Asp Forum - playing defined system sounds

pedro mg

2/9/2007 8:35:00 AM

Hi,

i'd like to play linux system sounds for my app events.
Anyone worked with this already ?
1. playing sounds
2. accessing system defined sounds

Regards,
--
pedro mg

7 Answers

Olivier

2/9/2007 8:49:00 PM

> Hi,
>
> i'd like to play linux system sounds for my app events.
> Anyone worked with this already ?
> 1. playing sounds
> 2. accessing system defined sounds
>
> Regards,

There is no "system defined sounds" for every Linux installations, since there
are many desktop environment that exist. So, you have to choose one, and
access its standards sounds via the libraries (kde libs, gnome libs, xfce
libs, etc...)

--
Olivier Renaud

Kurt Lochner

7/18/2007 2:02:00 PM

the_sag deleted and bleated:
>
> Kurt Lochner restored the previous formatting, text and context:
> >
> >the_sag deleted and bleated:
> > >
> > > Kurt Lochner restored the previous formatting, text and context:
> > > >
> > > >the_sag deleted and bleated:
> > > > >
> > > > > Kurt Lochner restored the previous formatting, text and context:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >the_sag deleted and bleated:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Kurt Lochner restored the following text/context avoided by:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >tom-bolger@ntlworld.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Jun 30, 3:43 pm, swan...@NoScrewingAround.net (Eric Swanson) wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > For an interesting description of the Bush Administration's covert
> > > > > > > > > > campaign against the science of climate change, see this article:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15148655/the_secret...
> > > > > > > > > > of_president_bushs_administration_to_deny_global_warming/print
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > It's a lot worse than I thought...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >Climate change may be occurring[..]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Duh! And how would you like to pretend that dumping millions
> > > > > > > > of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere isn't having an
> > > > > > > > effect on the troposphere?
>
>Animals and decaying matter have been dumping 160 billion tons of CO2
>into the atmosphere for the last 2,000 years,

And you want to pretend that your numbers, uncited and unsourced,
are beyond questioning, in comparison to the hundreds of millions
of tons of CO2 and methane being dumped into the atmosphere now?

Why do you refuse to compare apples to apples in this case?

Example follows..

> > > > > > >There is an effect but it isn't measurable.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Oh, so you're saying that a measured increase in CO2 (280ppmv
> > > > > > to 350ppmv) and corresponding increases in temperatures across
> > > > > > the planet, as well as the oceans, aren't "measurable"?
>
>Exactly. It hasn't been done. It does not exist.

*>LOL!<* You're completely ignoring the facts that state otherwise..

http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/scientific_ev...

Scientific Evidence - Increasing Temperatures & Greenhouse Gases

"Through the study of ancient ice cores from Antarctica it is
possible to compare atmospheric concentrations of the dominant
greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere with
temperature variations over the past 400 thousand years of the
earth's history.

http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/images/Fig1-CO2_and...

A visual comparison of the two trends indicates a very tight
connection between their performance, with fluctuations in
one plot almost exactly mirrored in the other for more than
400 thousand years. But suddenly in the 1800s, as the Industrial
Revolution takes off, atmospheric CO2 concentrations begin an
unprecedented upward climb, rising rapidly from 280 ppmv
in the early 1800s to a current level of 376 ppmv, 77 ppmv
above the highest concentrations previously attained in the
course of the preceding 400 thousand years."

>I've seen the last 2,000 years [..]

I doubt that you're that old, and the way you fudge your numbers
doesn't impress me much either. And your simple 'say-so' isn't
what I'd think of as a scientific fact..

Plus, you resort to phony rhetorical questions that presume
negative presumptions that are, at best, laughable..

Example follows..

>Where is your make believe correlation between CO2 levels and temperature there?

http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/images/Fig1-CO2_and...

>During the late Ordovician perdiod, CO2 was at 4400ppm[..]

Your 'cite' lacks veracity..

>15,000 years ago, when the last glaciation ended, temperatures rose [..]

Your 'cite' lacks veracity..

> > > > > > >And stop pretending.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You first..
> > > > >
> > > > >What I was saying is that not a single degree rise in temperature
> > > > >can be attributed to CO2 levels. Remember, CO2 levels have remained
> > > > >at a steady 280ppm for the last 2,000 yet temperatures have ranged
> > > > >between 1?F higher, and -2?F lower than today's temperatures.
> > > >
> > > > Indeed, and it makes for a nice 'control' for comparison..
> > >
> > >Evasion[..]
> >
> > Indeed, and it makes for a nice 'control' for comparison to
> > the last 150 years of warming, now thought to be the result
> > of modern farming techniques..
> >
> > Your evasion is noted, and laughed at again..
>
>Indeed, you did not cite anything[..]

That's because I can literally 'drown' you with citations
and abstracts regarding the facts you tend to ignore..

Would you like to go there now?

http://www.gfdl.gov/~tk/climate_dynamics/climate_impact_we...

http://www.gfdl.gov/~tk/climate_dynamic...

>If you have no facts or logic to back up any of your claims[..]

I've got plenty of both, and would be happy to educate you..

> > > > >There is absolutely on CO2 correlation there.
> > > >
> > > > Incorrect..
> > > >
> > > > We're now seeing increases globally in CO2, as well as an increase
> > > > in temperature over the last 150 years. Saying that the previous
> > > > 2,000 years disproves anything is simply nonsense..
> > >
> > >Let's examine your "logic" here for a moment:
> >
> > Yes, and let's see if yours is up to the task..
> >
> > >CO2 levels have remained constant for the last 2,000 years
> > >(with the exception of the last 100 years of course)
> >
> > Nice "Yeah, but.."
>
>There is no "but...".

Yes, and here it is..

>CO2 levels have remained constant for the last 2,000 years

Nope, and if you look back even further, you'd see how wrong you are..

>while temperatures have swung ?2?F.

Your 'data' is suspect in that regard.

http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/images/Fig1-CO2_and...

>That clearly disproves that CO2 causes significant temperature swings.

Nope, you're again trying to mis-state the facts..

> > >Therefore
> >
> > There's no "therefore" to your conjecture..
> >
> > >there is a correlation throughout all of history between
> > >CO2 levels and temperatures.
> >
> > Correct, until the last 150 years as the industrial output
> > of carbon dioxide rose dramatically. Would you like for
> > me to get those figures for you?
> >
> > They will prove your false "conclusion" completely wrong..
>
>A claim of yours which has been throughly contradicted[..]

Only by your unsupported assertions.. Got data?

> > > > >If there is anything that can explain these things, please cite
> > > > >some objective, peer-reviewed citations
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps you have a preference in sources. Would you care to list
> > > > which peer-reviewed publications you'd prefer I cite from, so that
> > > > you can be assured of the veracity of my three (or so) citations?
> > > >
> > > > I will await your answer..
> > >
> > >Yet another evasion[..]
> >
> > On your own behalf, and you even admit it this time..
>
>Where do you crackpots get your stupid and uneducated ideas from?

Much the same has been asked of yourself, in that regard..

Examples follow..

> > > > > > >Humans are estimated to be dumping five BILLION tons of CO2 per year
> > > > > > >into the atmosphere.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'd be interested to see some objective, peer-reviewed citations
> > > > > > of the numbers you've just posted. Can you provide a cite, or three?
> > > > >
> > > > >Clearly you haven't done your homework and expect everyone else to do
> > > > >it for you...
> > > >
> > > > That would again be incorrect. I expect you to support your
> > > > conjectures and assertions as you make them, and I will not
> > > > go look up your cites for you. Understood?
> > >
> > >You need to take your own advice.
> >
> > I already have, and consider your intellectual dishonesty
> > to be appalling, if not embarrassingly ignorant of yourself..
> >
> > >I cited the facts [..]
> >
> > That suited your specious counter-arguments..
> >
> > >and you have yet to refute them.
> >
> > Been there, done that, wanna see the t-shirt?
> >
> > >Try explaining why CO2 levels were at 4400ppm during the
> > >late Ordivician period yet temperatures were no different
> > >than todays?
> >
> > I await 'cites' on your behalf regarding that still..
> >
> > >Why have CO2 levels lagged temperature changes by 800 years
> > >during the 200,000 years or so?
> >
> > Wouldn't that be a rhetorical question on your behalf?
> >
> > >Why did temperatues vary more during the last 2000 years
> > >(excluding the current 100 year period) when CO2 levels
> > >remained constant, yet when CO2 levels increased by 50%
> > >during the last 100 years, tempetures only changed a mere
> > >1.3?F?
> >
> > And are projected to rise 2.5?F shortly because of hundreds
> > of millions of tons of carbon dioxide and methane being
> > dumped into the lower atmosphere..

*>cricket.wav<*

> > > > > > >Because in real life it doesn't have much of an effect[..]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Don't you just wish..
> > > > >
> > > > >No.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, and your 'carbon cycle' cite from wikipedia will not suffice..
> > >
> > >Because? [..]
> >
> > Is it a professional science publication, peer-reviewed by other
> > scientists who are trying to falsify the results and conclusions?
> >
> > Nope, didn't think so, did you?

*>cricket.wav<*

> > > > >I have yet to see you cite any facts or science[..]
> > > >
> > > > There appear to be a lot of things you don't 'see'..
> > >
> > >Yet another evasion[..]
> >
> > Hey, it's not my problem that you're so gullible as to believe
> > uncritically all the right-wing pabulum being fed to you..
> >
> > As I said..
> >
> > > > That's not my problem..
> > >
> > >You are proof that ignorance is bliss.
> >
> > Funny, getting the degree in physics certainly wasn't blissful..
> >
> > What's your degree in?

*>cricket.wav<*

> > > > > > Meanwhile, back to the original article..
> > >
> > >Which wasn't a science journal but political opinion[..]
> >
> > *>LOL!<* You can pretend it was an 'editorial', but it wasn't..
>
>So you without a shred of proof.

Would you please translate your gibberish back into english?

> > It's called 'investigative journalism', something that you may
> > have heard about once in a while, but never read before..
> >
> > Here, try again, have an adult help you this time..
> > =============================================================
> >
> > http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15148655/the_secret...of_president_bushs_administration_to_deny_global_warming/print
> >
> > The Secret Campaign of President Bush's Administration To Deny Global
> > Warming
>
>That is clearly not an example of investigative journalism

Yet, you haven't been able to state precisely why..

Feature that..

> > TIM DICKINSON
> >
> > Posted Jun 20, 2007 12:49 PM
> >
> > >>View our slide show, "Inside the Bush Administration?s Denial Campaign Against Climate Change," here.
> >
> > >>> This article is from the latest issue of Rolling Stone, on news stands until June 29th
> >
> > "That's a big no. The president believes . . . that it should be the
> > goal of policymakers to protect the American way of life. The American
> > way of life is a blessed one."
> >
> > - Ari Fleischer, White House Press Secretary responding in May 2001
> > to whether Bush would ask Americans to curb their first-in-the-world
> > energy consumption
> >
> > Earlier this year, the world's top climate scientists released a
> > definitive report on global warming. It is now "unequivocal," they
> > concluded, that the planet is heating up. Humans are directly
> > responsible for the planetary heat wave, and only by taking immediate
> > action can the world avert a climate catastrophe. Megadroughts, raging
> > wildfires, decimated forests, dengue fever, legions of Katrinas - unless
> > humans act now to curb our climate-warming pollution, warned the
> > Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "we are in deep trouble."
> >
> > You would think, in the wake of such stark and conclusive findings, that
> > the White House would at least offer some small gesture to signal its
> > concern about the impending crisis. It's not every day, after all, that
> > the leading scientists from 120 nations come together and agree that the
> > entire planet is about to go to hell. But the Bush administration has
> > never felt bound by the reality-based nature of science - especially
> > when it comes from international experts. So after the report became
> > public in February, Vice President Dick Cheney took to the airwaves to
> > offer his own, competing assessment of global warming.
> >
> > "We're going to see a big debate on it going forward," Cheney told ABC
> > News, about "the extent to which it is part of a normal cycle versus the
> > extent to which it's caused by man." What we know today, he added, is
> > "not enough to just sort of run out and try to slap together some policy
> > that's going to 'solve' the problem."
> >
> > Even former White House insiders were shocked by the vice president's
> > see-no-evil performance. "I don't see how he can say that with a
> > straight face anymore," Christine Todd Whitman, who clashed privately
> > with Cheney over climate policy during her tenure as the
> > administration's first chief of the Environmental Protection Agency,
> > tells Rolling Stone. "The consequences of climate change are very real
> > and very negative, but Cheney is not convinced of that. He believes -
> > not quite as much as Senator James Inhofe, that this is a 'hoax' - but
> > that the Earth has been changing since it was formed and to say that
> > climate change is caused by humans is incorrect."
> >
> > Cheney's statements were the latest move in the Bush administration's
> > ongoing strategy to block federal action on global warming. It is no
> > secret that industry-connected appointees within the White House have
> > worked actively to distort the findings of federal climate scientists,
> > playing down the threat of climate change. But a new investigation by
> > Rolling Stone reveals that those distortions were sanctioned at the
> > highest levels of our government, in a policy formulated by the vice
> > president, implemented by the White House Council on Environmental
> > Quality and enforced by none other than Karl Rove. An examination of
> > thousands of pages of internal documents that the White House has been
> > forced to relinquish under the Freedom of Information Act - as well as
> > interviews with more than a dozen current and former administration
> > scientists and climate-policy officials - confirms that the White House
> > has implemented an industry-formulated disinformation campaign designed
> > to actively mislead the American public on global warming and to
> > forestall limits on climate polluters.
> >
> > "They've got a political clientele that does not want to be regulated,"
> > says Rick Piltz, a former Bush climate official who blew the whistle on
> > White House censorship of global-warming documents in 2005. "Any honest
> > discussion of the science would stimulate public pressure for a stronger
> > policy. They're not stupid."
> >
> > Bush's do-nothing policy on global warming began almost as soon as he
> > took office. By pursuing a carefully orchestrated policy of delay, the
> > White House has blocked even the most modest reforms and replaced them
> > with token investments in futuristic solutions like hydrogen cars. "It's
> > a charade," says Jeremy Symons, who represented the EPA on Cheney's
> > energy task force, the industry-studded group that met in secret to
> > craft the administration's energy policy. "They have a single-minded
> > determination to do nothing - while making it look like they are doing
> > something."

--*>cricket.wav<*

The_Sage

7/19/2007 12:13:00 AM

>Reply to article by: Kurt Lochner <kurt_lochner@NOSPAMhotmail.com>
>Date written: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 09:01:49 -0500
>MsgID:<469E1D4D.352A3CBC@NOSPAMhotmail.com>

>>Animals and decaying matter have been dumping 160 billion tons of CO2
>>into the atmosphere for the last 2,000 years,

>And you want to pretend that your numbers, uncited and unsourced,
>are beyond questioning, in comparison to the hundreds of millions
>of tons of CO2 and methane being dumped into the atmosphere now?

>Why do you refuse to compare apples to apples in this case?

You are the idiot who agreed with the assertion that "dumping millions of tons
of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere [is going to have] an effect on the
troposphere". Of course it isn't millions, but billions of tons of CO2 and it
humans aren't the only ones dumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Now, instead of addressing that relevant fact, you are dodging and evading
it...like a coward. You are implying that animals and plant matter are not
dumping 160 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, every year, so show us how
much they are dumping into the atmosphere. Then explain why 5 billion tons will
make a much greater difference than that 160 billion tons. You won't and you
can't because clearly you are not interested in pursuing the truth, but pursuing
a blind faith religious agenda. Go for it, dufus.

The Sage

=============================================================
http://members.cox.net/the.sage...

"Ours is the age that is proud of machines that think and
suspicious of men who try to" -- H. Mumford Jones
=============================================================

Kurt Lochner

7/19/2007 1:17:00 AM

The_Sage

7/20/2007 2:28:00 AM

>Reply to article by: Kurt Lochner <kurt_lochner@NOSPAMhotmail.com>
>Date written: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 00:26:18 -0500
>MsgID:<469C52FA.B48F5B0B@NOSPAMhotmail.com>

>>You are not in any position to officially declare anything.

>ANd you would know this how, precisely?

Duh, because you do not have the credentials to make anything official.

Try another delusion.

The Sage

=============================================================
http://members.cox.net/the.sage...

"Ours is the age that is proud of machines that think and
suspicious of men who try to" -- H. Mumford Jones
=============================================================

The_Sage

7/20/2007 2:56:00 AM

>Reply to article by: Kurt Lochner <kurt_lochner@NOSPAMhotmail.com>
>Date written: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 20:17:00 -0500
>MsgID:<469EBB8C.BC5D9491@NOSPAMhotmail.com>

>>>>>>>>>>>Duh! And how would you like to pretend that dumping millions
>>>>>>>>>>>of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere isn't having an
>>>>>>>>>>>effect on the troposphere?

>>>>Animals and decaying matter have been dumping 160 billion tons of CO2
>>>>into the atmosphere for the last 2,000 years,

>>>And you want to pretend that your numbers, uncited and unsourced,
>>>are beyond questioning, in comparison to the hundreds of millions
>>>of tons of CO2 and methane being dumped into the atmosphere now?

>>>Why do you refuse to compare apples to apples in this case?

>>You are the idiot who agreed with the assertion

>Incorrect

Wrong. It is your assertion. Live with it stupid.

>That's just plain gross ignorance, at best..

Is that another one of your delusionary "official proclamations"? Haha!

>>Of course it isn't millions, but billions of tons of CO2 [..]

>Cite?

Where is your cite to the contrary? Why should we be any different from you in
this regard?

But we are different then you because you sound like a High School or even
Junior High School dropout, and I don't. So let me give you a clue since you
clearly have none: Go get your mommy and daddy and have them open the Wikipedia
article about the Carbon Cycle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ca.... Then
have them read it to you. Make sure they show you the pretty picture near the
top of the article that shows humans putting 5.5 BILLION tons of CO2 into the
atmostphere each year. Now bow your head in shame as you start feeling like such
a horse's ass for being so ignorant of a simple and widely known fact.

Now what other cowardly dodge and evade are you going to come up with next? You
actually have no clue how many tons of CO2 are being put into the atmosphere, do
you? Of course you don't. You have never done any research into this matter and
that is why you have no research to cite.

Although I accomplished my goal of exposing your stupid ass for all the world to
see, it is a waste of my time to try and have an intelligent dialog with someone
who clearly isn't capable of intelligent dialog, so I'm kicking you to the curb
you little cur. I'm not wasting anymore of my time with your immature stupidity.

The Sage

=============================================================
http://members.cox.net/the.sage...

"Ours is the age that is proud of machines that think and
suspicious of men who try to" -- H. Mumford Jones
=============================================================

Kurt Lochner

7/20/2007 3:39:00 AM

the_sag deleted and bleated like a reich'tard when:
>
> Kurt Lochner restored the previous formatting, text and context:
> >
> >the_sag deleted and bleated:
> > >
> > > Kurt Lochner restored the previous formatting, text and context:
> > > >
> > > >the_sag deleted and bleated:
> > > > >
> > > > > Kurt Lochner restored the previous formatting, text and context:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >the_sag deleted and bleated:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Kurt Lochner restored the previous formatting, text and context:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >the_sag deleted and bleated:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Kurt Lochner restored the previous formatting, text and context:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >the_sag deleted and bleated:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Kurt Lochner restored the following text/context avoided by:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >tom-bolger@ntlworld.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 30, 3:43 pm, swan...@NoScrewingAround.net (Eric Swanson) wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > For an interesting description of the Bush Administration's covert
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > campaign against the science of climate change, see this article:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15148655/the_secret...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of_president_bushs_administration_to_deny_global_warming/print
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's a lot worse than I thought...
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >Climate change may be occurring[..]
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Duh! And how would you like to pretend that dumping millions
> > > > > > > > > > > > of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere isn't having an
> > > > > > > > > > > > effect on the troposphere?
> > > > >
> > > > >Animals and decaying matter have been dumping 160 billion tons of CO2
> > > > >into the atmosphere for the last 2,000 years,
> > > >
> > > > And you want to pretend that your numbers, uncited and unsourced,
> > > > are beyond questioning, in comparison to the hundreds of millions
> > > > of tons of CO2 and methane being dumped into the atmosphere now?
> > > >
> > > > Why do you refuse to compare apples to apples in this case?
> > >
> > >You are the idiot who agreed with the assertion
> >
> >Incorrect
>
>Wrong. It is [..]

Still playing with your 'straw man', I see..

> > Incorrect, I *STATED* that our civilization is dumping 100's of
> > millions of tons of carbon dioxide into the lower atmosphere, and
> > *YOU* don't seem to think that it's having any effect, or ever will..
> >
> > That's just plain gross ignorance, at best..
>
>Is that another one of your delusionary [..]

Is that another one of your dishonest rhetorical questions?

Example follows..

> > >Of course it isn't millions, but billions of tons of CO2 [..]
> >
> > Cite?
>
>Where is your cite to the contrary?

You made the claim, you get to support it, which you have yet
to support with relevant citations, in case it's missed your
notice while you playing with your straw man pseudo-argument..

> > >Then explain why [..]
> >
> > It's a system seeking equilibrium, and we're adding to the
> > destabilization of that equilibrium with our thoughtless
> > outgassing that the planet cannot 'metabolize', as most
> > indicators and data are now suggesting..
> >
> > That you cling to your disbelief of the facts like a medieval
> > religion is a common trait among so-called "conservatives"
> > today who only desire to maintain the status quo..
> >
> > --Your poor stewardship of the Earth will be your demise..

>Why should we be any different from you in this regard?

You are different, as you're thoughtless and lacking compassion..

>then you because you sound like a High School or even
>Junior High School dropout, and I don't[..]

*>LOL!<* Keep telling on yourself, my pathological net-pet..

>So let me give you a clue [..]

I see you've 'cited' a junior high, eighth-grade explanation..

There is a simple reason for this, I'm certain..

>Now what other cowardly dodge and evade[..]
[..]
>You actually have no clue[..]
[..]
>You have never done any research into this matter [..]
[..]
>Although I accomplished my goal of exposing your stupid ass[..]

By the way, after running your screed through Microsloth's "Word"
you write with the style of a 4th grader (251 words, 13 sentences)
with an average number of characters per word of 4.3, all of which
indicates that you have a propensity for simple words, if not simple
explanations, so as to not tax your juvenile mind-set..

--Thanks for again exposing yourself for what you are, an idiot..

comp.lang.ruby

playing defined system sounds

pedro mg

Olivier

Kurt Lochner

The_Sage

Kurt Lochner

The_Sage

The_Sage

Kurt Lochner

x Login to ForumsZone