Sometimes the criteria for leaving it on is just it being acceptable enough that changing it isn't more important than whatever else I'm doing.
This is the part of the entire streaming service payout values which artists appear to entirely ignore. Many of my singer/songwriter friends complain about the value of a stream relative to a permanent digital download or CD track cost (50:1 to 400:1 depending on the service and the analysis) as if a "listen" is someone enjoying the track as their primary activity. I suspect it often is neither.
Payments are paid to the rights holders. Artists get what is in their contract unless they own the rights.
It's one reason the artists are so up in arms - they're getting shit because they have shit contracts. Well, that and they're just the performer. They think they should get all the money. But that would be like paying an architect $1,000,000 for your house and paying the builder and subcontractors nothing. It doesn't work that way.
That's what the artists are not considering. In the best of cases, the entire production team: artists, writers, producers, promoters, will never average more than about $0.55-0.60 per track for a CD or permanent digital download. Pandora pays the cost of a permanent individual license, valuable for the life of the author plus 70 years by copyright law, after just 320 listens. Spotify in less than 90 listens. I'm finding it hard to see the economic case that an ephemeral transmission for 3 minutes is worth more than 1/90th-1/320th of the value of a permanent download good for 100 or more years with no limits on the number of times it can be played.
BUT radio plays that song to millions of devices simultaneously, whereas P & S play to a single device. If it's listens we're worried about (and that is what this is about), it would take Pandora 5.7 years for a million people to consecutively listen to that 3 minute Lady Gaga, but radio can distribute the same amount of listens in just 3 minutes.
Performers get zero payments for songs played on the radio (http://diymusician.cdbaby.com/2014/08/didnt-know-radio-royalties/). The authors of the songs (music and lyrics) do get paid. The payments to the rights holders (authors) of the music get paid from radio at a rate which is somewhere around $0.0003 per listener (give or take about 300% - source: http://davidtouve.com/2011/12/...).
In contrast, a permanent digital download and a CD (which can be played as many times as you like) have the same one time rate of $0.096 per track. This is set by law and is called a mechanical right.
So lets see what kind of relative value we have to a CD or PDD:
One radio listener, one listen = $0.0003, iow a permanent right "breaks even" at 320 listens
For Pandora and Spotify, they have to pay the entire chain - producers, artists, authors, promoters, etc. If we scale the total fees using an album model, with a typical album costing $9.99 and having 12 tracks, of which 30% goes to the retailer, the value of a "track" is $0.583, or about 6x the amount paid for the author on that track. (you can argue the specifics, but if you're buying tens of millions of CDs worth of songs, you'd better get pricing that it *at least* this good)
So at that 58.3c/permanent track... One pandora listener, one listen = $0.0014, break even is at 416 listens One spotify listener, one listen = $0.007, break even us at 83 listens. Radio has to play that track for 1920 listens to match the total compensation paid by the two streamers.
What does online streaming look like now? Pandora is slightly below Radio in their compensation per track to everyone they pay. You might contend that Pandora "finds" new artists better due to their model instead of radio playing whatever they're given to promote, and therefore provides slightly more value. Spotify, OTOH, lets you choose just what you want - you can play Brittney Spears all day, over and over - and therefore it's more like buying a track. And if you were to hit 83 plays on a track, you'd have been better off just buying the track. 83 plays seems like a lot, but that's over an entire lifetime - actually lifetime plus 70 years in copyright.
This is good, or bad, depending on the tightness of your tin foil, but I think it reveals something far more important about encryption: we, the average users, are powerless to verify or truly trust any encryption solution offered. To realize that an audit of the code for a single-purpose program can only be done by a very small set of people shows that even with open source we're still just trusting others to safeguard our data. The need for encryption and the mathematical and coding complexity required to understand what we are using to safeguard our data is simply beyond our ability to check that it even makes sense at a basic level.
I'm not so sure I welcome our mathematical overloads.
Except in specialized cases for manfacturing and mining, we have all the strength we need in buildings and bridges. What we really want is something with a higher stiffness.
Find me a material which costs the same as A992 steel and has a modulus of elasticity of 300x10^6 psi (10x that of steel) and I'll make you a millionaire. With very few exceptions, MOE scales linearly with mass, from Magnesium to Iridium. Beryllium-Aluminum is an exception, but is very brittle and hella expensive.
Yeah, get me 500ksi steel at $0.60/lb would be nice, but if it still has E=30E3ksi it won't save me much in a building. Give me 50ksi steel with E=300E3ksi and I'll save you at least 20% on the steel tonnage in a structure.
What chart are they getting their information from - the pre-teen's guide to Vodka?
0.05 is the *peak* BAC in a woman weighing less than 100lbs. At 190lbs, man or woman, you're only half way there (0.02-0.025).
And 0.20 - holy shit, you're well into the "wasted" range and probably are going to have troubles getting the key into the ignition by yourself. For that 180-190lb person, that's shotgunning a.375 flask of Vodka on an empty stomach. Maybe by "four drinks" the poster meant "Four doubles, as made by Bill Cosby at a fraternity hazing initiation"
The industrial revolution allowed us to make things less expensively. What took 100 man-hours could be produced in 10, or 1. With it came the rise of unions and a power struggle between the robber barons and the working classes. The standard of living of most people in the industrialized world skyrocketed, with a good deal of the wealth trickling into the new "middle class". Industrialization made things, but required manpower to run them.
The rise of technology has made manpower obsolete. We're not making things with software but rather learning how to eliminate service people (technology in general, this is really all one wave and Y-C thinking software is somehow divorced from the IT revoultion that's been in progress for 40 years is bullshit). The end game isn't really "more stuff" but "automated services". We don't need more people to ramp up production - once the software is running it merely needs maintenance and a very small incremental staff to serve 100, 1000, 10000x it's original purpose.
That's where people are getting crunched. Now that the industrial revolution has spread to more of the world, there's international competition for those "factory" jobs, and so the Man can simple take operations to a cheaper location. But there's nowhere for the factory workers to go because all the service jobs are drying up too, thanks for software. The wages on the inside are good, but the inside is getting smaller and smaller as tech takes over more positions. That leaves a large, unemployable population.
There are some over 5000 years old and still work perfectly. Reproduction doesn't even require electricity. They are very low maintenance, but not very space efficient.
See what I did there? You've suggested a medium which may be somewhat practical for a very limited purpose, but wholly unworkable for the type or quantity of storage needed today. Unless you were going for humor, in which case I proffer a wry smile.
In reality, what is needed is not a static storage format but a dynamic one which regularly reads, verifies, updates, re-stores, and then re-verifies the files on a regular basis.
If someone patents in interface, it's gone from every other vendor. And since it's the "best" it's worth more, so a $5 item is now a $100 item (gotta pay back that engineering time). It's not expensive because it's mechanically robust or physically challenging to build the parts, it's because of the monopolistic lock in that each standard brings.
Plus, there are no (useful, universal) standards for home automation. Partly because it's just too wide open, partly because shit is changing all the time. How often has the primary power distribution in a home changed in your lifetime (0)? How many times has TV transmission (once, maybe twice)? How many times has network requirements changed (I've run out of fingers)? A simple, end-user programmable, extensible system available on a commodity basis from multiple vendors simply doesn't exist.
FWIW, 20 years is a blink of an eye for a house. I regularly run across basically the same dumb electrical components in 1950s buildings that are being installed in today's brand new homes. And multiple manufacturers offer interchangeable parts for houses built today and 60+ years ago. Until Smart stops meaning outrageously overpriced for the hardware provided, it's never going to be mainstream.
Even ignoring those in the house who don't always have a smartphone with them (young children, grandparents) and any visitor who isn't on your network, needing a smartphone to control most things is simply awkward in inefficient when compared to a dedicated remote control.
Which is why, if you're going to spend $10 on lottery tickets in a year, you may as well play when the payout is the highest.
I do agree that looking at the odds and the payout for anything where you can't get enough play to take advantage of the house odds is a fools game when it comes to making money on a regular basis. (And lotteries, with only 50% proceeds to the winners, is never in the players favor even if enough plays were possible to make the odds relevant)
The sibling post nailed it. It's not an investment and shouldn't be considered such. Here's why: at the beginning of the two years, if you put the money into the bank your chances of becoming independently wealthy are exactly zero. In fact, the chances of having enough money for a weekend getaway in something nicer than a Motel 8 in your home town are still zero. Compare that to the chance of your retiring in those two years on lottery winnings. Maybe 1 in 10,000 - about the same as you next long distance call you receive having the same last four digits. That's not much, but it's still undeniably higher than retiring on what's in that bank account.
You may as well put the same amount of money into a music streaming service and decide, at the end of two years, which version had produced the most money - because after two years the entertainment will be just a thing of the past.
Insurance is a losing bet. It's a $1 ticket with an 80-90% payback. The funniest part is that it's a bet you *do* hope to lose. Rather it's a business decision, a hedge, which does not always need to show a positive ROI.
In the case of a lottery ticket, it's not a business decision. It's a lark, an entertainment. It's also one of the only ways to become independently wealthy with almost zero work (12 minutes at minimum wage, less than 5 minutes of labor at average wage). For 99% of the people out there, it's the *only* chance they will have of becoming independently wealthy. And someone *will* win eventually.
While I can't argue that people are, as a whole, bad at math. In fact, they're even worse at probability than general math. But it's not necessarily a tax on people who are bad at math, it's a peek at a life they would never, ever encounter for themselves in the normal course of their lives.
Slashdot Mirror
Sometimes the criteria for leaving it on is just it being acceptable enough that changing it isn't more important than whatever else I'm doing.
This is the part of the entire streaming service payout values which artists appear to entirely ignore. Many of my singer/songwriter friends complain about the value of a stream relative to a permanent digital download or CD track cost (50:1 to 400:1 depending on the service and the analysis) as if a "listen" is someone enjoying the track as their primary activity. I suspect it often is neither.
When we talk about things being like 1984, we don't literally mean 1984.
"...could be engineered to show one number to the naked eye and another to an infared sensitive camera?"
Yeah, because intentionally falsifying your license information instead of just selectively obscuring it is so much less illegal.
Payments are paid to the rights holders. Artists get what is in their contract unless they own the rights.
It's one reason the artists are so up in arms - they're getting shit because they have shit contracts. Well, that and they're just the performer. They think they should get all the money. But that would be like paying an architect $1,000,000 for your house and paying the builder and subcontractors nothing. It doesn't work that way.
Look on the bright side. In 100 years, you'll be able to listen to Jumpin Jack Flash for free, assuming they don't extend copyrights again.
That's what the artists are not considering. In the best of cases, the entire production team: artists, writers, producers, promoters, will never average more than about $0.55-0.60 per track for a CD or permanent digital download. Pandora pays the cost of a permanent individual license, valuable for the life of the author plus 70 years by copyright law, after just 320 listens. Spotify in less than 90 listens. I'm finding it hard to see the economic case that an ephemeral transmission for 3 minutes is worth more than 1/90th-1/320th of the value of a permanent download good for 100 or more years with no limits on the number of times it can be played.
BUT radio plays that song to millions of devices simultaneously, whereas P & S play to a single device. If it's listens we're worried about (and that is what this is about), it would take Pandora 5.7 years for a million people to consecutively listen to that 3 minute Lady Gaga, but radio can distribute the same amount of listens in just 3 minutes.
Performers get zero payments for songs played on the radio (http://diymusician.cdbaby.com/2014/08/didnt-know-radio-royalties/). The authors of the songs (music and lyrics) do get paid. The payments to the rights holders (authors) of the music get paid from radio at a rate which is somewhere around $0.0003 per listener (give or take about 300% - source: http://davidtouve.com/2011/12/...).
In contrast, a permanent digital download and a CD (which can be played as many times as you like) have the same one time rate of $0.096 per track. This is set by law and is called a mechanical right.
So lets see what kind of relative value we have to a CD or PDD:
One radio listener, one listen = $0.0003, iow a permanent right "breaks even" at 320 listens
For Pandora and Spotify, they have to pay the entire chain - producers, artists, authors, promoters, etc.
If we scale the total fees using an album model, with a typical album costing $9.99 and having 12 tracks, of which 30% goes to the retailer, the value of a "track" is $0.583, or about 6x the amount paid for the author on that track. (you can argue the specifics, but if you're buying tens of millions of CDs worth of songs, you'd better get pricing that it *at least* this good)
So at that 58.3c/permanent track...
One pandora listener, one listen = $0.0014, break even is at 416 listens
One spotify listener, one listen = $0.007, break even us at 83 listens.
Radio has to play that track for 1920 listens to match the total compensation paid by the two streamers.
What does online streaming look like now? Pandora is slightly below Radio in their compensation per track to everyone they pay. You might contend that Pandora "finds" new artists better due to their model instead of radio playing whatever they're given to promote, and therefore provides slightly more value. Spotify, OTOH, lets you choose just what you want - you can play Brittney Spears all day, over and over - and therefore it's more like buying a track. And if you were to hit 83 plays on a track, you'd have been better off just buying the track. 83 plays seems like a lot, but that's over an entire lifetime - actually lifetime plus 70 years in copyright.
You mis-spelled Republicans.
This is good, or bad, depending on the tightness of your tin foil, but I think it reveals something far more important about encryption: we, the average users, are powerless to verify or truly trust any encryption solution offered. To realize that an audit of the code for a single-purpose program can only be done by a very small set of people shows that even with open source we're still just trusting others to safeguard our data. The need for encryption and the mathematical and coding complexity required to understand what we are using to safeguard our data is simply beyond our ability to check that it even makes sense at a basic level.
I'm not so sure I welcome our mathematical overloads.
Kanye would like to have a word with you...
Or maybe they're just patenting it so nobody can use the idea. That might actually be a worthwhile patent, in that case.
Except in specialized cases for manfacturing and mining, we have all the strength we need in buildings and bridges. What we really want is something with a higher stiffness.
Find me a material which costs the same as A992 steel and has a modulus of elasticity of 300x10^6 psi (10x that of steel) and I'll make you a millionaire. With very few exceptions, MOE scales linearly with mass, from Magnesium to Iridium. Beryllium-Aluminum is an exception, but is very brittle and hella expensive.
Yeah, get me 500ksi steel at $0.60/lb would be nice, but if it still has E=30E3ksi it won't save me much in a building. Give me 50ksi steel with E=300E3ksi and I'll save you at least 20% on the steel tonnage in a structure.
You're so cute!
What chart are they getting their information from - the pre-teen's guide to Vodka?
0.05 is the *peak* BAC in a woman weighing less than 100lbs. At 190lbs, man or woman, you're only half way there (0.02-0.025).
And 0.20 - holy shit, you're well into the "wasted" range and probably are going to have troubles getting the key into the ignition by yourself. For that 180-190lb person, that's shotgunning a .375 flask of Vodka on an empty stomach. Maybe by "four drinks" the poster meant "Four doubles, as made by Bill Cosby at a fraternity hazing initiation"
The industrial revolution allowed us to make things less expensively. What took 100 man-hours could be produced in 10, or 1. With it came the rise of unions and a power struggle between the robber barons and the working classes. The standard of living of most people in the industrialized world skyrocketed, with a good deal of the wealth trickling into the new "middle class". Industrialization made things, but required manpower to run them.
The rise of technology has made manpower obsolete. We're not making things with software but rather learning how to eliminate service people (technology in general, this is really all one wave and Y-C thinking software is somehow divorced from the IT revoultion that's been in progress for 40 years is bullshit). The end game isn't really "more stuff" but "automated services". We don't need more people to ramp up production - once the software is running it merely needs maintenance and a very small incremental staff to serve 100, 1000, 10000x it's original purpose.
That's where people are getting crunched. Now that the industrial revolution has spread to more of the world, there's international competition for those "factory" jobs, and so the Man can simple take operations to a cheaper location. But there's nowhere for the factory workers to go because all the service jobs are drying up too, thanks for software. The wages on the inside are good, but the inside is getting smaller and smaller as tech takes over more positions. That leaves a large, unemployable population.
There are some over 5000 years old and still work perfectly. Reproduction doesn't even require electricity. They are very low maintenance, but not very space efficient.
See what I did there? You've suggested a medium which may be somewhat practical for a very limited purpose, but wholly unworkable for the type or quantity of storage needed today. Unless you were going for humor, in which case I proffer a wry smile.
In reality, what is needed is not a static storage format but a dynamic one which regularly reads, verifies, updates, re-stores, and then re-verifies the files on a regular basis.
If someone patents in interface, it's gone from every other vendor. And since it's the "best" it's worth more, so a $5 item is now a $100 item (gotta pay back that engineering time). It's not expensive because it's mechanically robust or physically challenging to build the parts, it's because of the monopolistic lock in that each standard brings.
Plus, there are no (useful, universal) standards for home automation. Partly because it's just too wide open, partly because shit is changing all the time. How often has the primary power distribution in a home changed in your lifetime (0)? How many times has TV transmission (once, maybe twice)? How many times has network requirements changed (I've run out of fingers)? A simple, end-user programmable, extensible system available on a commodity basis from multiple vendors simply doesn't exist.
FWIW, 20 years is a blink of an eye for a house. I regularly run across basically the same dumb electrical components in 1950s buildings that are being installed in today's brand new homes. And multiple manufacturers offer interchangeable parts for houses built today and 60+ years ago. Until Smart stops meaning outrageously overpriced for the hardware provided, it's never going to be mainstream.
Even ignoring those in the house who don't always have a smartphone with them (young children, grandparents) and any visitor who isn't on your network, needing a smartphone to control most things is simply awkward in inefficient when compared to a dedicated remote control.
Which is why, if you're going to spend $10 on lottery tickets in a year, you may as well play when the payout is the highest.
I do agree that looking at the odds and the payout for anything where you can't get enough play to take advantage of the house odds is a fools game when it comes to making money on a regular basis. (And lotteries, with only 50% proceeds to the winners, is never in the players favor even if enough plays were possible to make the odds relevant)
The sibling post nailed it. It's not an investment and shouldn't be considered such. Here's why: at the beginning of the two years, if you put the money into the bank your chances of becoming independently wealthy are exactly zero. In fact, the chances of having enough money for a weekend getaway in something nicer than a Motel 8 in your home town are still zero. Compare that to the chance of your retiring in those two years on lottery winnings. Maybe 1 in 10,000 - about the same as you next long distance call you receive having the same last four digits. That's not much, but it's still undeniably higher than retiring on what's in that bank account.
You may as well put the same amount of money into a music streaming service and decide, at the end of two years, which version had produced the most money - because after two years the entertainment will be just a thing of the past.
Insurance is a losing bet. It's a $1 ticket with an 80-90% payback. The funniest part is that it's a bet you *do* hope to lose. Rather it's a business decision, a hedge, which does not always need to show a positive ROI.
In the case of a lottery ticket, it's not a business decision. It's a lark, an entertainment. It's also one of the only ways to become independently wealthy with almost zero work (12 minutes at minimum wage, less than 5 minutes of labor at average wage). For 99% of the people out there, it's the *only* chance they will have of becoming independently wealthy. And someone *will* win eventually.
While I can't argue that people are, as a whole, bad at math. In fact, they're even worse at probability than general math. But it's not necessarily a tax on people who are bad at math, it's a peek at a life they would never, ever encounter for themselves in the normal course of their lives.
The magic 8 ball could have told them that.
Welcome to 2006: http://www.amazon.com/gp/produ...
Welcome to 2012: http://www.amazon.com/Actionte...
A new life awaits you in the off-world colonies. The chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure...
why would you even want to stay here, right?