretation of the thread. I apologise if I have offended anyone with what I have said or how I said it. This is not meant as a personal attack on anyone, rather a general point about reasoning.

I don't know why you're being so condescending.
The reason I bring these examples up is to argue by analogy, a tactic that is common throughout philosophical argument.
I am sure no scientist champions their theory as fact, all it is a way of rationalising evidence. Proof is used in deduction, all you can do in induction is provide evidence. I am aware there is a large body of evidence suggesting that homeopathy doesn't work. I don't think it works. If that's what you base you decisions on, good. If you discard it based on the fact it isn't coherent with your model of the world, that's problematic.

I guess I ought to clarify my position again. I am not defending homeopathy, I am defending inductive reasoning over dogmatic acceptance. I would never use homeopathy and if someone asked my advice on whether to take it, I would advise them against it, but to avoid it based on informed reasoning rather that what they are told.

I agree that the scientific process has improved. I disagree that it is perfect and beyond criticism.

Theories about the outside world are never fact, no matter how many iterations there are. Consider Russell's chicken (http://www.noogenesis.com/pineapple/Russell/chicken.html)

I don't understand the problem here. I did read them and it provides evidence that placebos are effective.

Also what is wrong with defying modern science? Non-collapse quantum physics does that and one cannot deny there is a hell of a lot of evidence to suggest that it is a correct theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation). This denies temporal asymmetry amongst other things.

Placebos work less well if people don't think they're proper medicine.

In fairness I didn't watch the video because it was twenty minutes plus. I was more reacting to peoples comments on homeopathy. Of course I don't suggest people take it as a vaccine for polio, I am trying to dispel the black and white notion of homeopathy=bad.

It truly doesn't matter what I say though, people are going to minus frag me purely because they disagree with me, rather than providing any cogent argument against me.

The point I was making was that Trekkies arguments of
1. Homeopathy violates physics and chemistry
2. Anything that violates physics and chemistry is bad
c. therefore homeopathy is bad
is invalid, something I am sure we can agree on.

Also 'right for the most part' doesn't really cut it under the best systems analysis for laws. Feel free to use newtonian physics with subatomic particles travelling close to the speed of light to see how wrong it truly is. If you think this argument is trivial, keep in mind the macrophysical supervenes on the microphysical.

Also, people underestimate how vastly effective a placebo can be (note how it is still widely used in Germany and other places http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/8376919/How-a-simple-sugar-pill-from-the-doctor-may-not-be-a-thing-of-the-past.html).
There seems to be an attitude of "you're getting better, but you're not doing it my way, so you're doing it wrong and I want you to stop getting better". I can understand that it can be used for profiteering, but that is always going to happen. A fool and his money are easily parted. This is not going to change overnight, and this cynical marketing is a hydra that will sprout two heads for each one you chop off.

Dogmatically believing science is almost as bad as dogmatically believing homeopathy. If you are going to have an opinion, at least make sure it is informed by reading some academic papers. Not suggesting you haven't, but the vast majority of people who bash homeopathy don't really know what they're talking about.

Also holding science up as a perfect model is dangerous. Before the 20th Century people would have had the same view of Newtonian physics, but Einstein came along and showed them that they were wrong. Physics and chemistry are by no means perfect systems, that can be improved upon constantly (see the collapse vs non-collapse theories of quantum physics - an area which is really up for grabs). Just because it doesn't fit the current system doesn't make it wrong.

edit: I should clarify, I am not supporting homeopathy. Just inductive reasoning.

How thoroughly frustrating, the problem has arisen again.

The crashing has stopped but the fps issues remain. It's usually ~120 with no one on screen, but drops to 40-60 when there are others on the screen.

I was gonna have a look at the drivers and maybe try to get an overclock on the CPU.

It seems bizarre that after a day of fine fps with chris' dx9 it should inexplicably go back to being bad, having changed nothing.

Thanks for everyone's advice so far. Any further guidance or advice would be appreciated

Cheers

Ok, I changed highframes to dx9 frames and changed the mat_queue_mode to `-1'. That seems to solve the problem. Played a hl lobby the whole way through without crashes with fps never dropping below 120. Thanks to all that helped!

thanks for all the help guys, I'll give your suggestions a go and report back. I thoroughly appreciate all your help!

I am pretty sure they're up to date, I only got the computer up and running recently.

I think the crashes have been caused by me tinkering with MSI afterburner. Is that likely?

Unfortunately I am not very computer literate so any help I can get would be amazing.