this seriously stinks of hollywood making up news as a blockbuster is about to be released. they did it before with all those asteroid movies and then again with all those mars movies a few years ago.
from the article: Paramount's latest sci-fi thriller, The Core - directed by Englishman Jon Amiel, and starring Hilary Swank and Aaron Eckhart - depicts a world beset by just such a polar reversal, with radiation sweeping the planet.
actually i didn't really see SLC Punk as a movie about punk rock, per se. in fact, it really only uesd the whole "explaining punk rock" and "chaos theory" ramblings as a metaphor for one person's (stevo's) own personal internal conflict and evolution. i thought it was a lot more about self discovery then it was about punk rock.
The DIY ethic, distrust of corporations, and the "scene" are just anarchistic (which doesn't mean punk) ideals.
from the very beginning punk rock has been about these diy and independent ideals. minor threat, dead kennedys, etc. continuing on into today. and there are very good reasons for this. it's not just anarchist ideals put to music. it's bands wanting to focus on the music and the show rather than the business, the package, the marketing, and all the sleaze involved in trying to "make it". most punk bands are just out there doing all the things that matter -- playing shows, writing music, putting out CDs or records -- and none of the things that don't -- paying off DJ's, shmoozing, marketing, advertising, trying to cater to the lowest common denominator, etc.
we distrust corporations because they have earned our distrust. good friends of mine, a band called Violent Society, is currently owed over $40,000 by their record label. i've watched other friends' bands get screwed over in similar ways. plus there's the whole RIAA, who want only to insure the profits of the executives at the major labels. true story: i have a friend, she used to work for a major label. her JOB was to call up DJ's and say "hey, i've got two trips to disneyland i'd like to give you, for you to give to your listeners in a contest. in exchange, i want to hear the new Limp Bizkit single 40 times a week. and, if you keep one of those trips for yourself, i'm sure we won't notice." she quit because she couldn't face herself anymore. if you don't actively oppose this system, then you are only reinforcing it. music shouldn't be this slimy. and it's the money that did it. punk bands operate outside of that greed. we take ourselves out of that game.
Politics and music should be kept entirely separate -- idolizing someone like Jello Biafra or, on the other end, Ian Stuart can lead to some blind political choices.
there's nothing wrong with music being about something. frankly songs about girls or how cool the singer is or nothing at all bore the fuck out of me. to each his own, man, don't act like your opinion is fact. i enjoy listening to music whose lyrics actually make me think or even educate or enlighten me. propagandhi in particular is a band whose lyrics are at the same time both political and personal, deeply accurate and informed as well as emotional. they also tell you up front that you shouldn't make opinions based on theirs, or take what they say as fact. they want you to read the papers and make your own decisions.
Punk itself is long dead and still lingers in forms of trendies, poseurs, emofags, Blink 182, and Straight Edge Earth Crisis idiots.
you couldn't be more wrong. the underground punk scene is alive and well, has been that way since its birth in, what, the mid 70's, and will still be here once all this nu-metal crap has gone the way of that swing craze a few years ago. my band plays hardcore punk rock, like minor threat or the dead kennedys, and we play literally about 100 shows a year. and there are bands in every major city right now with gobs of integrity and heart, pounding out punk shows, doing it just like we do. i guess you won't know they're there if you don't go out and look for these shows. you won't hear em on the radio and you won't see them on mtv, cuz they don't have that kind of funding, but i guarantee their shows are more fun than 20 metallica concerts. we're not the "latest thing" but we'll still be here when the latest thing is dead and buried.
The Sex Pistols and all the bands that spawned from it seriously degraded music. As much as you may have liked their attitudes, punk requires no real talent -- they could barely even play a few power chords on their instruments.
that was the point! music doesn't have to be acrobatic to be fun to listen to. listen to the ramones. those are some damn catchy tunes, and none of them could really play. punk was basically about doing the opposite of what everyone else did, and although some punks got insular and turned into elitist jackassas, many (like me) are still around trying to poke holes in convention, expectation, the music industry, "rock stardom", etc etc.
my band plays literally about 100 shows a year, we don't make shit for money, but we have a fucking blast playing the hardest punk you ever heard. i dunno, it's fun. and it's not for money and it's not an egho trip and it's not exploiting stupid people.
Just think how upset you would be if I stole all your songs and said they were mine. Or worse, let's say I stole all the lyrics to your songs, set the to accordian music, and went on a world tour.
actually we'd be thrilled. we don't believe in ownership of sound. or more precisely, we don't believe the idea of intellectual property should extend to art. pretty radical, but hey it's right there in our song lyrics. don't think we're socialists though. IP works fine for software, and yeah capitalism works alright. just when it comes to artistic works, we hold those works above money, and even above those who created them.
If you really want to bring down the established music industry then the best way to do this is to promote bands that work outside the system.
we do this constantly.
Pimping bands that are part of the system doesn't hurt the record labels, it provides free advertisement for their bands.
so first you're complaining that we're ripping them off, then you're saying we're actually helping them with publicity. first of all, i don't think their MP3's on our dinky website do much to hurt their sales, or if they do, it is offset, as you said, by the free publicity. secondly, those bands are only there because we like them. we don't mind promoting them. but whatever. that's all hazy, and i could go either way on that. i suppose i do feel a bit guilty about not having some of those bands' permission.
i have a real job. in fact i own my own computer business. that's sort of the point of the band -- you can be in a touring band and still have time for a 9 to 5. that way you don't have to gouge your fans with ridiculous ticket and merchandise prices. we sell CD's for $5 (they only cost a dollar to make) and t-shirts for $8 (they cost us about $4) and our shows are usually pretty cheap too. not because the product is inferior, but because we are not dependent on the band to make a living.
you're right. i think about taking those other mp3's down all the time, but then i don't. why? well the arguement to take them down goes something like, "you're taking [potential] money out of the pockets of artists you like". but then i realized, giving them money isn't necessarily doing them a favor. i'd rather they stayed independent, DIY, hungry and desperate. it's pretty selfish i suppose. i won't say otherwise.
my band and i firmly believe in free music. when hilary rosen says it threwatens the future of music, she means it threatens the future of the music industry as she and the major labels know it. and i can't imagine anything more worthy of fighting for.
i wanna kill this antiquated centralized distribution model
i don't wanna get fucked anymore by this status quo some coddle
don't let fear keep us bound here.
look across this threshold before it closes up forever
see the hate and rage of chaos see the swarming hell hell hell
fear is natural before the refining fires of change,
you must be afraid but do it anyway
i already fell fell fell
don't let fear keep us bound here.
own yourself, remember where the message comes from
think again, once you have it figured out
ask not, what this world owes you -- it owes you shit.
what will you make of it?
status quo's the real foe, this hell we call these tiny lives
giving up our tiny souls to dead unliving corporations
zombies defend rights of them to won us make us wear their name tags
providing the machinery to keep us working intheir gulags
don't let fear keep us bound here.
time is split and this short fit of choice will quickly pass pass pass
now's our only chance ot make a change that will last
tectonic forces are already moving to intercept you
if we make no move to fuck them, only we will lose lose lose
i ask again: if not now, then when?
i disagree. i'll tell you why, although i know it's not an opinion many people are likely to agree with, both artists and non-artists alike. and that's fine.
anyway. i don't believe that artists should be entitled to a living wage because once it becomes a job, it ceases to be art. the motives change. you can't deny that when there are dollar signs behind something you like to do, it changes the very nature of how you approach doing that thing, no matter if it's painting or singing or snowboarding or, in my case, rocking the fuck out. =]
i'm another musician who wants people to download my music for free. look. most musicians start off like this. they do it because they love it. then some record label comes along and fills the musician's head with promises of bags of money. over time it gets ingrained. must... make... money. then, when the label screws the artist, the label can blame the internet.
my band's solution is to remove money from the equation. take our sounds for free (ok, pay for the hardware -- actual cd's, shirts, etc).
why don't we care about the money? because, and this is the part that pisses other bands off most, we believe we actually OUGHT to have day jobs. yep. and we pull it off, too. we have mortgages and wives and 9-5 day jobs AND we tour once a year AND play gigs about twice a week. in the spring we're touring europe for 4 weeks. this is a lot of hard work. we do it because we love it, not because we want to make a fortune. and, in my opinion, great music has to come from a passionate and difficult place inside. not a comfortable one.
ok now i'm rambling.
anyway, point is, i have no sympathy for a greedy musician. a band CAN survive on enjoyment, love, energy, and passion, without the corrupting notion that the band is a "business". mine is living proof.
a few points first. i am a pretty hardcore rollercoaster enthusiast. the law passed in NJ limits coasters to 5.6 G's. well, i know of none in the world that exceed 5.0 G's. so first of all, the law's completely pointless. it's like banning the sticking forks in your eyes. nobody does it anyway.
second, what few injuries rolloercoaster riders have sustained have NOT come from G forces at all. the ones that weren't the result of a malfunction or user error have come from banging their head into the restraints. this has to do with how well the ride is designed, not the G forces it inflicts. a ride could pull only 1 or two G's but still bloody your ears if it's designed poorly.
third, this is simply setting a bad precedent. first come the G force regulations, then height and speed regulations follow. at this particular point in time, rollercoasters are taking quantum leaps forward technologically. the advent of complex high-speed 3d software and the hardware to run it, along with the current theme park boom, are allowing coasters to go higher and faster than they ever have before, and do so while providing a smoother, safer ride than has ever been experienced. have you ridden a B&M coaster, or one of S&S's thrust air monsters? any legislation concerning height and speed, for example, would quickly become laughably obsolete. 100 feet was once a monster of a hill (in the 80's!). now there are coasters more than 400 feet tall.
roller coasters ARE safe. G-forces are NOT dangerous on any roller coasters operating today.
Actually, there has never been a single case of excessive G-forces causing any kind of injury to anyone.
now, if you want to talk about ride safety, then fine: yes, occasionally either something malfunctions or someone does something stupid (much more often the latter) and someone falls to their death or is struck by a moving train. a mentally handicapped person managed to wriggle out of his harness while on Shockwave at Paramount's Kings Dominion, and subsequently fell to his death. also, this summer, someone hopped a 10-foot fence into a restricted area and was struck by a train. just a week or two ago, several people were injured when a kiddie swing ride tipped over (at a county fair, not an amusement park). these sorts of accidents do happen. but what has never, ever, happened is someone being ijured (or at least being shown to have been injured) as the result of G-forces on a rollercoaster.
Re:To anyone complaing because they have old syste
on
AMD Delays Hammer
·
· Score: 2, Troll
Now, after Athlons have been out for a long, LONG time, I have an Athlon XP 2000+ sitting around, patiently waiting for me to get a motherboard and case to go along with it's RAM and 80GB hard drive.
dude - if you've got an Athlon2000+ that's "patiently waiting around" then you must have bought the thing when it was brand new -- and paid a hell of a premium to let it sit doing nothing. same chip's probably half price now. i can almost buy your "my 550 celeron runs everything i need!" story.. but then you blow your entire "i don't need to waste money" premise by buying a state-of-the-art processor and then sitting on it until it's middle of the road? i don't get it.
the chip was locked at 800Mhz because it's a developer's sample. The actual chips, when they're released, will be at higher clock rates. if an 800Mhz Hammer can spank a Wilhelmette clocked at twice the speed, what will happen when the Mhz field is leveled a bit?
i wish more people thought like you. unfortunately, extreme consumer-culture and unchecked capitalism tends to make people believe funny things. now don't get me wrong. i'm no socialist. i'm a capitalist. but too many people believe that profit makes right, or that everyone has an inherent right to make a profit. too often capitalism doesn't allow for the sublime. things like music are, fundamentally, somewhat anti-capitalistic. music is viral. it's purpose is to grow and dissemenate, to affect people and move them. it's a complex combination of ego and selflessness at its heart. and it doesn't make much sense from a supply-demand market-economy point of view. this is why copyrights don't make a hell of a lot of sense on songs.
<PLUG>my band has all of our songs available on our website as MP3's because we don't WANT to make a lot of money. we don't WANT to quit our day jobs. the daily trivialities of a shitty job, plus the knowledge that making music is our love, and not our source of income, is the only thing that keeps us relevant.</PLUG>
the easiest way to nullify an artist is to make him comfortable.
just because it's law doen't make it just. and just because it impedes profit, doesn't make it unjust. art, and music in particular, is, or at least ought to be, a special case. it should not be seen as a commodity. especially when the true content is aural, to claim ownership and to prevent dissemination seems to me to be in direct conflict with the whole purpose of music in the first place.
i firmly stand by my belief that greed is the only thing that can kill art.
sure, and it would have used up most of the world's entire reserve of titanium to build the towers, plus they would have been absolutely astronomically expensive to construct. sheesh, lockheed had a hard enough time scrounging the needed high-grade Ti for a couple of planes!
i thought Pullman built up their affections quite well. from the moment Will was first introduced, i could see Lyra's fascination with him, his strength, and all the things he knew that she didn't. i thought their falling in love seemed quite natural and real, quite the opposite of tacked on at the end. i thought he did a good job of building real romance(albeit, subtly!) from the very beginning.
you missed the point of the whole series entirely.
[SPOILER] the point was that lord asrael's anti-church AND the established Church were BOTH evil. they were mirror images of each other. both strove to enslave all creation for their tyranny.[/SPOILER]
Pullman is condeming THOSE THAT SEEK POWER, and those who seek to subjugate others.
this is a fantastic and complex trilogy, miles beyond harry potter. it's more violent and far, far more intellectually stimulating. there's some heavy shit that goes down.
i can see how the first book might be mistaken for just another teen novel. although i enjoyed it immensely, it is lighter fare than the other two. the trilogy gets increasingly darker and stranger as it goes. i can also see how christians would get pissed at the portrayal of god and many of the forces of Heaven and Hell, but see my comment above - he's not condemning christianity per-se, he's using christianity to condemn tyranny.
Slashdot Mirror
this seriously stinks of hollywood making up news as a blockbuster is about to be released. they did it before with all those asteroid movies and then again with all those mars movies a few years ago.
from the article:
Paramount's latest sci-fi thriller, The Core - directed by Englishman Jon Amiel, and starring Hilary Swank and Aaron Eckhart - depicts a world beset by just such a polar reversal, with radiation sweeping the planet.
wtf??
actually i didn't really see SLC Punk as a movie about punk rock, per se. in fact, it really only uesd the whole "explaining punk rock" and "chaos theory" ramblings as a metaphor for one person's (stevo's) own personal internal conflict and evolution. i thought it was a lot more about self discovery then it was about punk rock.
damn good flick, tho. fun characters, fun movie.
The DIY ethic, distrust of corporations, and the "scene" are just anarchistic (which doesn't mean punk) ideals.
from the very beginning punk rock has been about these diy and independent ideals. minor threat, dead kennedys, etc. continuing on into today. and there are very good reasons for this. it's not just anarchist ideals put to music. it's bands wanting to focus on the music and the show rather than the business, the package, the marketing, and all the sleaze involved in trying to "make it". most punk bands are just out there doing all the things that matter -- playing shows, writing music, putting out CDs or records -- and none of the things that don't -- paying off DJ's, shmoozing, marketing, advertising, trying to cater to the lowest common denominator, etc.
we distrust corporations because they have earned our distrust. good friends of mine, a band called Violent Society, is currently owed over $40,000 by their record label. i've watched other friends' bands get screwed over in similar ways. plus there's the whole RIAA, who want only to insure the profits of the executives at the major labels. true story: i have a friend, she used to work for a major label. her JOB was to call up DJ's and say "hey, i've got two trips to disneyland i'd like to give you, for you to give to your listeners in a contest. in exchange, i want to hear the new Limp Bizkit single 40 times a week. and, if you keep one of those trips for yourself, i'm sure we won't notice." she quit because she couldn't face herself anymore. if you don't actively oppose this system, then you are only reinforcing it. music shouldn't be this slimy. and it's the money that did it. punk bands operate outside of that greed. we take ourselves out of that game.
Politics and music should be kept entirely separate -- idolizing someone like Jello Biafra or, on the other end, Ian Stuart can lead to some blind political choices.
there's nothing wrong with music being about something. frankly songs about girls or how cool the singer is or nothing at all bore the fuck out of me. to each his own, man, don't act like your opinion is fact. i enjoy listening to music whose lyrics actually make me think or even educate or enlighten me. propagandhi in particular is a band whose lyrics are at the same time both political and personal, deeply accurate and informed as well as emotional. they also tell you up front that you shouldn't make opinions based on theirs, or take what they say as fact. they want you to read the papers and make your own decisions.
Punk itself is long dead and still lingers in forms of trendies, poseurs, emofags, Blink 182, and Straight Edge Earth Crisis idiots.
you couldn't be more wrong. the underground punk scene is alive and well, has been that way since its birth in, what, the mid 70's, and will still be here once all this nu-metal crap has gone the way of that swing craze a few years ago. my band plays hardcore punk rock, like minor threat or the dead kennedys, and we play literally about 100 shows a year. and there are bands in every major city right now with gobs of integrity and heart, pounding out punk shows, doing it just like we do. i guess you won't know they're there if you don't go out and look for these shows. you won't hear em on the radio and you won't see them on mtv, cuz they don't have that kind of funding, but i guarantee their shows are more fun than 20 metallica concerts. we're not the "latest thing" but we'll still be here when the latest thing is dead and buried.
The Sex Pistols and all the bands that spawned from it seriously degraded music. As much as you may have liked their attitudes, punk requires no real talent -- they could barely even play a few power chords on their instruments.
that was the point! music doesn't have to be acrobatic to be fun to listen to. listen to the ramones. those are some damn catchy tunes, and none of them could really play. punk was basically about doing the opposite of what everyone else did, and although some punks got insular and turned into elitist jackassas, many (like me) are still around trying to poke holes in convention, expectation, the music industry, "rock stardom", etc etc.
my band plays literally about 100 shows a year, we don't make shit for money, but we have a fucking blast playing the hardest punk you ever heard. i dunno, it's fun. and it's not for money and it's not an egho trip and it's not exploiting stupid people.
Just think how upset you would be if I stole all your songs and said they were mine. Or worse, let's say I stole all the lyrics to your songs, set the to accordian music, and went on a world tour.
actually we'd be thrilled. we don't believe in ownership of sound. or more precisely, we don't believe the idea of intellectual property should extend to art. pretty radical, but hey it's right there in our song lyrics. don't think we're socialists though. IP works fine for software, and yeah capitalism works alright. just when it comes to artistic works, we hold those works above money, and even above those who created them.
If you really want to bring down the established music industry then the best way to do this is to promote bands that work outside the system.
we do this constantly.
Pimping bands that are part of the system doesn't hurt the record labels, it provides free advertisement for their bands.
so first you're complaining that we're ripping them off, then you're saying we're actually helping them with publicity. first of all, i don't think their MP3's on our dinky website do much to hurt their sales, or if they do, it is offset, as you said, by the free publicity. secondly, those bands are only there because we like them. we don't mind promoting them. but whatever. that's all hazy, and i could go either way on that. i suppose i do feel a bit guilty about not having some of those bands' permission.
Good luck with your band.
thanks very much. =)
i have a real job. in fact i own my own computer business. that's sort of the point of the band -- you can be in a touring band and still have time for a 9 to 5. that way you don't have to gouge your fans with ridiculous ticket and merchandise prices. we sell CD's for $5 (they only cost a dollar to make) and t-shirts for $8 (they cost us about $4) and our shows are usually pretty cheap too. not because the product is inferior, but because we are not dependent on the band to make a living.
you're right. i think about taking those other mp3's down all the time, but then i don't. why? well the arguement to take them down goes something like, "you're taking [potential] money out of the pockets of artists you like". but then i realized, giving them money isn't necessarily doing them a favor. i'd rather they stayed independent, DIY, hungry and desperate. it's pretty selfish i suppose. i won't say otherwise.
obviously it's not for everyone. it's punk rock. but we're a good band and we put on a hell of a show. your reaction doesn't bother me.
my band and i firmly believe in free music. when hilary rosen says it threwatens the future of music, she means it threatens the future of the music industry as she and the major labels know it. and i can't imagine anything more worthy of fighting for.
i wanna kill this antiquated centralized distribution model
i don't wanna get fucked anymore by this status quo some coddle
don't let fear keep us bound here.
look across this threshold before it closes up forever
see the hate and rage of chaos see the swarming hell hell hell
fear is natural before the refining fires of change,
you must be afraid but do it anyway
i already fell fell fell
don't let fear keep us bound here.
own yourself, remember where the message comes from
think again, once you have it figured out
ask not, what this world owes you -- it owes you shit.
what will you make of it?
status quo's the real foe, this hell we call these tiny lives
giving up our tiny souls to dead unliving corporations
zombies defend rights of them to won us make us wear their name tags
providing the machinery to keep us working intheir gulags
don't let fear keep us bound here.
time is split and this short fit of choice will quickly pass pass pass
now's our only chance ot make a change that will last
tectonic forces are already moving to intercept you
if we make no move to fuck them, only we will lose lose lose
i ask again: if not now, then when?
-Power Shift by my band The Overprivileged
i disagree. i'll tell you why, although i know it's not an opinion many people are likely to agree with, both artists and non-artists alike. and that's fine.
anyway. i don't believe that artists should be entitled to a living wage because once it becomes a job, it ceases to be art. the motives change. you can't deny that when there are dollar signs behind something you like to do, it changes the very nature of how you approach doing that thing, no matter if it's painting or singing or snowboarding or, in my case, rocking the fuck out. =]
i'm another musician who wants people to download my music for free. look. most musicians start off like this. they do it because they love it. then some record label comes along and fills the musician's head with promises of bags of money. over time it gets ingrained. must ... make ... money. then, when the label screws the artist, the label can blame the internet.
my band's solution is to remove money from the equation. take our sounds for free (ok, pay for the hardware -- actual cd's, shirts, etc).
why don't we care about the money? because, and this is the part that pisses other bands off most, we believe we actually OUGHT to have day jobs. yep. and we pull it off, too. we have mortgages and wives and 9-5 day jobs AND we tour once a year AND play gigs about twice a week. in the spring we're touring europe for 4 weeks. this is a lot of hard work. we do it because we love it, not because we want to make a fortune. and, in my opinion, great music has to come from a passionate and difficult place inside. not a comfortable one.
ok now i'm rambling.
anyway, point is, i have no sympathy for a greedy musician. a band CAN survive on enjoyment, love, energy, and passion, without the corrupting notion that the band is a "business". mine is living proof.
a few points first. i am a pretty hardcore rollercoaster enthusiast. the law passed in NJ limits coasters to 5.6 G's. well, i know of none in the world that exceed 5.0 G's. so first of all, the law's completely pointless. it's like banning the sticking forks in your eyes. nobody does it anyway.
second, what few injuries rolloercoaster riders have sustained have NOT come from G forces at all. the ones that weren't the result of a malfunction or user error have come from banging their head into the restraints. this has to do with how well the ride is designed, not the G forces it inflicts. a ride could pull only 1 or two G's but still bloody your ears if it's designed poorly.
third, this is simply setting a bad precedent. first come the G force regulations, then height and speed regulations follow. at this particular point in time, rollercoasters are taking quantum leaps forward technologically. the advent of complex high-speed 3d software and the hardware to run it, along with the current theme park boom, are allowing coasters to go higher and faster than they ever have before, and do so while providing a smoother, safer ride than has ever been experienced. have you ridden a B&M coaster, or one of S&S's thrust air monsters? any legislation concerning height and speed, for example, would quickly become laughably obsolete. 100 feet was once a monster of a hill (in the 80's!). now there are coasters more than 400 feet tall.
roller coasters ARE safe. G-forces are NOT dangerous on any roller coasters operating today.
Actually, there has never been a single case of excessive G-forces causing any kind of injury to anyone.
now, if you want to talk about ride safety, then fine: yes, occasionally either something malfunctions or someone does something stupid (much more often the latter) and someone falls to their death or is struck by a moving train. a mentally handicapped person managed to wriggle out of his harness while on Shockwave at Paramount's Kings Dominion, and subsequently fell to his death. also, this summer, someone hopped a 10-foot fence into a restricted area and was struck by a train. just a week or two ago, several people were injured when a kiddie swing ride tipped over (at a county fair, not an amusement park). these sorts of accidents do happen. but what has never, ever, happened is someone being ijured (or at least being shown to have been injured) as the result of G-forces on a rollercoaster.
Now, after Athlons have been out for a long, LONG time, I have an Athlon XP 2000+ sitting around, patiently waiting for me to get a motherboard and case to go along with it's RAM and 80GB hard drive.
.. but then you blow your entire "i don't need to waste money" premise by buying a state-of-the-art processor and then sitting on it until it's middle of the road? i don't get it.
dude - if you've got an Athlon2000+ that's "patiently waiting around" then you must have bought the thing when it was brand new -- and paid a hell of a premium to let it sit doing nothing. same chip's probably half price now. i can almost buy your "my 550 celeron runs everything i need!" story
EMI? Goooooooood BYE!
that's quite foolish. you're probably also filtering a high percentage of the e-mail you actually want to receive.
the chip was locked at 800Mhz because it's a developer's sample. The actual chips, when they're released, will be at higher clock rates. if an 800Mhz Hammer can spank a Wilhelmette clocked at twice the speed, what will happen when the Mhz field is leveled a bit?
fine then, all art should be free. does that make me consistent?
you, sir, _get_it_
i wish more people thought like you. unfortunately, extreme consumer-culture and unchecked capitalism tends to make people believe funny things. now don't get me wrong. i'm no socialist. i'm a capitalist. but too many people believe that profit makes right, or that everyone has an inherent right to make a profit. too often capitalism doesn't allow for the sublime. things like music are, fundamentally, somewhat anti-capitalistic. music is viral. it's purpose is to grow and dissemenate, to affect people and move them. it's a complex combination of ego and selflessness at its heart. and it doesn't make much sense from a supply-demand market-economy point of view. this is why copyrights don't make a hell of a lot of sense on songs.
<PLUG>my band has all of our songs available on our website as MP3's because we don't WANT to make a lot of money. we don't WANT to quit our day jobs. the daily trivialities of a shitty job, plus the knowledge that making music is our love, and not our source of income, is the only thing that keeps us relevant.</PLUG>
the easiest way to nullify an artist is to make him comfortable.
i firmly stand by my belief that greed is the only thing that can kill art.
rue the day? who talks like that??
sure, and it would have used up most of the world's entire reserve of titanium to build the towers, plus they would have been absolutely astronomically expensive to construct. sheesh, lockheed had a hard enough time scrounging the needed high-grade Ti for a couple of planes!
my wedding ring is aerospace-grade titanium with two gold raised stripes ... check it out, it looks pretty cool.
not to mention it can supposedly withstand 150,000 psi of pressure, so if i happen to get run over by a steamroller at least my ring will be fine!
i thought Pullman built up their affections quite well. from the moment Will was first introduced, i could see Lyra's fascination with him, his strength, and all the things he knew that she didn't. i thought their falling in love seemed quite natural and real, quite the opposite of tacked on at the end. i thought he did a good job of building real romance(albeit, subtly!) from the very beginning.
[SPOILER] the point was that lord asrael's anti-church AND the established Church were BOTH evil. they were mirror images of each other. both strove to enslave all creation for their tyranny.[/SPOILER]
Pullman is condeming THOSE THAT SEEK POWER, and those who seek to subjugate others.
this is a fantastic and complex trilogy, miles beyond harry potter. it's more violent and far, far more intellectually stimulating. there's some heavy shit that goes down.
i can see how the first book might be mistaken for just another teen novel. although i enjoyed it immensely, it is lighter fare than the other two. the trilogy gets increasingly darker and stranger as it goes. i can also see how christians would get pissed at the portrayal of god and many of the forces of Heaven and Hell, but see my comment above - he's not condemning christianity per-se, he's using christianity to condemn tyranny.