"Robbins and Sarandon have a reputation for telling slanderous lies against their political opponents, and interjecting them into non-political situations."
OK, I missed something. Tell me again why it was right to remove Robbins and Sarandon from the Cooperstown ceremony? I'm not asking why Petroskey did it - that's been established - I'm asking you why it was right. Since when did having a political opinion make it wrong for you to speak on other, unrelated topics?
I agree, and have stated above, that my assertion that Petroskey's actions were illegal was a overstatement and factually incorrect. Obviously Petroskey had the power to do what he did. But it's wrong.
I'm honestly missing your chain of logic here. If Petrosky wanted to PROTECT the Baseball HOF, that would be one thing - although I still don't see what he would be protecting it from. However, Petroskey WAS protecting the President by attempting to quell dissenting speech via intimidation. The message Petroskey was sending was, "Speak against the President, and Republicans everywhere will mod you down!" I mean, it's not like Robbins and Sarandon were going to finally get out of debt because of the paycheck from this event. It was intended to honor their contribution to baseball, and was taken away as punishment for disagreeing with Petroskey's puppet masters. Where is the right in that?
Ask them not to talk politics, certainly. Refuse to continue the ceremony if their insisted on being political, fine. Those actions could be seen as protecting the HOF. But you said that both sides were within their rights to do what they did - what did Robbins and Sarandon do? They expressed their opinion, publically, on matters unrelated to baseball in a forum unrelated to baseball. They didn't say anything at the HOF about politics. The only reason their political views came into play AT ALL is because Petroskey disagreed with them and wanted to stop them from expressing those beliefs.
It's pretty obvious that Petroskey's talk of "putting troops in danger" was pointing out that their stance caused their removal. It's also sheer rhetoric, with no basis in fact. Do you really think some Marine just died in Fallujah because Tim Robbins disagreed with Bush? I think it's much more likely that some person with a gun SHOT that Marine, and that person has no idea who Tim Robbins is or what the infield fly rule entails.
I don't believe he does have that right. He may have that power (obviously does), but not that right.
Quoting:"The National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum is a not-for-profit educational institution dedicated to fostering an appreciation of the historical development of the game and its impact on our culture by collecting, preserving, exhibiting and interpreting its collections for a global audience, as well as honoring those who have made outstanding contributions to our National Pastime."
Says nothing about making political statements or endorsing political positions, which is exactly what Petroskey did.
His own statements, "We believe your very public criticism of President Bush at this important -- and sensitive -- time in our nation's history helps undermine the U.S. position, which ultimately could put our troops in even more danger. As an institution, we stand behind our President and our troops in this conflict," show that his motives were not to protect his institution, but to protect the President politically. You DO remember that he's the former press secretary for Bush's dad's old running mate, right? He even calls it patriotism, says he's protecting U.S. troops in the field. But only a total moron would believe the balderdash about putting our troops in danger - you're not a moron, are you? He was one step short of calling Robbins and Sarandon terrorists - and you KNOW he thought about it.
The worst part, to me, is that the letter of apology that Petroskey sent me didn't apologize for being a repressive prick - it apologized for not calling them to cancel instead of sending the letter.
I must confess that I probably did overstate that part. It's a stretch to extend the prohibition against governmental suppression of free speech to a former governmental shill (nice word, BTW). Hey, I can wish, right?
Re:Silicon? Relatively Insignificant? Less than th
on
iPod Mini Design Flaw?
·
· Score: 1
Thanks, Saroth2. It had not occurred to me that people might interpret my use of the word 'silicon' to mean the actual raw materials involved in manufacturing integrated circuits. I, of course, referred to the subset of parts used in the manufacture of the Mini iPod which could all be described as semiconductor-based devices - things such as integrated circuit microprocessors, discrete transistors and diodes, audio amplifier ICs, etc.
Now, it's interesting to analyze your assertion that the Si in a $100 processor costs $2. At what point in the process are you describing the cost? At the raw materials collections stage (mining)? After the raw Si is refined and converted to amorphous Si? After the amorphous Si has been grown into a large crystal, suitable for cutting into wafers? The wafers of silicon, doped, polished, and ready to be processed? The bare dice, patterned and etched with the circuitry? Before or after testing? Packaging? Do we get to count things like the development cost of the chip design? The development cost of the fabrication process? The masks used in the photolithography, whereby the patterns are etched and implanted into the silicon? How big of a piece of silicon are we talking, here?
At some point in the chain of events between beach sand (not really) and packaged IC, the cost of the silicon goes from considerably less than $2 to considerably greater, in a reasonably large processor in a reasonably small (feature size) fabrication process.
In case I haven't made my point strongly enough:
Yes. I have a clue. I also have a master's in EE, including coursework in IC fabrication. This coursework included far more detail into the economics of IC fabrication than I was really interested in. I've designed IC's. I have some clue.
What I was saying, in the manner that I frankly expected Slashdot-type geeks to understand, is that the cost of the electronic components (excepting the CF-sized hard drive) inside of an iPod Mini is negligible compared to the costs of design, assembly, testing, etc. Marketing, too.
Of course, I also kinda thought all that was a bit obvious. Perhaps my area of cluelessness is my habit of assuming an unrealistically large level of cluefulness to those around me.
See, I disagree. Neither Sarandon nor Robbins intended to make the ceremony a political forum. Petroskey didn't ask them not to. He simply decided, unilaterally, that people who thought the way Sarandon and Robbins did shouldn't be allowed to speak in public.
In so doing, Petroskey politicized the Baseball HOF much more strongly than Robbins or Sarandon could have.
He made no attempts to control the content, like by asking Robbins and Sarandon to keep their speech non-political and centered on baseball and the movie being celebrated. His intention was to *punish* Robbins and Sarandon for saying what they believed and he didn't like. That, my friend, is the stifling of free speech. Let us not forget that Dale Petroskey served under President Ronald Reagan as press secretary. While he may not currently be a government official, it's clear that his actions were politically motivated and intended to act as political protection for the sitting President.
It IS the stifling of free speech, both directly and by intimidation. Moreover, it is wrong. Morally and legally.
Worked better, cost less. Died out not due to inferior quality, but because of lack of vendor support caused primarily by Microsoft's illegal anti-competitive behavior. Be, Inc won the court decision, but it was all over at that point.
We could talk about Outlook Express, too, if you wanted - but I don't know of anything comparable. How much does OE cost? For the purposes of this discussion, I mean. Or IE? How would we compare the cost vs. quality of (say) Internet Explorer, Mozilla/Netscape, and Opera?
I agree, it's apples and oranges. I don't think you can compare the quality and price of software that an OS vendor bundles for free to anything intended as a standalone product.
However, I fail to see how any discussion of Microsoft is relevant to the topic at hand. I never said anything about MS. Neither did the poor confused gentleman I was replying to.
Yes. You are right. I think a more accurate term would be "CF-sized". There are three things which define Compact Flash: physical size, electrical interface, and storage medium. It's noteworthy that the CF interface *IS* IDE, with a different connector. IBM (now Toshiba) has been making CF-sized Microdrives for years, and I will admit to having referred to them as being "CF hard drives." This is unfortunate.
I suppose it's possible that grandparent poster knew that it was a hard drive. My apologies if he did.
So, uhh, like... do you really have an operational 20B 'vert? Cause, like, umm... I went to your website, only it didn't work.
Seriously, I can't imagine a car much cooler than a functional 'vert with even a bone-stock 20B. I get shivers thinking about it. I've got a 'vert with a streetport by Pettit Racing, but you're talking about a whole different level. Cool.
Oh, well, then, HELL! Why don't you just glue a 4 GB CompactFlash card to an LCD screen, toss a scrollwheel on, and beat Apple at the iPod game?
I tell you why. It's because you, sir, are a dumbass. Let me count the ways:
1. It's a 4GB miniature hard drive. Not a CF.
2. It also contains a microprocessor and related hardware which: talk to the hard drive over the ATA bus; parse the filesystem; keep track of the songs in a (relatively) intelligent and rational way; feed data to an MP3 decoder chip; manage to keep said MP3 decoder chip fed properly, i.e. not too much and not too little, but just enough, Goldilocks; interpret your input and figure out what it is that you want it to do; and talk to the aforementioned LCD screen. Not just "making the scroll wheel work", thank you.
3. The actual cost of the silicon I've described - not counting the hard drive - is relatively insignificant, it's true. Especially in the large quantities Apple are purchasing. So? Design, assembly, testing, etc. are not insignificant costs for such a device. I've been there; I know. At NO point have we discussed the software design, the UI design, or the industrial/mechanical design. These are also significant.
I challenge you - you, personally! - to develop a design of similar quality and capabilities for even as little as twice the cost, at twice the size and half the battery life. It's a pretty safe bet that you can't. When you figure in the cost of the hard drive (it's a Toshiba; look it up), there's no way you can come close. The only thing you've said that's even remotely correct is that it's barely worth $250. That's kinda cool, really. If it was worth more, it would cost more. I personally like it when stuff is worth what I paid for it.
Frankly, until you know something about designing a consumer device this complicated, your opinion about how good a job Apple did isn't worth squat. But who knows? Give Apple a call. Tell them you read on some website how bad a job they did, and tell 'em you can do it better. Be sure to have a tape recorder ready to preserve the sound of hysterical laughter.
You know, I don't want to sound callous or cruel...
...but I am, so that's how it sometimes comes out.
Some of us, who haven't experienced the problems you describe for several years and back several versions, have legitimate concerns that you might be engaging in the time-honored practice of "trolling".
I realize that my experiences are not necessarily representative of everyone else's - but none of that stuff you describe has happened to me in years. My linux installs go quickly and smoothly, and more hardware works than I expected or even hoped for.
Should things be easier? Yes. Do they happen the way you've described? Yes - if you're installed RedHat 6.0. Are you really describing the state of Linux today? Or are you digging old grudges up like a nightmare girlfriend?
Yes, but you know (or ought to) that marketing, recording costs, returns, promotions, etc. are usually recoupable expenses in standard artists' contracts . Any money spent by the record company on those things is recouped from the artist, out of the (roughly) $1 that the artist makes in royalties.
Now, if you want to say that the record company deserves that extraordinarily disproportionate level of recompensation for taking the risk on the artist, that's at least a somewhat legitimate argument. But you didn't. And I'd disagree on that, as well. However, that's an opinion. The part about recoupable expenses isn't.
Yes, that's true. You pay for all of those things. And all of them come out of the $1 per disc that the artist makes. The other $15? Profit to the chain and the label.
So: $0.40 per disc for mechanical reproduction. $1 per disc for artist's royalties, out of which are eventually taken all of those costs you mentioned. Add $2 for the label to profit, add $1 for the label to cover risks (poor sales, essentially subsidizing poor records with the good sellers) and double everything for the chain to make a profit. That's $8.80.
Where's the other $7.20? Sitting on Capitol Hill passing laws to keep the profit margins up.
Now, your point about other songs on the disc is opinion, and thus perfectly acceptable. But the first part is about facts, and you don't have enough.
"so the artist get more money to pay back the record company" -- WTF? What the HELL are you smoking?
That's not how it works. The artist gets MAYBE $1 per disc, if it's Madonna or Springsteen or someone else with leverage at contract time. If it's a Columbia House disc, the artist gets about a nickel. All the fronted costs are taken out of that $1 per disc - the artist doesn't receive a larger percentage so that the record company can get paid back faster.
The primary expense of a CD is 1) markup by the chain and 2) profit to the record company. The artist pays (eventually) for nearly all the costs, and gets nearly none of the profits.
Don't tell other people how ignorant they are until you, yourself, understand their subject. Just a suggestion.
OK, I'll bite. Are you saying that Tesla is overrated? Or that the Barnes and Noble thing is proof of how thoroughly his contributions to modern society are discounted by mainstream history?
Do you think his contributions were minor and meaningless, or seminal and suppressed?
I tell ya, one of these days I'll be able to buy a DVD of Bill Hicks' "Revelations", the HBO special, and finally replace the VHS off-air copy some shithead stole because it was in my VCR at the time. That day will be a good day.
Let's sum up: 1) George W. says in an interview that, "I hope, though, that whatever settlement is done it won't ruin this company because this company has been a very interesting innovator, and so I hope the judge would keep in mind that this company is an important part of the technological revolution taking place in America." This is politician-speak, of course, but certainly sounds to me like G.W. doesn't want to break up Microsoft.
2) Soon after G.W. takes office, the breakup of Microsoft is cancelled. John Ashcroft personally testifies that the settlement, which I previously characterized as a slap on the wrist, is such that the government "believes it has established a basis for relief that would end Microsoft's unlawful conduct, prevent its recurrence and open the operating-systems market to competition." I personally think that events have disproven this, but you are welcome to disagree.
Now, if you need more convincing, you're more work than I care to do. I haven't proven that G.W. got on the phone and put a fix in. Nor have you disproven it. However, the preponderance of available evidence suggests that the breakup was, in fact, derailed by the Bush administration.
Well, I have to admit that I'm surprised that this wasn't more common knowledge... another commenter posted this link which at least shows G.W.'s opinion on the subject... I don't recall where I saw the story in which it was reported that G.W. handed down the mandate, but I'll go look.
Will a story published by a real news site satisfy you? After all, I wasn't actually there, so I personally didn't hear it happen. However, pretty much anything published by (say) cnn.com is hearsay, if you personally weren't there.
"i wasnt aware that he had any opinions towards/against old billy boy"
Then - no offense - your awareness is incomplete. Microsoft was found to be guilty of anti-competitive practices. The DOJ recommended breaking up Microsoft. This sound familiar?
George W. handed down the proclamation from on high that the Justice department was no longer allowed to pursue a breakup of Microsoft. This took the wind right out of the sails of the DOJ's case, and Miscrosoft ended up with a slap on the wrist and a request not to do it again.
I'm guessing that GWB's feelings about Microsoft may be *directly* related to the size of some campaign contributions he's received...
Slashdot Mirror
"Robbins and Sarandon have a reputation for telling slanderous lies against their political opponents, and interjecting them into non-political situations."
They do?
OK, I missed something. Tell me again why it was right to remove Robbins and Sarandon from the Cooperstown ceremony? I'm not asking why Petroskey did it - that's been established - I'm asking you why it was right. Since when did having a political opinion make it wrong for you to speak on other, unrelated topics?
I agree, and have stated above, that my assertion that Petroskey's actions were illegal was a overstatement and factually incorrect. Obviously Petroskey had the power to do what he did. But it's wrong.
I'm honestly missing your chain of logic here. If Petrosky wanted to PROTECT the Baseball HOF, that would be one thing - although I still don't see what he would be protecting it from. However, Petroskey WAS protecting the President by attempting to quell dissenting speech via intimidation. The message Petroskey was sending was, "Speak against the President, and Republicans everywhere will mod you down!" I mean, it's not like Robbins and Sarandon were going to finally get out of debt because of the paycheck from this event. It was intended to honor their contribution to baseball, and was taken away as punishment for disagreeing with Petroskey's puppet masters. Where is the right in that?
Ask them not to talk politics, certainly. Refuse to continue the ceremony if their insisted on being political, fine. Those actions could be seen as protecting the HOF. But you said that both sides were within their rights to do what they did - what did Robbins and Sarandon do? They expressed their opinion, publically, on matters unrelated to baseball in a forum unrelated to baseball. They didn't say anything at the HOF about politics. The only reason their political views came into play AT ALL is because Petroskey disagreed with them and wanted to stop them from expressing those beliefs.
It's pretty obvious that Petroskey's talk of "putting troops in danger" was pointing out that their stance caused their removal. It's also sheer rhetoric, with no basis in fact. Do you really think some Marine just died in Fallujah because Tim Robbins disagreed with Bush? I think it's much more likely that some person with a gun SHOT that Marine, and that person has no idea who Tim Robbins is or what the infield fly rule entails.
I don't believe he does have that right. He may have that power (obviously does), but not that right.
Quoting:"The National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum is a not-for-profit educational institution dedicated to fostering an appreciation of the historical development of the game and its impact on our culture by collecting, preserving, exhibiting and interpreting its collections for a global audience, as well as honoring those who have made outstanding contributions to our National Pastime."
Says nothing about making political statements or endorsing political positions, which is exactly what Petroskey did.
His own statements, "We believe your very public criticism of President Bush at this important -- and sensitive -- time in our nation's history helps undermine the U.S. position, which ultimately could put our troops in even more danger. As an institution, we stand behind our President and our troops in this conflict," show that his motives were not to protect his institution, but to protect the President politically. You DO remember that he's the former press secretary for Bush's dad's old running mate, right?
He even calls it patriotism, says he's protecting U.S. troops in the field. But only a total moron would believe the balderdash about putting our troops in danger - you're not a moron, are you? He was one step short of calling Robbins and Sarandon terrorists - and you KNOW he thought about it.
The worst part, to me, is that the letter of apology that Petroskey sent me didn't apologize for being a repressive prick - it apologized for not calling them to cancel instead of sending the letter.
I must confess that I probably did overstate that part. It's a stretch to extend the prohibition against governmental suppression of free speech to a former governmental shill (nice word, BTW). Hey, I can wish, right?
Thanks, Saroth2. It had not occurred to me that people might interpret my use of the word 'silicon' to mean the actual raw materials involved in manufacturing integrated circuits. I, of course, referred to the subset of parts used in the manufacture of the Mini iPod which could all be described as semiconductor-based devices - things such as integrated circuit microprocessors, discrete transistors and diodes, audio amplifier ICs, etc.
Now, it's interesting to analyze your assertion that the Si in a $100 processor costs $2. At what point in the process are you describing the cost? At the raw materials collections stage (mining)? After the raw Si is refined and converted to amorphous Si? After the amorphous Si has been grown into a large crystal, suitable for cutting into wafers? The wafers of silicon, doped, polished, and ready to be processed? The bare dice, patterned and etched with the circuitry? Before or after testing? Packaging? Do we get to count things like the development cost of the chip design? The development cost of the fabrication process? The masks used in the photolithography, whereby the patterns are etched and implanted into the silicon? How big of a piece of silicon are we talking, here?
At some point in the chain of events between beach sand (not really) and packaged IC, the cost of the silicon goes from considerably less than $2 to considerably greater, in a reasonably large processor in a reasonably small (feature size) fabrication process.
In case I haven't made my point strongly enough:
Yes. I have a clue. I also have a master's in EE, including coursework in IC fabrication. This coursework included far more detail into the economics of IC fabrication than I was really interested in. I've designed IC's. I have some clue.
What I was saying, in the manner that I frankly expected Slashdot-type geeks to understand, is that the cost of the electronic components (excepting the CF-sized hard drive) inside of an iPod Mini is negligible compared to the costs of design, assembly, testing, etc. Marketing, too.
Of course, I also kinda thought all that was a bit obvious. Perhaps my area of cluelessness is my habit of assuming an unrealistically large level of cluefulness to those around me.
See, I disagree. Neither Sarandon nor Robbins intended to make the ceremony a political forum. Petroskey didn't ask them not to. He simply decided, unilaterally, that people who thought the way Sarandon and Robbins did shouldn't be allowed to speak in public.
In so doing, Petroskey politicized the Baseball HOF much more strongly than Robbins or Sarandon could have.
He made no attempts to control the content, like by asking Robbins and Sarandon to keep their speech non-political and centered on baseball and the movie being celebrated. His intention was to *punish* Robbins and Sarandon for saying what they believed and he didn't like. That, my friend, is the stifling of free speech. Let us not forget that Dale Petroskey served under President Ronald Reagan as press secretary. While he may not currently be a government official, it's clear that his actions were politically motivated and intended to act as political protection for the sitting President.
It IS the stifling of free speech, both directly and by intimidation. Moreover, it is wrong. Morally and legally.
Well, OK, if you insist.
BeOS.
Worked better, cost less. Died out not due to inferior quality, but because of lack of vendor support caused primarily by Microsoft's illegal anti-competitive behavior. Be, Inc won the court decision, but it was all over at that point.
We could talk about Outlook Express, too, if you wanted - but I don't know of anything comparable. How much does OE cost? For the purposes of this discussion, I mean. Or IE? How would we compare the cost vs. quality of (say) Internet Explorer, Mozilla/Netscape, and Opera?
I agree, it's apples and oranges. I don't think you can compare the quality and price of software that an OS vendor bundles for free to anything intended as a standalone product.
However, I fail to see how any discussion of Microsoft is relevant to the topic at hand. I never said anything about MS. Neither did the poor confused gentleman I was replying to.
Was there a point to your comment?
Yes. You are right. I think a more accurate term would be "CF-sized". There are three things which define Compact Flash: physical size, electrical interface, and storage medium. It's noteworthy that the CF interface *IS* IDE, with a different connector. IBM (now Toshiba) has been making CF-sized Microdrives for years, and I will admit to having referred to them as being "CF hard drives." This is unfortunate.
I suppose it's possible that grandparent poster knew that it was a hard drive. My apologies if he did.
So, uhh, like... do you really have an operational 20B 'vert? Cause, like, umm... I went to your website, only it didn't work.
Seriously, I can't imagine a car much cooler than a functional 'vert with even a bone-stock 20B. I get shivers thinking about it. I've got a 'vert with a streetport by Pettit Racing, but you're talking about a whole different level. Cool.
Oh, well, then, HELL! Why don't you just glue a 4 GB CompactFlash card to an LCD screen, toss a scrollwheel on, and beat Apple at the iPod game?
I tell you why. It's because you, sir, are a dumbass. Let me count the ways:
1. It's a 4GB miniature hard drive. Not a CF.
2. It also contains a microprocessor and related hardware which: talk to the hard drive over the ATA bus; parse the filesystem; keep track of the songs in a (relatively) intelligent and rational way; feed data to an MP3 decoder chip; manage to keep said MP3 decoder chip fed properly, i.e. not too much and not too little, but just enough, Goldilocks; interpret your input and figure out what it is that you want it to do; and talk to the aforementioned LCD screen. Not just "making the scroll wheel work", thank you.
3. The actual cost of the silicon I've described - not counting the hard drive - is relatively insignificant, it's true. Especially in the large quantities Apple are purchasing. So? Design, assembly, testing, etc. are not insignificant costs for such a device. I've been there; I know. At NO point have we discussed the software design, the UI design, or the industrial/mechanical design. These are also significant.
I challenge you - you, personally! - to develop a design of similar quality and capabilities for even as little as twice the cost, at twice the size and half the battery life. It's a pretty safe bet that you can't. When you figure in the cost of the hard drive (it's a Toshiba; look it up), there's no way you can come close. The only thing you've said that's even remotely correct is that it's barely worth $250. That's kinda cool, really. If it was worth more, it would cost more. I personally like it when stuff is worth what I paid for it.
Frankly, until you know something about designing a consumer device this complicated, your opinion about how good a job Apple did isn't worth squat. But who knows? Give Apple a call. Tell them you read on some website how bad a job they did, and tell 'em you can do it better. Be sure to have a tape recorder ready to preserve the sound of hysterical laughter.
Sheesh.
With a KSharpie?
May I just say thank you? Your requests were ever so much more pertinent and current than the parent poster's.
You know, I don't want to sound callous or cruel...
...but I am, so that's how it sometimes comes out.
Some of us, who haven't experienced the problems you describe for several years and back several versions, have legitimate concerns that you might be engaging in the time-honored practice of "trolling".
I realize that my experiences are not necessarily representative of everyone else's - but none of that stuff you describe has happened to me in years. My linux installs go quickly and smoothly, and more hardware works than I expected or even hoped for.
Should things be easier? Yes. Do they happen the way you've described? Yes - if you're installed RedHat 6.0. Are you really describing the state of Linux today? Or are you digging old grudges up like a nightmare girlfriend?
Yes, but you know (or ought to) that marketing, recording costs, returns, promotions, etc. are usually recoupable expenses in standard artists' contracts . Any money spent by the record company on those things is recouped from the artist, out of the (roughly) $1 that the artist makes in royalties.
Now, if you want to say that the record company deserves that extraordinarily disproportionate level of recompensation for taking the risk on the artist, that's at least a somewhat legitimate argument. But you didn't. And I'd disagree on that, as well. However, that's an opinion. The part about recoupable expenses isn't.
Yes, that's true. You pay for all of those things. And all of them come out of the $1 per disc that the artist makes. The other $15? Profit to the chain and the label.
So: $0.40 per disc for mechanical reproduction. $1 per disc for artist's royalties, out of which are eventually taken all of those costs you mentioned. Add $2 for the label to profit, add $1 for the label to cover risks (poor sales, essentially subsidizing poor records with the good sellers) and double everything for the chain to make a profit. That's $8.80.
Where's the other $7.20? Sitting on Capitol Hill passing laws to keep the profit margins up.
Now, your point about other songs on the disc is opinion, and thus perfectly acceptable. But the first part is about facts, and you don't have enough.
"so the artist get more money to pay back the record company" -- WTF? What the HELL are you smoking?
That's not how it works. The artist gets MAYBE $1 per disc, if it's Madonna or Springsteen or someone else with leverage at contract time. If it's a Columbia House disc, the artist gets about a nickel. All the fronted costs are taken out of that $1 per disc - the artist doesn't receive a larger percentage so that the record company can get paid back faster.
The primary expense of a CD is 1) markup by the chain and 2) profit to the record company. The artist pays (eventually) for nearly all the costs, and gets nearly none of the profits.
Don't tell other people how ignorant they are until you, yourself, understand their subject. Just a suggestion.
OK, I'll bite. Are you saying that Tesla is overrated? Or that the Barnes and Noble thing is proof of how thoroughly his contributions to modern society are discounted by mainstream history?
Do you think his contributions were minor and meaningless, or seminal and suppressed?
"Word are cheap" ... but apparently /. charges by the 's'? :-)
I tell ya, one of these days I'll be able to buy a DVD of Bill Hicks' "Revelations", the HBO special, and finally replace the VHS off-air copy some shithead stole because it was in my VCR at the time. That day will be a good day.
Oh, MAN! AIRWOLF! That was so COOL!
:-)
Jan Michael Vincent! Physics-defying Helicopters! Adventure!
And YOU were the one who brought it up.
Hey, it's cool, man. I share your pain. But it'll be easier if you just let it out, ya know? :-)
Congrats on the wrestling thing, though.
Oh, yeah - Roll Tide.
How about this one... Bush Administration Stops Microsoft Breakup? Or this one? Or this one?
Let's sum up:
1) George W. says in an interview that, "I hope, though, that whatever settlement is done it won't ruin this company because this company has been a very interesting innovator, and so I hope the judge would keep in mind that this company is an important part of the technological revolution taking place in America." This is politician-speak, of course, but certainly sounds to me like G.W. doesn't want to break up Microsoft.
2) Soon after G.W. takes office, the breakup of Microsoft is cancelled. John Ashcroft personally testifies that the settlement, which I previously characterized as a slap on the wrist, is such that the government "believes it has established a basis for relief that would end Microsoft's unlawful conduct, prevent its recurrence and open the operating-systems market to competition." I personally think that events have disproven this, but you are welcome to disagree.
Now, if you need more convincing, you're more work than I care to do. I haven't proven that G.W. got on the phone and put a fix in. Nor have you disproven it. However, the preponderance of available evidence suggests that the breakup was, in fact, derailed by the Bush administration.
Well, I have to admit that I'm surprised that this wasn't more common knowledge... another commenter posted this link which at least shows G.W.'s opinion on the subject... I don't recall where I saw the story in which it was reported that G.W. handed down the mandate, but I'll go look.
Will a story published by a real news site satisfy you? After all, I wasn't actually there, so I personally didn't hear it happen. However, pretty much anything published by (say) cnn.com is hearsay, if you personally weren't there.
Stanford's week just got a bit tougher, I'm afraid.
"i wasnt aware that he had any opinions towards/against old billy boy"
Then - no offense - your awareness is incomplete.
Microsoft was found to be guilty of anti-competitive practices. The DOJ recommended breaking up Microsoft. This sound familiar?
George W. handed down the proclamation from on high that the Justice department was no longer allowed to pursue a breakup of Microsoft.
This took the wind right out of the sails of the DOJ's case, and Miscrosoft ended up with a slap on the wrist and a request not to do it again.
I'm guessing that GWB's feelings about Microsoft may be *directly* related to the size of some campaign contributions he's received...