Actually, guns do protect you from the government as evidenced in Mexico. The gangs there have obtained outrageous and highly dangerous weapons and the government just cannot stamp them out. Afghanistan is another example. The US just cannot seem to eliminate the 'insurgents' or whatever they are being called now.
I think in the case of Venezuela that a government move to outlaw gun ownership is probably a shrewd move by the dodgy government they have -- it provides an excuse to round up would-be rebels. Chavez has cancer and in the wake of his passing there is likely to be a power struggle.
Yeah the 100 million ak-47's that are in circulation *must* reduce violence, prevent crime, and prevent murders! Makes complete sense!
But yes the "right" to own guns does come from nature and hoplophobes are generally pathetic. On the other hand, if we could reduce the intentional homicide rate, that might be a good thing?
You have no idea what you are talking about. The medical examiner reported that Zimmerman shot Martin from "intermediate range." Or maybe fox news is not to be believed?
You, sir, are a moron. The per-capita intentional homicide rate in the United States is about 3 times the per-capita murder rate in Australia and the UK:
mod parent up. statistics classes typically start with the idea of a random number as one of its founding precepts. wtf? That's a big philosophical pill you have to swallow to even get started. But then again, they can be pretty useful -- unless you're talking to a zealot of some kind in which case they only make the zealot angry.
If you are so hell-bent on fighting baseless claims, you should also go after the first two posters above who make their claims without any citations either.
Mod parent up! Private companies have been sucking the NASA teat (and, by extension, the taxpayer teat) the whole time. It's competition that has been introduced -- we'll see how long SpaceX continues to offer cheap lift rates. I'll bet some of the old fat cats approach Elon for some price fixing very soon.
And, I'm not typically in favor of Republican ideals (I mean the G.O.P. here) but I do truly love the way SpaceX represents a extremely lean alternative to the layers and layers and layers of bureacracy and congressional nepotism that appear to be cooked into the traditional NASA model. I look forward to more competition for SpaceX from Blue Origin and others.
Also, the author of the article completely overlooks the fact that the largest downloaders are also the largest purchasers of entertainment.
I think you've overlooked the fact that what you state is not a fact. It may be suggested by a study here and there, but I know plenty of downloaders who never buy a single thing.
Mod parent up. The music industry has been splintered by bazillions of new entrants thanks to greatly cost of creation and distribution. Variety and selection is better than ever before. From an economic standpoint, this is just too obvious.
There is something very honest about this -- the mythical high and mighty artist is laid low and in his place we find the lowly busker, selling his own wares -- or soliciting crowds to toss a coin in his guitar case. On the other hand, one gets only modest music from this situation. It ain't exactly the LSO.
You guys are both kind of right. Beiber is a very good example of sucker making bank. On the other hand, there are very very very few Beibers in the world (THANK JEEBUS) but there are a large number of very creative folks who make a living in creative fields by providing their music/acting/whatever chops to other folks. You can find tons of them in LA, New York, Austin, Nashville, etc.
It might be that or his own anger about failing as a sci fi writer festering into venom towards one of those damn kids who still has a chance. It totally sounds like "get off my lawn" to me. Actually it sounds more like "YOU WILL LEARN TO LOVE FAILURE! IT IS THE ONLY OPTION!"
I think you reason well, but from what I understand labels historically have made money from record sales whereas the bands typically profit from touring and merchandise because the band typically retains the rights to performance revenues and merch -- unless they are stupid.
Good post. The elephant in the room for this bank metaphor is that banks are not stupid enough to lend thousands of dollars to young musicians because almost every band ever started fails. It doesn't take a bank analyst to realize that young, unproven bands are an extremely high-risk investment. Aside from the possibility of flat-out sucking, there are plenty of other pitfalls for them: drugs, stds, changing tastes of the public, and the fact that touring is a wretched endeavor until you reach a certain threshold of popularity. From what I've seen, recording advances (i.e, MONEY) are much harder to come by today than they were 10-15 years ago. I might be blind, but I don't see youtube or spotify or rhapsody handing out money to cultivate new bands and yet they profit enormously from new music and old music alike.
There's an excellent book describing the economics of the music industry called "All You Need to Know About the Music Business" by Donald S. Passman. Don't let the bland title fool you. It's a good book and describes how lucky artists might get 15% of revenues after a label "recoups" their investment. It also describes typical advance amounts -- $200,000 for a band in the late nineties. This may sound like a lot until you realize a band (and their staff) have to create their recordings, pay rent, buy/maintain a touring vehicle, eat, etc. Managers and Lawyers are also likely to skim up to 25% for their services. And even if you are successful, the record label will tell you that they have to 'recoup' the cost of electricity to air-condition Jimmy Iovine's bedroom on his 3rd yacht before you get your 15%. Try housing and feeding 4 band members, roadies, etc for a year or two with what's left after all the other expenses are paid. Admittedly, this book is out of date now but it does provide a good window on the music industry as it used to be and some information is still relevant. The abiding lesson in it is to get a good lawyer to defend against nearly a century's worth of accumulated douchebaggery you can expect from recording companies and distributors.
What has not changed is that you still need these: * A great song that appeals to some demographic with disposable income * A great producer/engineer to make your recording * Publicity so that the world knows about your song * Revenue to survive and sustain the creative process
I'd love to see a business school analysis of the industry's outlook. I don't have an MBA, but I'd be willing to bet that the assessment would be that the potential for profiting in the music industry has diminished greatly in the past decade for a variety of reasons: * Lower barriers to entry (lower cost to record music due to cheap new gear, lower distribution cost due to internet, etc.) will introduce lots of competition. E.g., new 'competitors' like Rebecca Black or anything recorded in someone's garage. * Other low-cost forms of entertainment (e.g., facebook, games, youtube, netflix, etc.) will introduce competition for listener's time and money * Both the music industry and the entertainment industry in general will become increasingly splintered as more bands make music and more types of entertainment proliferate due to aforementioned competition. Margins will drop accordingly. * Changing user expectations and 'unauthorized' distribution of recordings undermine (eliminate?) the ability of a band to extract revenue from the recordings they make. I.e., the kids think music is free and give it for free to all their friends. No one really has to pay the artist for their song any more. The fact is that spending on music recordings today is voluntary regardless of any other agreements or DRM or terms of use or whatever. Because of this fact, recordings probably shouldn't be viewed as a product but rather as marketing.
At the same time, there are some factors working in favor of musicians: * New recording technology (not including instruments, amps, and mic
You make good points. Yes 28.5 degrees North and launching eastward gives a substantial boost to any rockets launched and so Florida and/or Texas will likely stay in the picture as launching point. I'd be willing to bet that NASA gave SpaceX the equivalent of free rent at the launch facilities (which are probably maintained by other contractors on NASA's behalf). The SpaceX information on the Falcon Heavy all list an 'inclination' of 28.5 degrees so I am guessing the assumption is all launches will happen from Kennedy in FL.
I watched a video on Elon Musk which stated that raw materials come in to the factory in Hawthorne, CA and rocket parts come out the other side. I believe most of their 1500+ employees are in CA (awesome vid of them cheering the launch here). Hawthorne is about a mile from LAX and they can probably just take the parts over to LAX and put them on a big transport and fly them. I'd be willing to bet that transport costs are but a tiny tiny fraction of the human resource cost of the project. Los Angeles has tremendous assets for this sort of work -- there's a hi-tech corridor around Glendale/Burbank with all kinds of operations. There's an enormous talent pool of skilled workers, access to sea, air, and land shipping, etc. Boeing's a little different but most of their employees are on the West Coast. Lockheed also has a lot of facilities in Cailfornia. As does Raytheon. If you want to hire talented and experienced engineers and rocket scientists (and support staff), there are a ton of them around Los Angeles.
What would be nice is if we could deport some of our dregs at the same time. Like those Westboro Baptist Church a-holes. Send them over to the Middle East and see how they like it in the promised land.
Read this page on the SpaceX site, especially this part:
As noted last month by a Chinese government official, SpaceX currently has the best launch prices in the world and they don’t believe they can beat them. This is a clear case of American innovation trumping lower overseas labor rates.
and this part:
If there are cost overruns, SpaceX will cover the difference. (This concept may be foreign to some traditional government space contractors that seem to believe that cost overruns should be the responsibility of the taxpayer.)
The business-as-usual approach where the government hands NASA gobs of money so that NASA can in turn pay Boeing all the money they ask for is affected by SpaceX. It is my hope (and Musk's stated goal) to maintain low fixed costs for launches. If SpaceX delivers on this promise, that will mean that we can still maintain a presence in space for less money. Another thing to note: SpaceX is in California. I'd be willing to bet that Florida and Texas republicans will still want their pork projects for all the aerospace companies working out of Texas and Florida. Also, there's always the sacred cow of defense spending. Remember the X37-B? I'd be willing to bet more money gets spent on that in the future.
I haven't spent much time there, but would have to agree with this one. What puzzles me is not that WV has fucked something up, but that they had so much money to spend. Poor, poor WV.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, guns do protect you from the government as evidenced in Mexico. The gangs there have obtained outrageous and highly dangerous weapons and the government just cannot stamp them out. Afghanistan is another example. The US just cannot seem to eliminate the 'insurgents' or whatever they are being called now.
I think in the case of Venezuela that a government move to outlaw gun ownership is probably a shrewd move by the dodgy government they have -- it provides an excuse to round up would-be rebels. Chavez has cancer and in the wake of his passing there is likely to be a power struggle.
Yeah the 100 million ak-47's that are in circulation *must* reduce violence, prevent crime, and prevent murders! Makes complete sense!
But yes the "right" to own guns does come from nature and hoplophobes are generally pathetic. On the other hand, if we could reduce the intentional homicide rate, that might be a good thing?
You have no idea what you are talking about. The medical examiner reported that Zimmerman shot Martin from "intermediate range." Or maybe fox news is not to be believed?
Or maybe you were there?
Eat a dick, you fucktard.
You, sir, are a moron. The per-capita intentional homicide rate in the United States is about 3 times the per-capita murder rate in Australia and the UK:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
mod parent up. statistics classes typically start with the idea of a random number as one of its founding precepts. wtf? That's a big philosophical pill you have to swallow to even get started. But then again, they can be pretty useful -- unless you're talking to a zealot of some kind in which case they only make the zealot angry.
YO DAWG I HEARD YOU LIKE GUNS
Such a rational and nuanced response! Where are YOUR stats, asshole?
If you are so hell-bent on fighting baseless claims, you should also go after the first two posters above who make their claims without any citations either.
"sticks" with it lol. you troll.
While I applaud the notion, this all overlooks the fact that pollen from Monsanto's GM crops is wind- and insect-borne to even organic farms.
And what about scientists who say it is harmful?
Mod parent up! Private companies have been sucking the NASA teat (and, by extension, the taxpayer teat) the whole time. It's competition that has been introduced -- we'll see how long SpaceX continues to offer cheap lift rates. I'll bet some of the old fat cats approach Elon for some price fixing very soon.
And, I'm not typically in favor of Republican ideals (I mean the G.O.P. here) but I do truly love the way SpaceX represents a extremely lean alternative to the layers and layers and layers of bureacracy and congressional nepotism that appear to be cooked into the traditional NASA model. I look forward to more competition for SpaceX from Blue Origin and others.
[humor]This is a particularly interesting example because almost all Jazz is unlistenable.[/humor]
Also, the author of the article completely overlooks the fact that the largest downloaders are also the largest purchasers of entertainment.
I think you've overlooked the fact that what you state is not a fact. It may be suggested by a study here and there, but I know plenty of downloaders who never buy a single thing.
Mod parent up. The music industry has been splintered by bazillions of new entrants thanks to greatly cost of creation and distribution. Variety and selection is better than ever before. From an economic standpoint, this is just too obvious.
There is something very honest about this -- the mythical high and mighty artist is laid low and in his place we find the lowly busker, selling his own wares -- or soliciting crowds to toss a coin in his guitar case. On the other hand, one gets only modest music from this situation. It ain't exactly the LSO.
You guys are both kind of right. Beiber is a very good example of sucker making bank. On the other hand, there are very very very few Beibers in the world (THANK JEEBUS) but there are a large number of very creative folks who make a living in creative fields by providing their music/acting/whatever chops to other folks. You can find tons of them in LA, New York, Austin, Nashville, etc.
It might be that or his own anger about failing as a sci fi writer festering into venom towards one of those damn kids who still has a chance. It totally sounds like "get off my lawn" to me. Actually it sounds more like "YOU WILL LEARN TO LOVE FAILURE! IT IS THE ONLY OPTION!"
I think you reason well, but from what I understand labels historically have made money from record sales whereas the bands typically profit from touring and merchandise because the band typically retains the rights to performance revenues and merch -- unless they are stupid.
Good post. The elephant in the room for this bank metaphor is that banks are not stupid enough to lend thousands of dollars to young musicians because almost every band ever started fails. It doesn't take a bank analyst to realize that young, unproven bands are an extremely high-risk investment. Aside from the possibility of flat-out sucking, there are plenty of other pitfalls for them: drugs, stds, changing tastes of the public, and the fact that touring is a wretched endeavor until you reach a certain threshold of popularity. From what I've seen, recording advances (i.e, MONEY) are much harder to come by today than they were 10-15 years ago. I might be blind, but I don't see youtube or spotify or rhapsody handing out money to cultivate new bands and yet they profit enormously from new music and old music alike.
There's an excellent book describing the economics of the music industry called "All You Need to Know About the Music Business" by Donald S. Passman. Don't let the bland title fool you. It's a good book and describes how lucky artists might get 15% of revenues after a label "recoups" their investment. It also describes typical advance amounts -- $200,000 for a band in the late nineties. This may sound like a lot until you realize a band (and their staff) have to create their recordings, pay rent, buy/maintain a touring vehicle, eat, etc. Managers and Lawyers are also likely to skim up to 25% for their services. And even if you are successful, the record label will tell you that they have to 'recoup' the cost of electricity to air-condition Jimmy Iovine's bedroom on his 3rd yacht before you get your 15%. Try housing and feeding 4 band members, roadies, etc for a year or two with what's left after all the other expenses are paid. Admittedly, this book is out of date now but it does provide a good window on the music industry as it used to be and some information is still relevant. The abiding lesson in it is to get a good lawyer to defend against nearly a century's worth of accumulated douchebaggery you can expect from recording companies and distributors.
What has not changed is that you still need these:
* A great song that appeals to some demographic with disposable income
* A great producer/engineer to make your recording
* Publicity so that the world knows about your song
* Revenue to survive and sustain the creative process
I'd love to see a business school analysis of the industry's outlook. I don't have an MBA, but I'd be willing to bet that the assessment would be that the potential for profiting in the music industry has diminished greatly in the past decade for a variety of reasons:
* Lower barriers to entry (lower cost to record music due to cheap new gear, lower distribution cost due to internet, etc.) will introduce lots of competition. E.g., new 'competitors' like Rebecca Black or anything recorded in someone's garage.
* Other low-cost forms of entertainment (e.g., facebook, games, youtube, netflix, etc.) will introduce competition for listener's time and money
* Both the music industry and the entertainment industry in general will become increasingly splintered as more bands make music and more types of entertainment proliferate due to aforementioned competition. Margins will drop accordingly.
* Changing user expectations and 'unauthorized' distribution of recordings undermine (eliminate?) the ability of a band to extract revenue from the recordings they make. I.e., the kids think music is free and give it for free to all their friends. No one really has to pay the artist for their song any more. The fact is that spending on music recordings today is voluntary regardless of any other agreements or DRM or terms of use or whatever. Because of this fact, recordings probably shouldn't be viewed as a product but rather as marketing.
At the same time, there are some factors working in favor of musicians:
* New recording technology (not including instruments, amps, and mic
You make good points. Yes 28.5 degrees North and launching eastward gives a substantial boost to any rockets launched and so Florida and/or Texas will likely stay in the picture as launching point. I'd be willing to bet that NASA gave SpaceX the equivalent of free rent at the launch facilities (which are probably maintained by other contractors on NASA's behalf). The SpaceX information on the Falcon Heavy all list an 'inclination' of 28.5 degrees so I am guessing the assumption is all launches will happen from Kennedy in FL.
I watched a video on Elon Musk which stated that raw materials come in to the factory in Hawthorne, CA and rocket parts come out the other side. I believe most of their 1500+ employees are in CA (awesome vid of them cheering the launch here). Hawthorne is about a mile from LAX and they can probably just take the parts over to LAX and put them on a big transport and fly them. I'd be willing to bet that transport costs are but a tiny tiny fraction of the human resource cost of the project. Los Angeles has tremendous assets for this sort of work -- there's a hi-tech corridor around Glendale/Burbank with all kinds of operations. There's an enormous talent pool of skilled workers, access to sea, air, and land shipping, etc. Boeing's a little different but most of their employees are on the West Coast. Lockheed also has a lot of facilities in Cailfornia. As does Raytheon. If you want to hire talented and experienced engineers and rocket scientists (and support staff), there are a ton of them around Los Angeles.
Write Elon Musk a fan letter. It's worth a try. Be sincere.
What would be nice is if we could deport some of our dregs at the same time. Like those Westboro Baptist Church a-holes. Send them over to the Middle East and see how they like it in the promised land.
Read this page on the SpaceX site, especially this part:
As noted last month by a Chinese government official, SpaceX currently has the best launch prices in the world and they don’t believe they can beat them. This is a clear case of American innovation trumping lower overseas labor rates.
and this part:
If there are cost overruns, SpaceX will cover the difference. (This concept may be foreign to some traditional government space contractors that seem to believe that cost overruns should be the responsibility of the taxpayer.)
The business-as-usual approach where the government hands NASA gobs of money so that NASA can in turn pay Boeing all the money they ask for is affected by SpaceX. It is my hope (and Musk's stated goal) to maintain low fixed costs for launches. If SpaceX delivers on this promise, that will mean that we can still maintain a presence in space for less money. Another thing to note: SpaceX is in California. I'd be willing to bet that Florida and Texas republicans will still want their pork projects for all the aerospace companies working out of Texas and Florida. Also, there's always the sacred cow of defense spending. Remember the X37-B? I'd be willing to bet more money gets spent on that in the future.
The problem is that one man's waste is another man's treasure.
I haven't spent much time there, but would have to agree with this one. What puzzles me is not that WV has fucked something up, but that they had so much money to spend. Poor, poor WV.