Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
America Online Businesses Software

Winamp Purchased By Radionomy 188

Posted by Soulskill
from the llama's-execution-stayed dept.
Major Blud writes "TechCrunch is reporting that Radionomy has purchased both Winamp and Shoutcast from AOL for $5-10 million and a 12% stake in the company. Radionomy CEO Alexandre Saboundjian said, 'We want to rebuild the story for Winamp. We think the future can be great because the strategy is not just desktop but mobile and cars and so much more.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Winamp Purchased By Radionomy

Comments Filter:
  • Here's hoping... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by msobkow (48369) on Tuesday January 14, 2014 @08:23PM (#45959661) Homepage Journal

    Here's hoping they start by PROPERLY supporting FLAC, including 24/192 media.

    The plugins currently available flat out do not work. And I hate using VLC for music.

    • Re:Here's hoping... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by icebike (68054) on Tuesday January 14, 2014 @08:28PM (#45959727)

      I have no problem with VLC for music, but Winamp has been a favorite for years.

      Yeah, its old and funky, and that's exactly why I like it.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by tepples (727027)

        I have no problem with VLC for music

        Does VLC play MOD, S3M, XM, IT, or other tracked formats? Does VLC play NSF, SGC, GBS, VGM, SPC, PSF, USF, PSF2, GSF, 2SF, or any other video game console-oriented formats? All of the above have Winamp input plug-ins.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 14, 2014 @08:44PM (#45959971)

          You might notice he said "I have no problem". That does not mean it works for everyone else. all of your listed formats are rather obsure, and most people would have no need for a player supporting them. Why do people always have to put down what works for someone else just because it does not support what they want?

          • Different users have different needs. If one person wants obscure format A, and another person wants obscure format B, and a third person wants obscure format C, then the most efficient way to handle the different needs is to make a player with an input plug-in architecture. Or are you claiming that "most people would have no need for a player supporting" any obscure format?
            • Different users have different needs. If one person wants obscure format A, and another person wants obscure format B, and a third person wants obscure format C, then the most efficient way to handle the different needs is to make a player with an input plug-in architecture. Or are you claiming that "most people would have no need for a player supporting" any obscure format?

              True, but I'd hardly call FLAC obscure.

            • by Richy_T (111409)

              OTOH, one of the nice things about VLC is the lack of plugins. At least I've never had to hunt them down. I'm not sure some of the older avi codecs can even be installed (if you can even find them) on modern Windows.

            • Or are you claiming that "most people would have no need for a player supporting" any obscure format?

              Yes. That's kind of what the word "obscure" means.

        • by rwa2 (4391) *

          But it feels so, so wrong to listen to mod / xm / it files without a FastTracker or at least openCubicPlayer -like interface to visualize the individual channels :P

          Even nectarine [scenemusic.net] streams their demoscene music in aac/mp3/ogg format :P

        • by donaldm (919619)

          I have no problem with VLC for music

          Does VLC play MOD, S3M, XM, IT, or other tracked formats? Does VLC play NSF, SGC, GBS, VGM, SPC, PSF, USF, PSF2, GSF, 2SF, or any other video game console-oriented formats? All of the above have Winamp input plug-ins.

          You do know you can convert those formats to ones that VLC supports although why you would want a video player to play music is beyond me. A good search engine is your friend here :)

          • by tepples (727027)

            You do know you can convert those formats to ones that VLC supports

            At an often severe cost in file size, I've found. And doing so often requires using Winamp anyway in disk writer mode, as the reference player is a Winamp input plug-in.

        • For a reason I can't fathom VLC actually can play a fair amount of old video game music files. Surprised me when I learned about it. https://wiki.videolan.org/Gme/ [videolan.org] But yea, it doesn't cover all the file types you listed.

        • by Pseudonym (62607)

          You do know that the complete works of Purple Motion are available in other formats [valtone.com], right? If you have that, you don't need S3M support.

          (What's a Skaven?)

        • by Sigma 7 (266129)

          Does VLC play MOD, S3M, XM, IT, or other tracked formats?

          If you want to rate VLC on which obscure music tracks it can support, you should include .MIDI in the list. You have to download a soundfont to play those files, which is no different than downloading a plugin to play the other tracker formats.

          VLC plays the tracker formats, but not Midi. This may have changed since 2.0.8 with some FAQ claiming that nobody listens to tracker formats anymore.

          Still, using a video player to listen to music is using a sle

          • by vlueboy (1799360)

            Still, using a video player to listen to music is using a sledgehammer to swat a fly.

            Until we want to double-click on our music from everyone else's machine: funny that Windows Media Player and iTunes, the clunky video players for Windows and MacOS, do just that for everyone by default. The exceptions are geeks, and fancy OEMs who love bundling other [rather clunky] video players.

          • Why do you consider VLC a video player? The VLC website calls it a media player. Granted, the company is named VideoLAN, but still.

        • by tlhIngan (30335)

          Does VLC play MOD, S3M, XM, IT, or other tracked formats?

          Yes [videolan.org].

          Does VLC play NSF, SGC, GBS, VGM, SPC, PSF, USF, PSF2, GSF, 2SF, or any other video game console-oriented formats?

          Some of them [videolan.org] but maybe more of your list as well.

          Heck, it also plays MIDI on Linux and other systems with glib.

          The basic thing is - if there's an open-source codec, VLC plays it without requiring any plugins.

      • by game kid (805301)

        I liked Winamp because it looped audio (when playing a single track on repeat, of course, and if the file was made to loop in the first place) quite nicely (even certain mp3s, I think...this was back in my old ytmnd days so I may just be lying entirely; I know WAVs looped like a charm). Neither VLC nor Windows Media Player really bother to try to loop.* Also for playing around with the various visualizers (AVS, Milkdrop and such).

        Granted, I actually got into the player pretty late, and some prefer the old

      • Re:Here's hoping... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by rwa2 (4391) * on Tuesday January 14, 2014 @09:05PM (#45960183) Homepage Journal

        I have no problem with VLC for music, but Winamp has been a favorite for years.

        Yeah, its old and funky, and that's exactly why I like it.

        Same here... Actually Winamp is my favourite player for Android and probably the only Android app I've plopped somewhat serious money for (including the lyric and album-art download plugin)

        Though if you like VLC for music, check out http://www.clementine-player.org/ [clementine-player.org] , which is cross platform, still uses VLC code for the backend, and adds a pretty nice frontend interface with crossfading between tracks and streams. My only complaint is that the interface doesn't shrink down to as small as Winamp / Audacious can.

        • by bob_super (3391281) on Wednesday January 15, 2014 @04:52AM (#45962877)

          > the interface doesn't shrink down to as small as Winamp / Audacious can

          And this is most of the reason why I use winamp on all my machines, and have for over 15 years. Winamp in shrunk mode, with the shrunk playlist attached to it, always sits in the top left corner of my screen. All the important controls are visible, time left to end of song, and the playlist gives the title if I skip forward (or forget what that song is called). From there it's only a couple clicks for >99% of my needs.
          Need me? Wrist twitch sends mouse top left corner - click - press C to pause ($5 keyboards, no fancy buttons) - "how can I help?" (probably reliably under 2 seconds from disruption to mute, by now)
          All that convenience and it doesn't even cover a third of the top icon row. I don't need to shrink other windows to fit my full-featured player.

          Can you name another player that small? (I'm assuming single-key shortcuts are common.)

          the other main reason to keep winamp is that I have my own filing system and too many players want "libraries". Winamp just plays the files wherever they are, and doesn't make catalogs or whatever.

        • by AmiMoJo (196126) *

          The problem with VLC and most other media players is that it doesn't support bit perfect output. In WinAMP (with a plugin) and Foobar you can get out the exact bitstream from the original file, not re-sampled or mixed or scaled or equalized or whatever.

          • by tlhIngan (30335)

            The problem with VLC and most other media players is that it doesn't support bit perfect output. In WinAMP (with a plugin) and Foobar you can get out the exact bitstream from the original file, not re-sampled or mixed or scaled or equalized or whatever.

            And yet, in most cases, the output will be re-sampled, mixed, scaled and equalized.

            Windows has a built-in mixer, and WIndows 7 the audio subsystem does a whole pile of mixing and sample rate conversion to deal with audio routing and other things. And soundcar

            • by AmiMoJo (196126) *

              My whole point was that WinAMP and Foobar allow you to bypass the Windows audio mixing. On XP it is via ASIO or Kernel Streaming, on Windows 7 it is via WASAPI. This means that your sound card receives the exact same bitstream as is contained in the source file.

              This can be confirmed with a WAV file that contains a valid DTS stream. If there is any mixing it will be corrupt, if not a receiver will accept and play it. I have confirmed that what comes out of my sound card's digital interface is bit for bit the

      • by antdude (79039)

        Ditto. I love it plugins, addons, etc.

    • by ClintJCL (264898)
      That's funny, I just played a flac with winamp an hour ago.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by SpankiMonki (3493987)
        My version is using the Nullsoft FLAC Decoder v3.03 and I haven't had any trouble with playing FLAC either. Maybe GP will elaborate...
        • by msobkow (48369)

          The plugin plays 16/44.1 FLAC just fine, but it chokes on 24/192.

          • by Luckyo (1726890)

            24/192 for home system is... why would it even exist?

            Hell, 24/96 output support is already a massive overkill for anything that is in a tower simply due to the fact that you'd need to start isolating your dedicated sound card from the rest of the tower to avoid interference not to mention having four to five digit costing speakers to get to hear it. And you are playing 24/192?

            • by msobkow (48369)

              Luddite.

              Try a good audio card and good headphones or a *real* stereo.

              If you can't hear the difference, it's because you're deaf or have never listened to live music to know how snares, cymbals, triangles, and brass should sound.

              • by Luckyo (1726890)

                I have 500€ speaker set and a high quality sound card. In fact I always had one since I bought my first machine because I can hear the difference between motherboard-based codecs and discreet sound card very clearly.

                I have 24/96 output enabled on sound card and speakers accept and show incoming 24/96 input. There is no meaningful difference between that and windows default outputs. I cannot hear the difference.

                So I'm going to go with "see a psychiatrist, you are hallucinating" as an answer to your "lud

                • by cyborg_zx (893396)

                  So I'm going to go with "see a psychiatrist, you are hallucinating" as an answer to your "luddite".

                  Don't try to reason with audiophiles.

                  • by msobkow (48369)

                    You mean don't try to reason with the deaf who think playing 16/44.1 audio through a 24/192 chain is going to sound any better. Without 24/192 media, you're not going to hear shit.

                  • by msobkow (48369)

                    Furthermore, the fact that you can't hear a difference doesn't mean other people can't.

                    Fortunately for the world, you are not the one who gets to decide what is "reasonable" for others.

                • by msobkow (48369)

                  *LMAO*

                  You have 500 euro speakers, and you think they're "high quality"? I betcha it's a surround set to boot, which means you've actually got 2 x 250 euro pairs.

                  You can't even get entry level home stereo speakers for less than about $2000/pair. Anything less than that, and the tweeters have shit for response.

                  But you go ahead and stroke yourself that you've got a "quality" audio system.

                  *LOLOLOLOLOLOL*

                  Thanks for the laugh. I needed one. :P

                  It always blows me away that people automatically assum

                  • by Luckyo (1726890)

                    They are good quality, and they are sanely priced. They don't offer solid gold plated connectors or snake oil excreting control panels though, which is clearly what you are looking for.

                    Different kicks for different people.

            • by JDG1980 (2438906)

              Hell, 24/96 output support is already a massive overkill for anything that is in a tower simply due to the fact that you'd need to start isolating your dedicated sound card from the rest of the tower to avoid interference not to mention having four to five digit costing speakers to get to hear it.

              Or instead of trying to isolate your sound card, you could just use a digital output, thus using the higher-quality DACs on your receiver.

              • by Luckyo (1726890)

                Not going to help much. Lion's share of interference is inside the box. Not on the cables. Going digital on cable connection will help, but it will do nothing to mitigate the signal interference that hits inside the tower.

            • 24/192 for home system is... why would it even exist?

              HDMI or optical audio. My previous monitor (a cheap 2008 Element 720P 1440x900 HDTV from Wal-Mart) supported 192khz audio over HDMI. Was wondering why music played via my PS3 sounded so much better than music from the PC...until I checked the settings, knocking up the output to 192KHz made everything sound good.

              Sad to say but my current monitor. (1080p 1920x1080 HDTV) supports only 48 and 44.1 KHz and doesn't sound near as good.

              • by Luckyo (1726890)

                This is me laughing at your monitor speakers "sounding better because of 192khz audio". The small tinny crap that comes with monitors being able to produce better sound under those conditions is right up there with healing effect of snake oil.

                • Well it was a 19" HDTV as I said, so not as small or tinny as "monitor" speakers. How else do you explain MP3 files sounding better when played on the PS3, compared to the PC...until I upped the PC's output to 192KHz.

                  Besides, what if one had a nice surround sound system with quality connected, then you would want the highest KHz your setup would support. So, yes there is a use case for 192KHz audio.

                  • by Luckyo (1726890)

                    Placebo effect. Tiny speakers embedded in modern TVs are simply incapable of quality you suggest they are capable of due to size limitations.

                    Unless something in your setup is faulty/set in a wrong way which is somehow fixed by switching to 192kHz output, both should sound pretty much the same on the TV speakers.

                    You could argue that you can hear the difference on expensive Hi-Fi speakers. That is possible if you have trained ears and proper setup. But not embedded TV ones.

        • My version is using the Nullsoft FLAC Decoder v3.03 and I haven't had any trouble with playing FLAC either. Maybe GP will elaborate...

          I'm sure it just doesnt have enough harmonic waveletude or cool-toned intangible warbles, so he deemed it inferior.

          Back on topic, the only thing to hope for is that they don't fuck up a perfect product

    • by Benski (12045)

      Winamp supports FLAC out of the box, and has for about 6 years now. Perhaps you have an outdated version.

    • This [winamp.com] FLAC plugin works for me with Winamp 5.24 (admittedly an old release), though I can't vouch for 24/192 files.

    • by hairyfeet (841228)

      I've been using WMP 12 myself and it works but ya know what? I miss Winamp. It always had the best skins, nice EQ, it was just a sweet little player. And man would that thing run on anything, I had an old Celeron 733Mhz stuffed full of drives at the shop I used to use for a dedicated Winamp player, it was always well behaved.

      But after V5 I started moving away and soon after I did I remember reading an article by one of the original founders on why he quit and I'll never forget it as it was like "Oh so THAT

      • If you browse the shoutcast stations, there are already a bunch of ads.. what really pissed me off, is when they added the three offer checkboxes on a screen that had a bunch of other checkbox options unchecked.. but no indication that they were going to offload extra crap on your from the screen. I still like winamp a lot, even v5... I also think it's just about the best android music player out there (though cifs/smb support would be nice).
  • by Chad Smith (3448823) on Tuesday January 14, 2014 @08:24PM (#45959675)
    Does the 12% include the Llama Ass?
  • by t0qer (230538) on Tuesday January 14, 2014 @08:35PM (#45959855) Homepage Journal

    I hang out with the old nullsoft guys in IRC. General consensus for most of them is "We've moved on" The other concensus is, "There are so many good media players these days"

    There was a time when Winamp mattered. There was no decent media players (in some regards, it was a new concept) Winamp brought skinning, plugins, visualizations and a whole slew of things that most folks never even knew they wanted or needed.

    Funny that they mention Songbird today. One Nullsofter went there after the AOL buyout. He's now at google.

    As far as Frankel, he started working on a DAW called Reaper. It's a swiss army knife for audio.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by QuasiSteve (2042606)

      There was no decent media players (in some regards, it was a new concept) Winamp brought skinning, plugins, visualizations and a whole slew of things that most folks never even knew they wanted or needed.

      It's funny that you mention those. In a way, we've come full circle. I get the feeling that most people don't really care about whether or not they can skin their music player anymore (the more out of the way it is, the better.. it's something for the background, not to show off to friends), nevermind vis

      • by tepples (727027) <tepples&gmail,com> on Tuesday January 14, 2014 @09:02PM (#45960153) Homepage Journal

        Plugins are similarly dying a slow death. Think of video players.. how many have plugins to support some manner of format? Most of them either read them out of the box (think VLC) or rely on a 'codec pack' (with FFDShow or LAV) being installed

        What do you think the "codec pack" is? As I understand it, a codec pack is just a curated set of input plug-ins.

        • The difference is that it's 'plugins' that anything can use, rather than your specific choice of media player.

          E.g. instead of having one h.264 plugin for winamp, one for VLC, one for MPC, one for iTunes or whatever, you just have something that the system (some media playing framework or other facility in the OS) handles and thus any media player can poke at.. and not even care that it's h.264.

          You can still call it a plugin for the OS, if you'd like, but that's quite different from winamp's idea of its own

          • The difference is that it's 'plugins' that anything can use, rather than your specific choice of media player.

            True, Video for Windows codecs and DirectShow codecs work in a wider variety of media players and editors. But I know VFW applications such as VirtualDub can't use DirectShow codecs. And I'm told VFW itself has limits that make it less than ideal for certain codecs and containers, which is why you don't see a lot of, say, MOD players using the VFW architecture. I guess Nullsoft might have developed its own input plug-in architecture to work around VFW's limits, and I have since learned about other players t

    • by Shinobi (19308)

      "There was a time when Winamp mattered. There was no decent media players (in some regards, it was a new concept) Winamp brought skinning, plugins, visualizations and a whole slew of things that most folks never even knew they wanted or needed."

      That's not quite true. Amiga and Atari at least had media players that worked quite well, and supported plugins etc, before WinAMP even existed. What made WinAMP hit its stride was the fact that Win95 came out, sound cards had become standard on PC's, and MP3 hit the

    • by toejam13 (958243) on Tuesday January 14, 2014 @09:04PM (#45960175)

      There was a time when Winamp mattered. There was no decent media players

      And now there are dozens, with some that focus on audio, some that focus on video, some that handle both: Foobar2000, Songbird, VLC, Media Player Classic, XBMC, Windows Media Center, etc... You even have image viewers like XnView turning into video players. The lines have completely blurred as viewers and players have turned into multimedia centers.

      The question is, which niche would Winamp try to fill? How could they differentiate themselves? The interface? Cataloging? Container support? Codec support? Streaming support? Subtitle support? Time shifting? Post processing? Song recognition? Speed? Size? Cross-platform support?

      • The question is, which niche would Winamp try to fill? How could they differentiate themselves? The interface? Cataloging? Container support? Codec support? Streaming support? Subtitle support? Time shifting? Post processing? Song recognition? Speed? Size? Cross-platform support?

        Even more lamely ad-ridden with ride-along crapware in the installer than it was when AOL owned it?

        Just guessing.

    • well I would want to 'move on' too if I had done what these guys did back when they did it...same goes for the guy who made napster Shawn Fanning.

      remember when releasing software like this could get you sued for millions?

    • by gsslay (807818)

      Winamp brought skinning, plugins, visualizations and a whole slew of things that most folks never even knew they wanted or needed.

      Well exactly. They didn't want them and they didn't need them.

      Skinning is a novelty of zero use. No, I do not need to rearrange the UI of my application every month so I can't find anything. No, having my music application look like a tie-in with the latest Batman movie is not a plus.

      Plugins are of more use. But really, just provide me with the stuff I need in the application and I won't need these and won't have to spend ages getting them to work together.

      Visualisations are fun at first, but I am not a

    • by DittoBox (978894)

      I've been using REAPER for about 5 years now, professionally. It's cheap, works great, and there's no DRM beyond a registration code. I'd argue it's much more than a Swiss Army Knife, it's easily about 85% of ProTools is for my uses, and I can fake the other 15% without a sweat.

  • by Bo'Bob'O (95398) on Tuesday January 14, 2014 @08:40PM (#45959919)

    Anyone know anything about Radionomy? I still use win-amp at work, despite the bloat. I like the small 'strip' interface I can put up at the top of my window and I really haven't found a replacement, so I'd like to know if I can expect things to get better.. or worse.

    • I like the small 'strip' interface I can put up at the top of my window and I really haven't found a replacement

      you can do that with QMMP [ylsoftware.com]

    • Audacious has a 'winamp mode' and can do the 'strip' interface just fine. Pretty nice little player overall.

      I don't know if xmms is still around but that's another one that can give you the winamp look.
  • by Dr. Spork (142693) on Tuesday January 14, 2014 @08:54PM (#45960071)
    As far as I'm concerned, Winamp is still the best music player on Windows. With the Moon Glade skin, mine lives as an always-on-top bar at the top-center of my screen and expands into a playlist when I hover over it. The plugin system decodes every music file I know of and - this is huge for me - it can apply VST filters to the audio output. This is important to me because I play my music through Bose 901 (v6) speakers, which are designed to require a custom Bose equalizer to sound decent. Because I'm running audio into my receiver digitally, I can't use this analog equalizer, so I rely on a chain of VST plugins to mimic (and actually improve on) its functionality. I don't know of another media player that can use VST plugins for sound shaping. Then again, I haven't been looking, because I'm pretty satisfied with Winamp. If anyone knows other media players with VST functionality I would appreciate the info.
    • by danomac (1032160)

      which are designed to require a custom Bose equalizer to sound decent

      Uh, what? I just looked and they come with an equalizer. To me, that sounds like engineering fail - that sounds like they've slapped a band-aid on something that shouldn't have gone to market. Bizarre. I guess that phrase I heard a while back is true if their speakers need their own equalizer - "No high, no lows... it's Bose"

  • by Brama (80257) on Tuesday January 14, 2014 @09:33PM (#45960423) Homepage

    http://mp3blaster.sourceforge.net/

  • by Squallop (3500093) on Tuesday January 14, 2014 @09:34PM (#45960425)
    I don't understand all of this talk about the Winamp developers stating that there are plenty of good audio players out there now... There really isn't! There's iTunes and a majority of people use that because they don't realise that their computers can have non Apple software installed on them too :O. I've recently been trying out many of the top rated audio players, e.g. foobar2000, MusicBee, iTunes.. none of them come even close to being as good as Winamp. Some of Winamp's features that I'm yet to see in other players are, - Excellent Media Library, with the ability to play straight from the library... - Toast Notifications of playing tracks - Great plugin integration - Modular and modern design If anyone knows of any players that can really compare, please let me know. I'd love to see them.
    • I think iTunes has all of those things you want nowadays, actually. At least for me on my Mac. It seems to kinda suck on other platforms because it has to drag a whole lot of the Quicktime infrastructure it relies on for playing music along with it, and becomes kind of big and unwieldy.

      I get system notifications of playing tracks if I want 'em.

      It's got plugins. I don't know how extensive they are, mostly I just have a handful of visualizers, and I think I've got a couple music format plugins somewhere in th

    • Don't forget,

      -global hotkey support
      -small form factor
      -visualization plugins
      -crossfading plugins
      -instanced playback to multiple soundcards
      -built in web server control
      -winamp lite installer filesize is 4134 kb and currently consumes 32mb of ram on my system
      -lcd display plugins
      -LIRC plugin
      -streamripper plugins
      -flawless manual and automated operation, virtually crash free

      And those are just the features I have used in the past week! for free!

      Nothing comes close. Winamp IS audio on windows.

    • by gsslay (807818)

      Not free, not even particularly cheap, but the best one I've encountered; JRiver Media Center. If you want to take digital media on your PC seriously.

      http://www.jriver.com/ [jriver.com]

  • fascinating news... I had no idea AOL was still in business. I worked at spinner.com (which streamed music and was not a blog) when AOL bought us and Winamp... I left almost immediately, somewhat as a result.

    • by turp182 (1020263)

      I know the guy that wrote SpinAmp during the late 1990s, which saved off MP3 files from spinner.com as they played. He wrote Winamp plugins for several services (the media file is on the computer at some point, just need to find the metadata files that say where it is and exactly what it is). His biggest achievement was an app that could save off Pandora sets. Doesn't work anymore but it was sweet back in the day.

      And I still use Winamp.

  • I use winamp for two things, mod music and shoutcast

    mod music cause open MPT is a decent editor, but I sometimes just want a player, shoutcast cause their web player is junk and crashes all the time

    both cause I like the graphic EQ

  • anyone who cared about the winamp name no longer does. recognition is not going to set them apart from all the other media players anymore.
  • Having been very close to WinAmp and the AmpDev team in general in its infancy (circa 1996-1999) it's good to see that someone else is taking an interest. When AOL/Time Warner bought it for $100 Million in 1999 we all knew the direction it was going: large, corporate, and stupid. Let's face it, AOL bought WinAmp for the community that came with it. It should be no surprise that they did nothing memorable with it. And I can't fault Justin for taking the money and running.

    I remember well the Stupid Factor

PLUG IT IN!!!

Working...