I remember a day when the composers and songwriters were also the performers.
Nothing has changed in that respect whatsoever. Kanye West writes his own material. Frank Sinatra sang songs written by someone else. Mozart wrote music to be performed by other musicians.
I don't see how much the Artists get from the "0.085p for each track streamed".
I bet it's extremely low.
Bear in mind the PRS represents songwriters. So the performer gets nothing from this, unless they're also the songwriter.
As such a fair proportion of what's collected should go to the songwriter - since the PRS is not in itself a profit making institution, and this money doesn't go towards record company expenses such as marketing.
This boat was owned by venture capitalists. If that steel was really worth more money than they got for this venture, believe me they'd have done that.
- A swimming test whereby you have to swim 200 meters
- A treading water test whereby you have to tread water for 10 minutes
- Shore dives whereby with all your gear on you've got to walk out and then swim to a dive buoy.
Fair play, these are moderately challenging.
- A "Controlled Emergency Swimming Ascent" (CESA) test whereby you have to steadly swim to the surface exhaling continously in a low/out of air situation from a depth of around 15 meters (need good lung capacity).
In fact (and this will appeal to geeks) you can do a CESA starting with near-empty lungs, because as you ascend pressure decreases and the air expands. There are definite psychological barriers that make it a challenge. Geeks who can put faith in what they know about Newtonian physics might do better than most!
As discussed in another thread - you don't have to dive to the bottom. There's lots of popular wrecks that beginners (or even advanced recreational divers) don't reach to the bottom of.
But to make a real economic evaluation of this, we'd also need to know the worth of having a man made reef right there, and the cost of the various alternative ways of creating one.
If that spot really needed a reef, maybe one made out of reclaimed steel is the best way to make one. And one where the steel is already assembled into a suitable shape - so much the better.
I'm not sure about feet, but I wouldn't like to be 43 metres below the surface.
40m is PADI's absolute limit - with their Advanced Open Water certification - and their tables let you stay there for a very short time.
However, you'd probably not find it unpleasant at that depth - it's easy to keep going deeper if you don't monitor your gauge. It's deep enough to risk nitrogen narcosis - that 'just' makes you euphoric and foolish, like being drunk, and clears up immediately if you just swim up a bit.
I'm no reef expert, but these things take a really long time to have coral start growing on these to the point where you'd want to go diving down to see them.
For some time, this will be a recognisable ship - that's a cool thing to dive around in itself. Wreck diving is a fairly popular specialisation.
In addition, while coral takes a long time to grow, other plant life takes hold much more quickly, and fish will seek refuge anywhere there's shelter. Go snorkeling somewhere sandy - if you want to see fish, you'll need to find a boulder.
Finally, coral does take hold in human timescales. When Bali started attracting tourists, they quarried coral reefs to build hotels, with diasterous results - not only were the reefs lost, but it resulted in serious beach erosion. The practice was banned but the damage was done. Where I stayed, they had dumped huge concrete blocks where the reef used to be. Already coral was recolonising, anenomes and tropical fish were everywhere. It'll take years before it fully recovers - but not thousands of years, or even hundreds.
Sure, I'd imagine the number of geek divers might is pretty limited, but I do know a few.
It's actually quite a geeky activity. Although being unfit makes decompression sickness more likely, it's not an activity that requires much in the way of physical prowess. There's maths in those dive tables, or if you prefer gadgets there's dive computers. Not that there's not plenty of gadgetry involved in the breathing apparatus side of things.
Then there's the geekery of exploring a different world - it's amazing what's there underwater. And (as PADI put it) "floating weightless like an astronaut" (which you don't really, but there you go).
The thing that scares me more is geeks who think they can second guess the tolerances in the dive tables. I'd rather turn my brain off and obey them to the letter.
The recreational limit is 130 feet. So you won't be able to look at the very bottom of the hull. The rest will be much higher. Even beginners will be able to hover over the deck.
I'm sorry, but unless you want to be the next Hoobastank or some such nonsense, those things are completely unnecessary.
If you want to actually sell enough CDs (or novels, or software, or greetings cards, or whatever) to make anything like a living, you need marketing.
If you write the Great American Novel, put it up on Lulu, and wait for the income to roll in, you'll sell 20 copies if you're lucky. To do better you've got to send review copies to magazines and web sites, persuade them you're worth interviewing for an article, get some viral marketing going for your product etc.
The same would go for a CD, even if you're not going for the mainstream. Get a reputation for live shows. Get written about in the specialist press. Get played on specialist radio shows or net radio. Get blogged about.
The OP's right. Traditional record labels do all this stuff, and that's part of where the money goes.
Still, it's all stuff you can DIY, or have done separately.
I think there's an element of myopia, yes. Remember the incident that set RMS on his course: he was flabbergasted when he discovered he wasn't allowed to modify the source code for a printer driver. This was tremendously inconvenient, and his ideological fight is against the inconvenience of non-free software.
But software as a service, when it works, and especially when it's gratis, is just so convenient. It's pretty explicit that you don't own it and you can't modify it (whereas non-free sofware vendors can fool you into thinking you "own" something you've licensed). Lots of people seem perfectly happy to sacrifice certain abilities in exchange for that convenience.
What they fail to mention is that prior to 1972, no-one ran. Then jogging was invented and we've regretted it ever since.
My dad (in his early 60s) has an anecdote about his older brother during the jogging craze of the 1970s. My uncle asked what this 'jogging' was. When told, he replied, confused, "that just sounds like going for a run".
Something TFA doesn't mention is that most people buy running shoes off the shelf based on silly considerations like colour, brand loyalty, whatever.
I was recommended a local sports shop where they look at your foot, watch you run on a treadmill, and ask you what kind of running you do (road, trail, track; distance; etc.). That leads to a shortlist of appropriate shoes, then you try those out on the treadmill, and eventually (in theory) leave with shoes that are right for you.
If you over-pronate, and you buy shoes designed for under-pronators, that's likely to lead to injury.
Slashdot Mirror
I remember a day when the composers and songwriters were also the performers.
Nothing has changed in that respect whatsoever. Kanye West writes his own material. Frank Sinatra sang songs written by someone else. Mozart wrote music to be performed by other musicians.
I don't see how much the Artists get from the "0.085p for each track streamed".
I bet it's extremely low.
Bear in mind the PRS represents songwriters. So the performer gets nothing from this, unless they're also the songwriter.
As such a fair proportion of what's collected should go to the songwriter - since the PRS is not in itself a profit making institution, and this money doesn't go towards record company expenses such as marketing.
There's no way it's p=pounds.
A stream is rightly worth less than a tenth of a penny.
This boat was owned by venture capitalists. If that steel was really worth more money than they got for this venture, believe me they'd have done that.
- A swimming test whereby you have to swim 200 meters
- A treading water test whereby you have to tread water for 10 minutes
- Shore dives whereby with all your gear on you've got to walk out and then swim to a dive buoy.
Fair play, these are moderately challenging.
- A "Controlled Emergency Swimming Ascent" (CESA) test whereby you have to steadly swim to the surface exhaling continously in a low/out of air situation from a depth of around 15 meters (need good lung capacity).
In fact (and this will appeal to geeks) you can do a CESA starting with near-empty lungs, because as you ascend pressure decreases and the air expands. There are definite psychological barriers that make it a challenge. Geeks who can put faith in what they know about Newtonian physics might do better than most!
It may well be wider than it is tall - in which case if it rolls the top will be more shallow.
As discussed in another thread - you don't have to dive to the bottom. There's lots of popular wrecks that beginners (or even advanced recreational divers) don't reach to the bottom of.
This may all be true.
But to make a real economic evaluation of this, we'd also need to know the worth of having a man made reef right there, and the cost of the various alternative ways of creating one.
If that spot really needed a reef, maybe one made out of reclaimed steel is the best way to make one. And one where the steel is already assembled into a suitable shape - so much the better.
Yes, I'm sure it'll be nice for the fish and a few extreme divers
Why do you say 'extreme' divers?
I suspect this thing will be swarming with dive tours every day the weather allows.
I'm not sure about feet, but I wouldn't like to be 43 metres below the surface.
40m is PADI's absolute limit - with their Advanced Open Water certification - and their tables let you stay there for a very short time.
However, you'd probably not find it unpleasant at that depth - it's easy to keep going deeper if you don't monitor your gauge. It's deep enough to risk nitrogen narcosis - that 'just' makes you euphoric and foolish, like being drunk, and clears up immediately if you just swim up a bit.
aside from anything else, it will be a good training site for people who want to dive 'real' wrecks.
I'm no reef expert, but these things take a really long time to have coral start growing on these to the point where you'd want to go diving down to see them.
For some time, this will be a recognisable ship - that's a cool thing to dive around in itself. Wreck diving is a fairly popular specialisation.
In addition, while coral takes a long time to grow, other plant life takes hold much more quickly, and fish will seek refuge anywhere there's shelter. Go snorkeling somewhere sandy - if you want to see fish, you'll need to find a boulder.
Finally, coral does take hold in human timescales. When Bali started attracting tourists, they quarried coral reefs to build hotels, with diasterous results - not only were the reefs lost, but it resulted in serious beach erosion. The practice was banned but the damage was done. Where I stayed, they had dumped huge concrete blocks where the reef used to be. Already coral was recolonising, anenomes and tropical fish were everywhere. It'll take years before it fully recovers - but not thousands of years, or even hundreds.
Sure, I'd imagine the number of geek divers might is pretty limited, but I do know a few.
It's actually quite a geeky activity. Although being unfit makes decompression sickness more likely, it's not an activity that requires much in the way of physical prowess. There's maths in those dive tables, or if you prefer gadgets there's dive computers. Not that there's not plenty of gadgetry involved in the breathing apparatus side of things.
Then there's the geekery of exploring a different world - it's amazing what's there underwater. And (as PADI put it) "floating weightless like an astronaut" (which you don't really, but there you go).
The thing that scares me more is geeks who think they can second guess the tolerances in the dive tables. I'd rather turn my brain off and obey them to the letter.
The recreational limit is 130 feet. So you won't be able to look at the very bottom of the hull. The rest will be much higher. Even beginners will be able to hover over the deck.
I'm sorry, but unless you want to be the next Hoobastank or some such nonsense, those things are completely unnecessary.
If you want to actually sell enough CDs (or novels, or software, or greetings cards, or whatever) to make anything like a living, you need marketing.
If you write the Great American Novel, put it up on Lulu, and wait for the income to roll in, you'll sell 20 copies if you're lucky. To do better you've got to send review copies to magazines and web sites, persuade them you're worth interviewing for an article, get some viral marketing going for your product etc.
The same would go for a CD, even if you're not going for the mainstream. Get a reputation for live shows. Get written about in the specialist press. Get played on specialist radio shows or net radio. Get blogged about.
The OP's right. Traditional record labels do all this stuff, and that's part of where the money goes.
Still, it's all stuff you can DIY, or have done separately.
non-populist, meditative, complex
... and yet they way I learned it existed was through bus stop posters of a woman in a vest with a shotgun slung over her shoulder.
Target your marketing.
none of the new Star Wars were actually that boring due to all the big-budget CGI/effects.
Yes, it was the script and the acting that made them ponderously boring.
Condoms for casual sex and burgeoning relationships.
Other methods for long term relationships between people who trust each other.
I think there's an element of myopia, yes. Remember the incident that set RMS on his course: he was flabbergasted when he discovered he wasn't allowed to modify the source code for a printer driver. This was tremendously inconvenient, and his ideological fight is against the inconvenience of non-free software.
But software as a service, when it works, and especially when it's gratis, is just so convenient. It's pretty explicit that you don't own it and you can't modify it (whereas non-free sofware vendors can fool you into thinking you "own" something you've licensed). Lots of people seem perfectly happy to sacrifice certain abilities in exchange for that convenience.
I imagine most running injuries are caused by accidents, rather than lack of wisdom.
Mostly, I suspect we're not talking of accidents (e.g. falling over, twisting an ankle, etc.) but of repetitive strain, etc.
If it works for you, it should work for me too. Thanks!
Not so. Feet and gait vary a lot, and (for that reason) so do running shoes. Find a shop that will look at your feet and your gait, and advise you.
Those things look brilliant. I'm trying some on next time I'm in North America, or when they get some British stockists. Whichever comes first.
What they fail to mention is that prior to 1972, no-one ran. Then jogging was invented and we've regretted it ever since.
My dad (in his early 60s) has an anecdote about his older brother during the jogging craze of the 1970s. My uncle asked what this 'jogging' was. When told, he replied, confused, "that just sounds like going for a run".
Something TFA doesn't mention is that most people buy running shoes off the shelf based on silly considerations like colour, brand loyalty, whatever.
I was recommended a local sports shop where they look at your foot, watch you run on a treadmill, and ask you what kind of running you do (road, trail, track; distance; etc.). That leads to a shortlist of appropriate shoes, then you try those out on the treadmill, and eventually (in theory) leave with shoes that are right for you.
If you over-pronate, and you buy shoes designed for under-pronators, that's likely to lead to injury.
I wish I had mod points.