We're not sure whether to lionize or demonize this court reporter dude that decided to completely wreck his life and about 30 trials in New York City by deciding that he should express his feels about how much he hated his job rather than actually doing the job of transcribing trials. On the one hand, it is not cool to fuck up trials. On the other hand, this is kind of hilarious, and who among us has not wanted to embed a job-hating rant in our professional correspondence?
you don't need multi track- just use an automixer like a Dan Dugan, it'll duck the other mic inputs when someone is talking and kill most of the background noise. The only time that doesn't work is if two people are talking equally loudly- you'll get those two channels at once. Multi track will guarantee everything is recorded, but it's pretty cumbersome and expensive- just put down an audio recording (or A/V recording) as a backup to the reporter. BTW, the police could clean that suspect up just as easily for a recorded confession, the reporter vs. the taped recording wouldn't make a difference. You're better off having a universal recording of the entire interrogation
I worked at a bank for many years and my district manager used to sign credit card receipts at restaurants with "Youbeen Had" and "Paya Tension". You're right, nobody noticed.
Cost may be part of it. Some may also be that there are still jurisdictions where the rules of procedure haven't caught up with the technology at hand.
And when three people are talking at once, or when someone says something that isn't clear or has a heavy accent, is the video recorder going to stop and ask for clarification? Or do you expect someone much further down the line to "pick it up" on the back end?
If they were foreclosure notices, people might have noticed.
you don't need multi track- just use an automixer like a Dan Dugan, it'll duck the other mic inputs when someone is talking and kill most of the background noise. The only time that doesn't work is if two people are talking equally loudly- you'll get those two channels at once. Multi track will guarantee everything is recorded, but it's pretty cumbersome and expensive- just put down an audio recording (or A/V recording) as a backup to the reporter. BTW, the police could clean that suspect up just as easily for a recorded confession, the reporter vs. the taped recording wouldn't make a difference. You're better off having a universal recording of the entire interrogation
<i>This comment drinks a LOT and hates its job</i>
I like the cut of your jib.
I thought outbursts like this happened all the time.
No teevee and no beer make Homer something something.
Hey Daniel, it seems to me you were let go for abusing the substance of the court transcriptions in <i>addition</i> to substance abuse.
I worked at a bank for many years and my district manager used to sign credit card receipts at restaurants with &quot;Youbeen Had&quot; and &quot;Paya Tension&quot;. You&#039;re right, nobody noticed.
Say, you know who else hated their job?
Cost may be part of it. Some may also be that there are still jurisdictions where the rules of procedure haven&#039;t caught up with the technology at hand.
<a href="http:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch\?v=OyCte5sTmns" target="_blank">Don&rsquo;t mind if I do!!!</a>
I am here for the Handy Job!
Your link on Facebook mentioned Handy Job something...
What do you mean they aren&#039;t the same thing?
The court reporters must have a hell of a union!
Bartleby, the Scrivener?
Jesus?
And when three people are talking at once, or when someone says something that isn&#039;t clear or has a heavy accent, is the video recorder going to stop and ask for clarification? Or do you expect someone much further down the line to &quot;pick it up&quot; on the back end?