I'm sure that must be very frustrating for you both.:)
Some days, it feels like that's about the truth. And I wouldn't be surprised if the number of chemists who work in paints, inks, sealants, adhesives, or coatings and who happen to post to/. could be counted on both hands.
and you expect them to divest their newly developed process and trade secrets to the competition?
Not by any means - but there's a lot that can be done to explain the technology without giving away the whole thing. A good coatings chemist could tell you worlds about acrylics without ever disclosing proprietary information.
I didn't even bother trying to download the video - I know what happens when those things are linked from the front page - but I read through the release, and the PDF, and did a quick search to see if I could find anything. I'd love to know more, for the satisfaction of professional curiousity alone, if nothing else.
Ack! For those of us who actually work with water-borne polymer systems, there's an incredible lack of detail here. One of the challenges in getting a coating that's easily removable is making a polymer system (either solution, emulsion, or dispersion) that forms a highly uniform, cohesive, and integral film that doesn't have a great deal of affinity (either physical or chemical) for the surface to which it's applied. Aside from wondering what the polymer technology is, I have to wonder how much of this is surface-specific.
Did they rely on an application surface that has a very low surface energy? If so, what happens when the car's "original" finish has either a lousy morphology (non-smooth) and/or a high surface energy (overcomes surface tension of the applied liquid - think water beading on a waxed car [low surface energy] versus water "sheeting" on raw steel)? Did they solve the problem strictly through polarity or specific adhesion, and if so, what happens if the "original" finish is of a different chemistry?
And the polymer - maybe they relied on one that has high cohesion but lousy adhesion. Okay, but if it's a hard/high-modulus polymer, how does it not flake off easily? If it's a softer polymer, then how does it not stretch or sag? Tough to do when you're not relying on adhesive bonding to the substrate to help with structure.
Too many questions, and not enough answers in the linked docs or in a Google search. Fooey.
1. Everybody has an equal right to define things. They may be wrong of course.
And far be it from me to deny someone the right to their definitions, though I would necessarily deny them the right to dictate mine. (Barring points of obvious exception, such as gun-to-the-head, etc.)
2. Actually, nobody defines them. It's just what they are.
Oh, come now - we're not discussing HTML color codes, or even portions of the visible spectrum. We're talking about moral absolutes versus moral relativism. If you want to discuss how relativism in its purest form advocates anarchy, and how to best mediate this in societal function to prevent collapse of the human community, that's one thing. But to indicate that there are actual moral absolutes when we can't even quantify the "best" text editor is kind of silly, in my thoughts.
Often, those who advocate a specific morality base such upon their religious beliefs. I'm not saying that makes them inherently wrong, but at their core, religious beliefs are items of faith, not fact. They are not quantifiable or scientifically provable or dis-provable. They are neither correct nor incorrect, and they are as varied and variable as the day is long.
Do they make a good starting point for a discussion on agreed-upon moral standards? Sure. History shows it's far from an easy discussion, and someone claiming their side is in the "right" simply because their faith says it to be true doesn't lend credibility to their argument. Show me, for example, that it's not in the community's best interest to presume guilt first, and illustrate the benefits of erring on the side of caution, thinking things through, etc., and we're having a viable discussion about agreed-upon standards of moral conduct. Tell me, however, that your religious beliefs dictate that you know what's best for me and that your decision about it supercedes mine, that your choice in my life is more important than mine - and it's no longer a discussion.
3. Logically, some things must necessarily be black and white.
Again, by whose standards? The logic follows only if the assumed premise (morality is physical fact, immutable truth) is correct. I'll agree that standards are necessary, but someone claiming a moral high-ground based on their beliefs and opinions is not contributing to the facts. It sounds as silly as Manifest Destiny.
Morality is necessary, but realize it is not immutable fact or truth. It is an agreement that is generally (to greater or lesser degree, varying from topic-to-topic) accepted by a populace. "Thou shalt not kill," for example - I think we can (mostly) agree on that. There are plenty of others (many related to sexuality, since so many people are so messed up about that) where there's not a whole lot of consensus going on. Should one wish to bring their religious beliefs or personal opinions to a discussion of morality, fine - but let's keep it a discussion, and not a dictated demand.
Humans by nature want to make the world a grey situation but it could be very easily black and white if we [wanted] it to be.
So who gets to define that black and white you mention so easily? You? Your religious leaders or inspiration? Your political party of choice? What gives any of them a greater right to define those absolutes than anyone else?
You can argue that moral relativism sucks, and in practical application I might sometimes agree, but the absolutes it would seem often get proposed are based on belief, and belief is subjective and quite individual.
As I said, I prefer Nintendo, but I'll admit there are a few PS2 games that look very cool.
I want to like Nintendo more than I do - first console I bought with my own money was clearance SNES (just after the N64 came out). Only one I had for a long while, too - Super MarioKart, Super Metroid, Starfox, Secret of Mana, etc., etc. Bought the N64 for my (ex-)wife to play Zelda, but never got into it myself - and just didn't see anything else in the line that I liked. Now, there's only a handful of games on the Cube that catch my eye, and two of those are Metroid Prime and its upcoming sequel. Since I'm still backlogged on PS2 (and even a few PC) games, I haven't gone out of my way to buy a Cube yet.
GP: XBox is superior hardware, and good gaming library, why is it doing so poorly if not the "We hate the USA" argument, "Stupid americans".
P: I dispute the "good gaming library" bit. Besides Halo (and Halo 2), there is just not that much good for the system that cannot already be found for a different system.
(For the sake of clarity, I'll specify that by "cross-platform titles" I mean those available on both XBox and PS2.)
I'll go along with the parent poster on this. I'm American, FWIW, and I don't even find all that much exciting about the XBox's line-up. I bought my XBox first, about two years ago, for two Sega titles that were XBox exclusives. At that point, I already had a list of PS2 games I wanted that was longer, but I wanted Panzer Dragoon Orta really, really badly.
At this point, completely ignoring cross-platform titles, I have three times as many PS2 games as XBox. I don't even own Halo, since I hate playing FPS with a console controller (tried it several times, with several games, on different systems, and couldn't stand it). I don't want sports games, and playing against others on Live! just never appealed to me. (Had my fill of bad sports and brats playing PC games online, thank you.) I just haven't seen enough XBox titles to excite me.
PS2, on the other hand - every time I turn around, I'm seeing another game that looks like fun (to me) being announced or released. So maybe it's not just America-bashing. Maybe, just maybe, if you're not into yet-another-multiplayer-shooter or the various sports games, but would rather see some interesting platformers or deeply-involving RPGs or such, then you're more likely to buy (or prefer) a PS2. Just a thought...
It's rare to see a Windows computer with less than 100% pure, unadulterated, stolen shit in it. Seriously, unless it's a corporate computer, have you really seen one where the user would have paid a single red cent for any of the soft/data, other than the kids' games?
I certainly can't be the only one like this - but my home box is one I slapped together about three years ago. I bought an unopened copy of Win98SE that was floating around surplus. Likewise for Office 95, Photoshop 4, and CorelSuite (for Quattro Pro). Bought Partition Magic 7 when I wanted to put a Slackware install on there, too. All my games are legit - hell, I even registered Snood.
I'll grant that this is no more proof than any other anecdotal evidence - but here's a non-corporate-owned PC sitting in front of me with the majority of its software legit. (I say majority because, if I look, I've probably got a few old DOS abandonware pieces on here, like Sopwith.) I'd like to think that this situation is, at least among geeks, more common than not. Wishful thinking, perhaps...
You're forgetting that *you* are one of the mindless masses. Don't kid yourself; you aren't any better than anyone around you.
I don't recall exempting myself from that particular label. If not specifically indicating my inclusion therein seemed arrogant, then that was certainly not my intent.
In any event, you don't have a clue what would sell with or without the marketing engine. I'm willing to bet that Britney Spears would be just as big a hit without the RIAA, especially after she produced and distributed her first online video.
I don't remember mentioning Britney (although other posters did), nor any specific genre. I didn't claim to know what would sell without marketing - just that I don't see it as necessary to get good music (of any kind) out to the listeners and fans with any kind of efficacy. I don't know if Britney would have been as big a star or not without a label producing and promoting her to the tune of millions - but what's the bet that, had she gone it on her own, a greater portion of whatever stardom she might have achieved would be lining her pockets instead of the label's?
The 'mindlessness' of teenage girls doesn't begin to the compare to the arrogance of little boys who (falsely) think they're somehow superior to some chunk of the population *just because of the music they listen to*. When you think about it, that's just about one of the most pathetic things a person could possibly believe.
I cited teenaged girls simply because the previous poster did. I don't recall saying that they were specifically more mindless relative to any other demographic. I also don't recall saying that any particular type or genre of music was superior, or bestowed superiority.
My original point was not slamming any group or genre, but only that a great deal of pop-culture marketing is, in my thoughts, selling image (based on insecurity and the exploitation thereof) to push a product that might not otherwise be purchased based solely on its merits relative to an alternative. Remove the middlemen whose interests depend solely on this kind of hype and push, and allow the products to stand on their own two feet. Good stuff will rise to the top, and the garbage will sink and get drained away. I can't say it's a win-win situation, but it's got no more potential for losers than the current situation.
The problem is that shitty and good are subjective. What you find shitty, I might like, or vice versa, and yet we can still be friends....[y]our analogy then breaks down, because you share with me music you think is good, and I just find it shitty. Not that marketing fixes this, or even does what it's supposed to do (introduce us to new bands and music, not just keep pushing the same ol' tripe), but word of mouth doesn't work much better.
For clarity's sake, let's say by "shitty" I meant "stuff that wouldn't sell a fraction of what it does without marketing a culture to mindless masses." I didn't say word-of-mouth was better - just that it would suffice. Granted, it's anecdotal, but plenty of books, films, and musical performances/recordings have gained popularity and success despite a lack of marketing effort and dollars. Witness rap in the early eighties, or movies like "My Big Fat Greek Wedding."
What makes you think the good bands won't go away with the bad ones? What if my favorite band is deemed as "bad", and goes away? Do I not have the right to like whatever music I want?
I didn't say that no "good" bands would be affected - but plenty of good bands are affected now by the marketing system in place. You have a right to like whatever you want, but I'm sorry to say that plenty of the bands that one might like don't make it, for whatever reason. You know it, I know it, we all know it - bands fail, give up, break up, etc., under just about any conditions.
I find it funny that the average Slashdotter wails away time and again for choice...but they can turn on a dime and beg for less choice.
You misunderstand - I'm not begging for less choice. I just don't see that the current system (that props up, maintains, and places control nearly completely in the hands of unnecessary middlemen) improves the quality of choices to a degree that makes the bad that comes along with such complexity forgiveable. I think the damage done by the RIAA and its tactics far outweighs the good brought by having such an industry behemoth in control of so much.
Why does that crap make so much money? It's because music's prime money-making demographic is teenage girls, and that crap music is targetted squarely at them.
You posited earlier that the "proven money-makers" will always be around, but I submit that it's a chicken-and-egg scenario with all this lowest-common-denominator stuff. Do the teenage girls (or any other popularity-influenced demographic, with lesser or greater degrees of mindlessness) love that stuff because it's popular, or is it popular because they love that stuff? To my way of thinking, too much of marketing (in music, or any pop-cultural aspect) is creating a false popularity by telling people it's popular and implying that they must enjoy it to be like everyone else.
(You could argue that the problem is the sense of inferiority-of-self that's so common in the Western world, and not the marketers who exploit it. I'm not arguing the root of it, just that we'd be better off without the exploitation thereof.)
Obviously my usage of "crap" is subjective, reflecting my own tastes.
I respect that you recognize that, and hope I've conveyed the same to you. I think quality music of any genre can find its niche and audience and succeed without the marketing muscle of the big labels. That doesn't guarantee success - but then again, neither does the RIAA.
And who would pay for all the marketing of the music? I know this is not a popular thing to bring up on Slashdot, but it takes a lot of money to market music.
No, it takes a lot of money to market shitty music and make it appeal to the mindless by making it "seem" popular. Good music, like good books, can and does sell itself through word-of-mouth and mild exposure. People sharing what they like with friends* is a cheap, effective way for worthwhile stuff to get heard and spread around. Hell, how did Metallica ever get their fanbase but through fans passing around tapes?
*(Note that this is not an endorsement, or even an accurate description, of P2P.)
Remove the marketing dollars of the corporate labels, and "natural selection" will clear out a lot of the cruft from the stores and airwaves and make way for the good stuff. Less choice? Sure. But the percentage of good choices available will go up.
WA4 pissed me off; WA5 is better, but iTunes is still far and away the sleeker player. I started using WA with version 2...
I gave up on WinAmp shortly after version 2.x (don't recall which one). Required a plug-in to support Vorbis, but no problem. Download the next version (for some reason), and find it gobbling up file associations left and right, pissing me off with changes to file and playlist management, and generally trying to do too much and doing it all poorly.
Which makes me wonder - am I the only one using Quintessential Player (QCD)? Clean interface and option, playlist management that fit my sense of order, and a couple of easy-to-use plug-ins to add some additional functionality (like outputting the current track info for posting on my homepage). Anyone else like this particular piece of audio software?
That makes two of us. My first one lasted for about six-ish months before kicking the bucket - died the oh-so-common "stuck hard drive" problem, where customer service tells you to smack the unit to get it to work again. Ummm, no. Returned to the retailer under the service plan for a new one. Had the new one about two months before the same thing happened. RMA'ed it back to Digital Networks, got a refurb. Had the refurb less than five days before the exact same problem reared its head. That's Karma #3, and it went back to Digital Networks last week while I await a fourth unit.
I've got most of my music as.ogg files, which is why I got the Karma in the first place.
Same here. Partly geek-factor, partly because I wanted true stereo and better compression at higher bitrates, yadda yadda yadda. Regardless, I have pretty limited options for a small-form-factor, high-capacity player that suits my needs, so for the time being I'm stuck waiting for another refurb unit. Eventually, I may just re-rip my entire collection and start over with a different codec.
I know of a new restaurant with newly printed menus "Peking fuck" instead of "Peking duck".
Slightly off-topic, but for anyone who's been to Philly's Chinatown, there's a little hole-in-the-wall restaurant called "Joe's Peking Duck." The surreal part is the sign - it's a picture of a Donald Duck knockoff serving Peking Duck.
I bought a Rio Karma last fall-ish (November? whenever they finally hit stores), at ~$350. I usually avoid being an early adopter, but in this case I'd been waiting for a small-size large-capacity player that handled Vorbis. When I purchased it, there were minor playback problems with Vorbis that needed a firmware update (available a few weeks later) to correct. I was pretty happy, all things considered.
The original unit died in May after many hundreds of hours of use (in my car, mostly, but also in an armband pouch while I bike). It had never been dropped, smacked, etc., but the HD apparently just up and quit. Past the mvfr. warranty, of course, but still within that damned "replacement plan" I opted for. Got a new player off the shelf - which just died this last week, same problem.
So now my Karma #2 is headed back to Rio for replacement. I don't know anyone else who has one - anybody care to chime in on whether they've had such issues with theirs?
<nitpick>That's still not a standardized national ID card, which was the subject of this particular thread.</nitpick>
That said, I've lived in a few different states, and I haven't yet been made aware of state-issued ID cards being required in those states, nor had I heard of other states where such might be the case. I could see the prevalence of drivers licenses and state IDs in general making it something that's not often brought up, simply because of the ubiquitous nature of such things. And too, such ID documentation is required to take part in a number of aspects of routine life in the US o' A - like getting a job, opening a bank account, etc., so I could see practicality requiring one. But state law? That's news to me. A quick Google search didn't turn up anything for me - anyone able to point me toward any US state that requires their citizens to procure and carry state-issued ID?
You already have at least one national ID card - your drivers license. Two, if you have a passport. It's already happened.
Last time I checked, a drivers license was only required if, say, you wanted to drive a car. Likewise, a passport is far from being a mandatory piece of documentation. When people describe a national ID card as a "bad thing," they're generally referring to the concept of a nationally-standardized ID document that you must be issued and that you must keep on your person at all times, under force of law. My understanding only, of course...
but what concerns me more is plastic- virtually everything we make needs something plastic, and guess where plastic comes from?
I can't for the life of me find it, and what's worse is I remember (possibly incorrectly) seeing it posted as a story here on/., but didn't someone, in the last few years, created a GM plant that produced polyethylene in its stalks or shoots? Not that GM is a great thing universally (see the Monsanto story from today), but it's a possibility...
I see so many of those particular professions are in the service or retail sectors - so what happens when the middle class is no longer able to afford many retail products, or eating out at places other than fast food joints (if even that much)? We can't exactly be a nation of food servers, cash-register-jockies, and appliance salespeople - such folks don't have a lot of disposable income, and the upper-crust will only shop so much.
You know, it used to be the responsibility of the DJ to make sure listeners knew the name and artist of the tracks they played. They didn't have to say it every song, but they should do so before or after any new song that might not be familiar to the listeners yet.
Announcing (particularly back-announcing, where they tell you what you just heard) is something that, quite often, costs the promoters more money - the station (or network) does it when the promoters pay to make sure it's done, to aid in the marketing of the tune. If the promoters don't pay for it, then it may or may not happen.
For the under-informed here (namely, me) - was that WTC sequence ever intended to be used in the movie? Or was it just something "thrown together" for the advertisement?
Slashdot Mirror
Some days, it feels like that's about the truth. And I wouldn't be surprised if the number of chemists who work in paints, inks, sealants, adhesives, or coatings and who happen to post to /. could be counted on both hands.
Not by any means - but there's a lot that can be done to explain the technology without giving away the whole thing. A good coatings chemist could tell you worlds about acrylics without ever disclosing proprietary information.
I didn't even bother trying to download the video - I know what happens when those things are linked from the front page - but I read through the release, and the PDF, and did a quick search to see if I could find anything. I'd love to know more, for the satisfaction of professional curiousity alone, if nothing else.
Ack! For those of us who actually work with water-borne polymer systems, there's an incredible lack of detail here. One of the challenges in getting a coating that's easily removable is making a polymer system (either solution, emulsion, or dispersion) that forms a highly uniform, cohesive, and integral film that doesn't have a great deal of affinity (either physical or chemical) for the surface to which it's applied. Aside from wondering what the polymer technology is, I have to wonder how much of this is surface-specific.
Did they rely on an application surface that has a very low surface energy? If so, what happens when the car's "original" finish has either a lousy morphology (non-smooth) and/or a high surface energy (overcomes surface tension of the applied liquid - think water beading on a waxed car [low surface energy] versus water "sheeting" on raw steel)? Did they solve the problem strictly through polarity or specific adhesion, and if so, what happens if the "original" finish is of a different chemistry?
And the polymer - maybe they relied on one that has high cohesion but lousy adhesion. Okay, but if it's a hard/high-modulus polymer, how does it not flake off easily? If it's a softer polymer, then how does it not stretch or sag? Tough to do when you're not relying on adhesive bonding to the substrate to help with structure.
Too many questions, and not enough answers in the linked docs or in a Google search. Fooey.
Being a 27 year old male getting notes from 40+ year old women telling me what 25-35 year old men want to see.
For what it's worth, there's always the outside chance she's banged enough guys aged 25-35 that it's considered an adequate sample of the demographic.
:P
1. Everybody has an equal right to define things. They may be wrong of course.
And far be it from me to deny someone the right to their definitions, though I would necessarily deny them the right to dictate mine. (Barring points of obvious exception, such as gun-to-the-head, etc.)
2. Actually, nobody defines them. It's just what they are.
Oh, come now - we're not discussing HTML color codes, or even portions of the visible spectrum. We're talking about moral absolutes versus moral relativism. If you want to discuss how relativism in its purest form advocates anarchy, and how to best mediate this in societal function to prevent collapse of the human community, that's one thing. But to indicate that there are actual moral absolutes when we can't even quantify the "best" text editor is kind of silly, in my thoughts.
Often, those who advocate a specific morality base such upon their religious beliefs. I'm not saying that makes them inherently wrong, but at their core, religious beliefs are items of faith, not fact. They are not quantifiable or scientifically provable or dis-provable. They are neither correct nor incorrect, and they are as varied and variable as the day is long.
Do they make a good starting point for a discussion on agreed-upon moral standards? Sure. History shows it's far from an easy discussion, and someone claiming their side is in the "right" simply because their faith says it to be true doesn't lend credibility to their argument. Show me, for example, that it's not in the community's best interest to presume guilt first, and illustrate the benefits of erring on the side of caution, thinking things through, etc., and we're having a viable discussion about agreed-upon standards of moral conduct. Tell me, however, that your religious beliefs dictate that you know what's best for me and that your decision about it supercedes mine, that your choice in my life is more important than mine - and it's no longer a discussion.
3. Logically, some things must necessarily be black and white.
Again, by whose standards? The logic follows only if the assumed premise (morality is physical fact, immutable truth) is correct. I'll agree that standards are necessary, but someone claiming a moral high-ground based on their beliefs and opinions is not contributing to the facts. It sounds as silly as Manifest Destiny.
Morality is necessary, but realize it is not immutable fact or truth. It is an agreement that is generally (to greater or lesser degree, varying from topic-to-topic) accepted by a populace. "Thou shalt not kill," for example - I think we can (mostly) agree on that. There are plenty of others (many related to sexuality, since so many people are so messed up about that) where there's not a whole lot of consensus going on. Should one wish to bring their religious beliefs or personal opinions to a discussion of morality, fine - but let's keep it a discussion, and not a dictated demand.
Humans by nature want to make the world a grey situation but it could be very easily black and white if we [wanted] it to be.
So who gets to define that black and white you mention so easily? You? Your religious leaders or inspiration? Your political party of choice? What gives any of them a greater right to define those absolutes than anyone else?
You can argue that moral relativism sucks, and in practical application I might sometimes agree, but the absolutes it would seem often get proposed are based on belief, and belief is subjective and quite individual.
I want to like Nintendo more than I do - first console I bought with my own money was clearance SNES (just after the N64 came out). Only one I had for a long while, too - Super MarioKart, Super Metroid, Starfox, Secret of Mana, etc., etc. Bought the N64 for my (ex-)wife to play Zelda, but never got into it myself - and just didn't see anything else in the line that I liked. Now, there's only a handful of games on the Cube that catch my eye, and two of those are Metroid Prime and its upcoming sequel. Since I'm still backlogged on PS2 (and even a few PC) games, I haven't gone out of my way to buy a Cube yet.
XBox is superior hardware, and good gaming library, why is it doing so poorly if not the "We hate the USA" argument, "Stupid americans".
P:
I dispute the "good gaming library" bit. Besides Halo (and Halo 2), there is just not that much good for the system that cannot already be found for a different system.
(For the sake of clarity, I'll specify that by "cross-platform titles" I mean those available on both XBox and PS2.)
I'll go along with the parent poster on this. I'm American, FWIW, and I don't even find all that much exciting about the XBox's line-up. I bought my XBox first, about two years ago, for two Sega titles that were XBox exclusives. At that point, I already had a list of PS2 games I wanted that was longer, but I wanted Panzer Dragoon Orta really, really badly.
At this point, completely ignoring cross-platform titles, I have three times as many PS2 games as XBox. I don't even own Halo, since I hate playing FPS with a console controller (tried it several times, with several games, on different systems, and couldn't stand it). I don't want sports games, and playing against others on Live! just never appealed to me. (Had my fill of bad sports and brats playing PC games online, thank you.) I just haven't seen enough XBox titles to excite me.
PS2, on the other hand - every time I turn around, I'm seeing another game that looks like fun (to me) being announced or released. So maybe it's not just America-bashing. Maybe, just maybe, if you're not into yet-another-multiplayer-shooter or the various sports games, but would rather see some interesting platformers or deeply-involving RPGs or such, then you're more likely to buy (or prefer) a PS2. Just a thought...
I certainly can't be the only one like this - but my home box is one I slapped together about three years ago. I bought an unopened copy of Win98SE that was floating around surplus. Likewise for Office 95, Photoshop 4, and CorelSuite (for Quattro Pro). Bought Partition Magic 7 when I wanted to put a Slackware install on there, too. All my games are legit - hell, I even registered Snood.
I'll grant that this is no more proof than any other anecdotal evidence - but here's a non-corporate-owned PC sitting in front of me with the majority of its software legit. (I say majority because, if I look, I've probably got a few old DOS abandonware pieces on here, like Sopwith.) I'd like to think that this situation is, at least among geeks, more common than not. Wishful thinking, perhaps...
I don't recall exempting myself from that particular label. If not specifically indicating my inclusion therein seemed arrogant, then that was certainly not my intent.
In any event, you don't have a clue what would sell with or without the marketing engine. I'm willing to bet that Britney Spears would be just as big a hit without the RIAA, especially after she produced and distributed her first online video.
I don't remember mentioning Britney (although other posters did), nor any specific genre. I didn't claim to know what would sell without marketing - just that I don't see it as necessary to get good music (of any kind) out to the listeners and fans with any kind of efficacy. I don't know if Britney would have been as big a star or not without a label producing and promoting her to the tune of millions - but what's the bet that, had she gone it on her own, a greater portion of whatever stardom she might have achieved would be lining her pockets instead of the label's?
The 'mindlessness' of teenage girls doesn't begin to the compare to the arrogance of little boys who (falsely) think they're somehow superior to some chunk of the population *just because of the music they listen to*. When you think about it, that's just about one of the most pathetic things a person could possibly believe.
I cited teenaged girls simply because the previous poster did. I don't recall saying that they were specifically more mindless relative to any other demographic. I also don't recall saying that any particular type or genre of music was superior, or bestowed superiority.
My original point was not slamming any group or genre, but only that a great deal of pop-culture marketing is, in my thoughts, selling image (based on insecurity and the exploitation thereof) to push a product that might not otherwise be purchased based solely on its merits relative to an alternative. Remove the middlemen whose interests depend solely on this kind of hype and push, and allow the products to stand on their own two feet. Good stuff will rise to the top, and the garbage will sink and get drained away. I can't say it's a win-win situation, but it's got no more potential for losers than the current situation.
For clarity's sake, let's say by "shitty" I meant "stuff that wouldn't sell a fraction of what it does without marketing a culture to mindless masses." I didn't say word-of-mouth was better - just that it would suffice. Granted, it's anecdotal, but plenty of books, films, and musical performances/recordings have gained popularity and success despite a lack of marketing effort and dollars. Witness rap in the early eighties, or movies like "My Big Fat Greek Wedding."
What makes you think the good bands won't go away with the bad ones? What if my favorite band is deemed as "bad", and goes away? Do I not have the right to like whatever music I want?
I didn't say that no "good" bands would be affected - but plenty of good bands are affected now by the marketing system in place. You have a right to like whatever you want, but I'm sorry to say that plenty of the bands that one might like don't make it, for whatever reason. You know it, I know it, we all know it - bands fail, give up, break up, etc., under just about any conditions.
I find it funny that the average Slashdotter wails away time and again for choice...but they can turn on a dime and beg for less choice.
You misunderstand - I'm not begging for less choice. I just don't see that the current system (that props up, maintains, and places control nearly completely in the hands of unnecessary middlemen) improves the quality of choices to a degree that makes the bad that comes along with such complexity forgiveable. I think the damage done by the RIAA and its tactics far outweighs the good brought by having such an industry behemoth in control of so much.
Why does that crap make so much money? It's because music's prime money-making demographic is teenage girls, and that crap music is targetted squarely at them.
You posited earlier that the "proven money-makers" will always be around, but I submit that it's a chicken-and-egg scenario with all this lowest-common-denominator stuff. Do the teenage girls (or any other popularity-influenced demographic, with lesser or greater degrees of mindlessness) love that stuff because it's popular, or is it popular because they love that stuff? To my way of thinking, too much of marketing (in music, or any pop-cultural aspect) is creating a false popularity by telling people it's popular and implying that they must enjoy it to be like everyone else.
(You could argue that the problem is the sense of inferiority-of-self that's so common in the Western world, and not the marketers who exploit it. I'm not arguing the root of it, just that we'd be better off without the exploitation thereof.)
Obviously my usage of "crap" is subjective, reflecting my own tastes.
I respect that you recognize that, and hope I've conveyed the same to you. I think quality music of any genre can find its niche and audience and succeed without the marketing muscle of the big labels. That doesn't guarantee success - but then again, neither does the RIAA.
No, it takes a lot of money to market shitty music and make it appeal to the mindless by making it "seem" popular. Good music, like good books, can and does sell itself through word-of-mouth and mild exposure. People sharing what they like with friends* is a cheap, effective way for worthwhile stuff to get heard and spread around. Hell, how did Metallica ever get their fanbase but through fans passing around tapes?
*(Note that this is not an endorsement, or even an accurate description, of P2P.)
Remove the marketing dollars of the corporate labels, and "natural selection" will clear out a lot of the cruft from the stores and airwaves and make way for the good stuff. Less choice? Sure. But the percentage of good choices available will go up.
You mean, until they no longer have faces.
:P
I gave up on WinAmp shortly after version 2.x (don't recall which one). Required a plug-in to support Vorbis, but no problem. Download the next version (for some reason), and find it gobbling up file associations left and right, pissing me off with changes to file and playlist management, and generally trying to do too much and doing it all poorly.
Which makes me wonder - am I the only one using Quintessential Player (QCD)? Clean interface and option, playlist management that fit my sense of order, and a couple of easy-to-use plug-ins to add some additional functionality (like outputting the current track info for posting on my homepage). Anyone else like this particular piece of audio software?
That makes two of us. My first one lasted for about six-ish months before kicking the bucket - died the oh-so-common "stuck hard drive" problem, where customer service tells you to smack the unit to get it to work again. Ummm, no. Returned to the retailer under the service plan for a new one. Had the new one about two months before the same thing happened. RMA'ed it back to Digital Networks, got a refurb. Had the refurb less than five days before the exact same problem reared its head. That's Karma #3, and it went back to Digital Networks last week while I await a fourth unit.
I've got most of my music as
Same here. Partly geek-factor, partly because I wanted true stereo and better compression at higher bitrates, yadda yadda yadda. Regardless, I have pretty limited options for a small-form-factor, high-capacity player that suits my needs, so for the time being I'm stuck waiting for another refurb unit. Eventually, I may just re-rip my entire collection and start over with a different codec.
Slightly off-topic, but for anyone who's been to Philly's Chinatown, there's a little hole-in-the-wall restaurant called "Joe's Peking Duck." The surreal part is the sign - it's a picture of a Donald Duck knockoff serving Peking Duck.
Funny you should mention the Karma...
I bought a Rio Karma last fall-ish (November? whenever they finally hit stores), at ~$350. I usually avoid being an early adopter, but in this case I'd been waiting for a small-size large-capacity player that handled Vorbis. When I purchased it, there were minor playback problems with Vorbis that needed a firmware update (available a few weeks later) to correct. I was pretty happy, all things considered.
The original unit died in May after many hundreds of hours of use (in my car, mostly, but also in an armband pouch while I bike). It had never been dropped, smacked, etc., but the HD apparently just up and quit. Past the mvfr. warranty, of course, but still within that damned "replacement plan" I opted for. Got a new player off the shelf - which just died this last week, same problem.
So now my Karma #2 is headed back to Rio for replacement. I don't know anyone else who has one - anybody care to chime in on whether they've had such issues with theirs?
Most state REQUIRE that you have an ID card.
<nitpick>That's still not a standardized national ID card, which was the subject of this particular thread.</nitpick>
That said, I've lived in a few different states, and I haven't yet been made aware of state-issued ID cards being required in those states, nor had I heard of other states where such might be the case. I could see the prevalence of drivers licenses and state IDs in general making it something that's not often brought up, simply because of the ubiquitous nature of such things. And too, such ID documentation is required to take part in a number of aspects of routine life in the US o' A - like getting a job, opening a bank account, etc., so I could see practicality requiring one. But state law? That's news to me. A quick Google search didn't turn up anything for me - anyone able to point me toward any US state that requires their citizens to procure and carry state-issued ID?
You already have at least one national ID card - your drivers license. Two, if you have a passport. It's already happened.
Last time I checked, a drivers license was only required if, say, you wanted to drive a car. Likewise, a passport is far from being a mandatory piece of documentation. When people describe a national ID card as a "bad thing," they're generally referring to the concept of a nationally-standardized ID document that you must be issued and that you must keep on your person at all times, under force of law. My understanding only, of course...
That would have been funny except you had to hit the post button in order for us to see it.
Greetings, Captain Pedantic! It's swell to see you on the job!
but what concerns me more is plastic- virtually everything we make needs something plastic, and guess where plastic comes from?
/., but didn't someone, in the last few years, created a GM plant that produced polyethylene in its stalks or shoots? Not that GM is a great thing universally (see the Monsanto story from today), but it's a possibility...
I can't for the life of me find it, and what's worse is I remember (possibly incorrectly) seeing it posted as a story here on
I see so many of those particular professions are in the service or retail sectors - so what happens when the middle class is no longer able to afford many retail products, or eating out at places other than fast food joints (if even that much)? We can't exactly be a nation of food servers, cash-register-jockies, and appliance salespeople - such folks don't have a lot of disposable income, and the upper-crust will only shop so much.
You know, it used to be the responsibility of the DJ to make sure listeners knew the name and artist of the tracks they played. They didn't have to say it every song, but they should do so before or after any new song that might not be familiar to the listeners yet.
Announcing (particularly back-announcing, where they tell you what you just heard) is something that, quite often, costs the promoters more money - the station (or network) does it when the promoters pay to make sure it's done, to aid in the marketing of the tune. If the promoters don't pay for it, then it may or may not happen.
For the under-informed here (namely, me) - was that WTC sequence ever intended to be used in the movie? Or was it just something "thrown together" for the advertisement?