FLV Crunch

Name FLVCrunch
Category Multimedia – Audio / Video Conversion
URL http://flvcrunch.awardspace.us/
Rating (out of 5) [rating:4]

FLV Crunch Logo
Description

FLV Crunch is a handy audio and video conversion tool for the Mac OS X operating system.  It can convert both audio and video files from one format to another.

It can accept the following formats for input:

  • FLV (Flash Video),
  • MPEG 1 (.mpg),
  • MPEG 2 (.vob),
  • MPEG 4 (.mp4),
  • Quicktime (.mov),
  • Mobile Phone  (.3gp),
  • Windows Media Player  (.wma, .wmv),
  • RealPlayer (.ra, .rm),
  • DivX AVI (.avi),
  • Digital Video (.dv),
  • MP3,
  • M4A,
  • MKV,
  • MKA,
  • M4V,
  • AIFF,
  • MOD,
  • FLAC,
  • WAV .
When the input files have been loaded, they can be output as:
  • MPEG 1, 
  • MPEG 2, 
  • MPEG 4, 
  • Quicktime Mov, 
  • Divx AVI,
  • 3GP, 
  • Digital video,
  • Windows Media Video,
  • FLV,
  • MKV,
  • MP3,
  • M4A,
  • and AIFF.

Review

FLVCrunch is an excellent lightweight tool for converting audio and video files from one format to another.  DPS Computing recently discovered this handy little tool while converting Windows Media Audio files (.wma) to MP3 files.

Now, unfortunately on OS X, Adobes Media Encoder does not cut it if you want to input or output .wma files (this is only included on the Windows version of Media Encoder).  However, this lightweight tool has hit the nail on the head.  Don’t let its small size fool you, this really is a formidable tool.

Small, lightweight and low memory usage are all positive points of this piece of software.  It can also convert many audio files in a matter of seconds.

For any developers out there, both software and web, this is a must have tool to have in your collection.

And without any doubt the best thing about FLV Crunch is…… that it is completely 100% free!  Therefore, although Adobes Media Encoder can be used for many formats (just not .wma on OS X), FLV Crunch is comparable and doesn’t come with the huge price tag associated with the Adobe suites!

Download

http://www.mediafire.com/?mnadmk4853eytwa

UPDATE: DPS Interactive Theory Test (ITT)

DPS ComputingHello everyone,

Unfortunately there has been a slight delay with the release of the DPS Interactive Theory Test (ITT) software.  We apologise for this, but we want to make it absolutely perfect and fully functional before its release.

We believe that the software should be of the highest quality and we want to make it absolutely perfect for you all!

A demo will be online shortly with the full product being released soon afterwards.

One again apologies for the delay and thank you for your patience :).

Is Wikipedia Now Considered A Reliable Source?

As many of you will know, Wikipedia, has been around for a number of years now.  The idea behind it is to create a free and open encyclopaedia that anyone can edit and update (both registered and unregistered users).  The main idea behind it is sound, in that the collective knowledge of potentially tens of millions of people will be able to produce a comprehensive, up to date, reliable and broad view on every topic imaginable.

The main problem has been however, malicious edits or users basically editing and updating with good faith, but doing so in an inaccurate way.  This is counter balanced partly due to the fact that everybody can in effect peer review each others work.

But can we now say that we can consider Wikipedia a reliable source?  The answer is both yes and no.

In the past, educational institutions have frowned upon and specifically advised against using Wikipedia in any way for academic purposes.  And most importantly, it has been prohibited for use as a ‘reliable’ source of information for dissertations and assignments.

Wikipedia has come a long way, but unfortunately, for academic purposes, it cannot be considered wholly reliable.  Having reviewed many topics on Wikipedia there is a big difference from article to article on reliability and correctness.  Some articles are well covered, referenced and factual however this cannot be relied upon.  When learning a topic, you need to know that the information you are reading is correct, to prevent you making any drastic errors!  So from an academic point of view, if you are going to read up about things using Wikipedia, you are best to look up topics that you are already broadly familiar with so that you will be able to make your own judgement on whether the article is fit for purpose.  It is also a good idea to check out the general quality of articles in the subject area, and look at articles on a subject matter that you are quite familiar with.

For example, the networking articles on Wikipedia seem to be largely accurate and useful, whereas other areas such as business process modelling (BPM) articles seem to lack references, miscommunicate concepts and include opinion and conjecture.

However, when wanting to find out information for social purposes (i.e. where unreliability isn’t going to have a major impact on you) then Wikipedia can be great.

Overall for academic purposes, Wikipedia is very hit and miss and it would be strongly advised that you look for alternative, more reliable and authoritative sources.  For general information, reading about celebrities, places etc by all means, Wikipedia can be a good source for things like this!