I dont mind a flatfee, but why the hell should we save a monopoly?
If this money were going directly to Musicians I dont think people at slashdot would complain, but we know musicians will NEVER see this money. This is wh y its bullshit, plus its like opening pandoras box, you start off with a small $5 increase on internet feees, which will turn into a $10 increase, then $20, $30, $40, until our internet costs $100 a month like DirectTV or CableTV.
IF the RIAA owns you, but theres alot of good musicians who the RIAA doesnt own. What happened to all those 80s rock bands? What happened to MC Hammer, Prince, etc? Not to mention theres guys like Micheal Jackson, Will Smith, and others who are so big they dont need record companies.
So please tell me who the RIAA owns? They own people who have no talent to be successful on their own, like Britney Spears.
I think even Cher could sell direct. Theres no shortage of Musicians and the RIAA only owns musicians which they created, the ones who they didnt create who started on their own have better contracts.
Ice T sells his music directly to users on Kazaa. IF Eminem did this Eminem would make plenty of money but nooo, Eminem would rather bitch and moan about how Kazaa is robbing him.
Its his own lazy ass thats robbing him, maybe if he release a new CD on kazaa for $5, he'd make a fortune.
As much as I support EFF and as much as I support musicians right to make money. Selling CDs does not and never has been a source of income for musicians.
Just because we can get music and movies for free online doesnt mean we want to watch all our movies on a tiny computer screen, maybe we want to see it on the big screen in high quality, maybe we want to see musicians live.
People act like piracy killed the movie industry when the VCR was invwnted but it didnt, the theaters stayed open, people started going to the theaters more and more.
Why would Eminem fans suddenly stop going to his concerts just because they can get his music for free? Once they but the CD they have his music, so why do they go to concerts?
I will go see the Matrix 2 because its my favorite movie, not because I cant get it online. I could always get movies illegally, even before there was an internet, I could always steal pay per view, I could always buy illegal VHS tapes, but I still went to the movies.
How many of you people still go to the movies now?
This is just corperate welfare, and shit like this pisses me off about the USA. We the people cant have welfare, but big rich greedy CEOs get bailed out by the government because they cant keep up with the technology or because they make excuses like 911 hurting them,
Who gives a damn? They are companies, they are supposed to die in free market capitalism, this country is becoming a plutocracy where monopolies never die, never get broken up and companies become so powerful they rule over us like 1984.
Heres what I think, I think record companies can adapt or die, period. If they die musicians will make more money anyway, and we will still get free music.
Musicians can sell 1 million CDs and make not a penny, Musicians can make 1 million cds and make only $50,000, so why should they care if you dont buy their CDs when they make more money selling Tshirts?
Face it, Musicians make money because of their fans, the ones who pay to see them live, who follow them around buying their T-Shirts. So heres what I think, why not let the musicians sell directly. Most people who download music for free arent fans, they just want free music, but the fans, they are the ones who will support the musicians by going to concerts.
Musicians can sell new CDs at their concerts, the new CD can be sold at the concert before its on the net, say to about 40-50,000 people at a time for $5-10 each CD, they'd make a fortune.
We dont need a new license. All we really need is for artists to tell music directly to their fans. Fans, you know the ones who go to concerts to see them live? The people who make musicians most of the money they make to begin with.
CD sales arent important, most musicians dont make money selling CD, they make money on tour, if this is how they make money now why should they care about cd sales? If Musicians want to sell music they can sell CDs at their live shows, people would buy them by the thousands and they'd make plenty of money.
If you have 10,000 people at one of your huge concerts, and you sell 10,000 CDs for $5 each, and because theres no middleman you get 100 percent of the cash, you'd take in $50,000 from one concert.
This is FAR FAR more money than you'd make selling CDs even if you sold a million CDs. Most Musicians dont make any money at all from CD sales and when they do they only make around $50,000 per million CDs sold. meaning for each million, you might get $50,000-100,000.
Musicians may sell a million CDs a year, and make about $50,000 a year, or they can make that much in a day selling direct.
I'm betting ICE-T will make plenty of money, but we shall see.
Zelda was developed outside the USA. Tekken 4 was developed outside the USA, and ok you have one game Grand Theft Auto, but is that game really better than Metel Gear Solid 2?
We thought we'd be the best programmers but it seems like the Japanese kick are asses at making video games. So how do you figure the Chinese and Indians wont kick our ass as well and leave us with no jobs in the industry?
Why would the reduced costs be passed down to consumers? Big companies will keep prices high and keep the money for themselves. Like Microsoft, AOL, IBM,Nike,Reebok and the other bbibg companies.
And before that it was 2008, now its 2018? Just face it, we will never go to Mars in our lifetime, and why? Because the government doesnt want to give NASA the money to go.
Jobs are about to double, but not in the USA!. Tech support and programming jobs around the world will double by 2010, and even if it does double in the USA, the more it doubles the lower our salaries.
I'm sorry but soon programmer will be what teenage kids do, like mc donalds of today.
Genes play a role in how difficult it is for you to lose weight, naturally thin people have problems gaining weight, naturally big people have problems losing it.
Fast food is high in starch, processed sugar, and carbs. Processed sugar your body never can adapt to handle, how your body handles starch is genetic, some people get diabetes if they eat too much of it.
And when have you seen a fat eskimo? they are asian too and they dont eat any rice, they eat mostly meat. What about the native americans? They ate mostly meat, what about in south africa where all they had was meat? Do you see any fat africans?
You see fat Americans, Americans are the only ones eating sugar all the time, the asians eat rice, but they have been doing it for thousands of years and their genes have adapted, you try eating rice for a while and see what happens.
Ugh. Go to the bookstore. Pick up an introductory biology textbook (biochemistry would work too). Find out that, in fact, the preferred source of energy for living organisms is sugar. Can the human body process other compounds for energy? Yes, but you'll find that none of these processes are as efficient as the catalysis of sugar for energy production, and that nearly all are overlooked in favor of glycolysis when glucose is present.
Your body is designed to burn food, not sugar. Food is turned into Glucose, but you arent designed to drink dextrose(sugar). Your body doesnt know what to do with it, so 100 percent of it gets stored as fat unless you are running a marathon and drinking it (gatorade).
First, you have to define "digest," and you have to define "burn." If, by digest, you mean that a chunk of bacon is absorbed by the intestines less rapidly than a chunk of rice, you may or may not be correct. It doesn't matter. What does matter is that the body will absorb these things, and will somehow break these foods down into molecular units it can use. Fat, protein and sugar can all be converted to glucose through molecular pathways of varying efficiency -- this is what is traditionally meant by the "burning" of food.
No ones arguing that all food is converted to glucose, its the speed that matters. Down 500 grams of glucose and have it absorb into your system within seconds, what is the chance that your body will burn 100 percent of it? Oh thats right 0. You will not burn it all and the majority of it will go to fat.
Wait you mean to tell me this is healthy? Its bad for the liver, and it makes you fat, it overwelms your body with sugar, creating an insulin spike, do you know what that is? Its when your body raises its insulin level to attempt to pump the sugar into your muscles (or to fat). Insulin spikes are bad.
Nope. Compared to the protein or fat in bacon, rice is trivial for the body to "burn". It might take a smidge longer to digest, depending on how it's cooked, but we're not talking nutritionally-important differences here (your body will digest it one way or another). And the suggestion that the human body "is not designed to handle" complex carbohydrates? Utter nonsense. Go spit in a glass. See that? You're looking at a highly efficient mixure of enzymes, designed by evolution specifically for the digestion of complex carbohydrates. Pick up that biology book again...look up "alpha amylase," and you'll see what I mean.
Rice takes forever to burn and digests instantly, its a fucking complex carbohydrate, marathon runners use rice and noodles, starches are high GI and take forever to burn, its equal to drinking a really high quality form of glucose which wont burn off with excercise, good if you want to run a marathon, REALLY BAD IF YOU WANT TO BURN FAT!
In short: yes, it's good to avoid simple sugars in your diet. Not because they "make" you fat, but because they tend to send your blood sugar levels on wild fluctuations, and that can lead to digestive and dietary problems like diabetes, binge-eating, etc. Complex carbs take longer to digest than simple sugars, and thus provide a more stable and longer-term rise in blood sugar levels. But to say that you should eat "4-5 pieces of fried chicken" with a tablespoon of rice? That's a misinterpretation of the facts.
No, Avoid complex carbs as well, they take longer to digest but they take forever to burn, you want your glucose levels to be moderate to low, you want to avoid frutose, you want your insulin to stay low so you consume glucose with fat and protien, but really starches have no purpose in the human body, we arent designed for it and thats why it spikes our insulin and then gets stored as bodyfat.
tell me why you want a high quality fuel when you are trying to use your excess fuel (fat)? It doesnt make sense. If you were trying to use your extra fuel in a car you dont put your highest quality fuel into
Rice has more Glucose in it that takes longer to burn that a fatty steak.
And my point isnt about low cal vs high cal, you have to go low cal to lose weight, I'm saying you wont lose weight on a low calorie diet if you eat too much sugar.
Sugar keeps you from burning any fat, so if you eat low cal high sugar, you burn sugar before you burn the fat, thus you can eat low cal and still not lose any weight.
And people who are Chinese dont usually get fat for genetic reasons.
Now, look at a Sumo, they eat mostly rice but they are fat.
Rice is bad for most people, especially people who have slow metabolisms, if you have a fast one and you eat rice you'll burn it off, but we arent talking about skinny chinese kids eating rice, we are talking about fat american kids.
Its not essential but it helps. It boosts your metabolism. But you arent supposed to diet and lift weights at the same time, you cycle between a bulk phase and a cut phase.
When you cut, you diet for months and lose about 1-2lbs a week.
When you bulk, you bulk and gain about 1-2lbs a week. Eventually your ratio of muscle to fat goes out of balance and you get the ripped look.
Slashdot Mirror
I dont mind a flatfee, but why the hell should we save a monopoly?
If this money were going directly to Musicians I dont think people at slashdot would complain, but we know musicians will NEVER see this money. This is wh y its bullshit, plus its like opening pandoras box, you start off with a small $5 increase on internet feees, which will turn into a $10 increase, then $20, $30, $40, until our internet costs $100 a month like DirectTV or CableTV.
It doesnt go back to major artists it goes back to record companies.
It costs nothing to produce a CD, and musicians make pennys per CD sold.
IF the RIAA owns you, but theres alot of good musicians who the RIAA doesnt own. What happened to all those 80s rock bands? What happened to MC Hammer, Prince, etc? Not to mention theres guys like Micheal Jackson, Will Smith, and others who are so big they dont need record companies.
So please tell me who the RIAA owns? They own people who have no talent to be successful on their own, like Britney Spears.
I think even Cher could sell direct. Theres no shortage of Musicians and the RIAA only owns musicians which they created, the ones who they didnt create who started on their own have better contracts.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=inte rnetNews&storyID=2539761
Ice T sells his music directly to users on Kazaa. IF Eminem did this Eminem would make plenty of money but nooo, Eminem would rather bitch and moan about how Kazaa is robbing him.
Its his own lazy ass thats robbing him, maybe if he release a new CD on kazaa for $5, he'd make a fortune.
As much as I support EFF and as much as I support musicians right to make money. Selling CDs does not and never has been a source of income for musicians.
Just because we can get music and movies for free online doesnt mean we want to watch all our movies on a tiny computer screen, maybe we want to see it on the big screen in high quality, maybe we want to see musicians live.
People act like piracy killed the movie industry when the VCR was invwnted but it didnt, the theaters stayed open, people started going to the theaters more and more.
Why would Eminem fans suddenly stop going to his concerts just because they can get his music for free? Once they but the CD they have his music, so why do they go to concerts?
I will go see the Matrix 2 because its my favorite movie, not because I cant get it online. I could always get movies illegally, even before there was an internet, I could always steal pay per view, I could always buy illegal VHS tapes, but I still went to the movies.
How many of you people still go to the movies now?
This is just corperate welfare, and shit like this pisses me off about the USA. We the people cant have welfare, but big rich greedy CEOs get bailed out by the government because they cant keep up with the technology or because they make excuses like 911 hurting them,
Who gives a damn? They are companies, they are supposed to die in free market capitalism, this country is becoming a plutocracy where monopolies never die, never get broken up and companies become so powerful they rule over us like 1984.
Heres what I think, I think record companies can adapt or die, period. If they die musicians will make more money anyway, and we will still get free music.
Musicians can sell 1 million CDs and make not a penny, Musicians can make 1 million cds and make only $50,000, so why should they care if you dont buy their CDs when they make more money selling Tshirts?
Face it, Musicians make money because of their fans, the ones who pay to see them live, who follow them around buying their T-Shirts. So heres what I think, why not let the musicians sell directly. Most people who download music for free arent fans, they just want free music, but the fans, they are the ones who will support the musicians by going to concerts.
Musicians can sell new CDs at their concerts, the new CD can be sold at the concert before its on the net, say to about 40-50,000 people at a time for $5-10 each CD, they'd make a fortune.
50x10= how much?
We dont need a new license. All we really need is for artists to tell music directly to their fans. Fans, you know the ones who go to concerts to see them live? The people who make musicians most of the money they make to begin with.
CD sales arent important, most musicians dont make money selling CD, they make money on tour, if this is how they make money now why should they care about cd sales? If Musicians want to sell music they can sell CDs at their live shows, people would buy them by the thousands and they'd make plenty of money.
If you have 10,000 people at one of your huge concerts, and you sell 10,000 CDs for $5 each, and because theres no middleman you get 100 percent of the cash, you'd take in $50,000 from one concert.
This is FAR FAR more money than you'd make selling CDs even if you sold a million CDs. Most Musicians dont make any money at all from CD sales and when they do they only make around $50,000 per million CDs sold. meaning for each million, you might get $50,000-100,000.
Musicians may sell a million CDs a year, and make about $50,000 a year, or they can make that much in a day selling direct.
I'm betting ICE-T will make plenty of money, but we shall see.
Zelda was developed outside the USA. Tekken 4 was developed outside the USA, and ok you have one game Grand Theft Auto, but is that game really better than Metel Gear Solid 2?
And why would that be us?
We thought we'd be the best programmers but it seems like the Japanese kick are asses at making video games. So how do you figure the Chinese and Indians wont kick our ass as well and leave us with no jobs in the industry?
Why would the reduced costs be passed down to consumers? Big companies will keep prices high and keep the money for themselves. Like Microsoft, AOL, IBM,Nike,Reebok and the other bbibg companies.
And before that it was 2008, now its 2018? Just face it, we will never go to Mars in our lifetime, and why? Because the government doesnt want to give NASA the money to go.
programming is labor, it doesnt take intelligence just training.
Now to be a good programmer that takes intelligence but Windows was not written by good programmers and you are using it.
No you get your PHD or you move overseas with your masters.
no, Literacy rates go up and then people claim that its grade inflation.
Jobs are about to double, but not in the USA!. Tech support and programming jobs around the world will double by 2010, and even if it does double in the USA, the more it doubles the lower our salaries.
I'm sorry but soon programmer will be what teenage kids do, like mc donalds of today.
yes but wheat is low GI, rice is high GI.
Wheat takes forever to digest. And dont forget africans and natives american who eat next to no carbs at all ever.
Genes play a role in how difficult it is for you to lose weight, naturally thin people have problems gaining weight, naturally big people have problems losing it.
Fast food is high in starch, processed sugar, and carbs. Processed sugar your body never can adapt to handle, how your body handles starch is genetic, some people get diabetes if they eat too much of it.
Mens bodies need fats, low fat is not healthy, low animal fat is healthy, but you need omega fatty acids.
And when have you seen a fat eskimo? they are asian too and they dont eat any rice, they eat mostly meat. What about the native americans? They ate mostly meat, what about in south africa where all they had was meat? Do you see any fat africans?
You see fat Americans, Americans are the only ones eating sugar all the time, the asians eat rice, but they have been doing it for thousands of years and their genes have adapted, you try eating rice for a while and see what happens.
Ugh. Go to the bookstore. Pick up an introductory biology textbook (biochemistry would work too). Find out that, in fact, the preferred source of energy for living organisms is sugar. Can the human body process other compounds for energy? Yes, but you'll find that none of these processes are as efficient as the catalysis of sugar for energy production, and that nearly all are overlooked in favor of glycolysis when glucose is present.
Your body is designed to burn food, not sugar. Food is turned into Glucose, but you arent designed to drink dextrose(sugar). Your body doesnt know what to do with it, so 100 percent of it gets stored as fat unless you are running a marathon and drinking it (gatorade).
First, you have to define "digest," and you have to define "burn." If, by digest, you mean that a chunk of bacon is absorbed by the intestines less rapidly than a chunk of rice, you may or may not be correct. It doesn't matter. What does matter is that the body will absorb these things, and will somehow break these foods down into molecular units it can use. Fat, protein and sugar can all be converted to glucose through molecular pathways of varying efficiency -- this is what is traditionally meant by the "burning" of food.
No ones arguing that all food is converted to glucose, its the speed that matters. Down 500 grams of glucose and have it absorb into your system within seconds, what is the chance that your body will burn 100 percent of it? Oh thats right 0. You will not burn it all and the majority of it will go to fat.
Wait you mean to tell me this is healthy? Its bad for the liver, and it makes you fat, it overwelms your body with sugar, creating an insulin spike, do you know what that is? Its when your body raises its insulin level to attempt to pump the sugar into your muscles (or to fat). Insulin spikes are bad.
Nope. Compared to the protein or fat in bacon, rice is trivial for the body to "burn". It might take a smidge longer to digest, depending on how it's cooked, but we're not talking nutritionally-important differences here (your body will digest it one way or another). And the suggestion that the human body "is not designed to handle" complex carbohydrates? Utter nonsense. Go spit in a glass. See that? You're looking at a highly efficient mixure of enzymes, designed by evolution specifically for the digestion of complex carbohydrates. Pick up that biology book again...look up "alpha amylase," and you'll see what I mean.
Rice takes forever to burn and digests instantly, its a fucking complex carbohydrate, marathon runners use rice and noodles, starches are high GI and take forever to burn, its equal to drinking a really high quality form of glucose which wont burn off with excercise, good if you want to run a marathon, REALLY BAD IF YOU WANT TO BURN FAT!
In short: yes, it's good to avoid simple sugars in your diet. Not because they "make" you fat, but because they tend to send your blood sugar levels on wild fluctuations, and that can lead to digestive and dietary problems like diabetes, binge-eating, etc. Complex carbs take longer to digest than simple sugars, and thus provide a more stable and longer-term rise in blood sugar levels. But to say that you should eat "4-5 pieces of fried chicken" with a tablespoon of rice? That's a misinterpretation of the facts.
No, Avoid complex carbs as well, they take longer to digest but they take forever to burn, you want your glucose levels to be moderate to low, you want to avoid frutose, you want your insulin to stay low so you consume glucose with fat and protien, but really starches have no purpose in the human body, we arent designed for it and thats why it spikes our insulin and then gets stored as bodyfat.
tell me why you want a high quality fuel when you are trying to use your excess fuel (fat)? It doesnt make sense. If you were trying to use your extra fuel in a car you dont put your highest quality fuel into
Rice has more Glucose in it that takes longer to burn that a fatty steak.
And my point isnt about low cal vs high cal, you have to go low cal to lose weight, I'm saying you wont lose weight on a low calorie diet if you eat too much sugar.
Sugar keeps you from burning any fat, so if you eat low cal high sugar, you burn sugar before you burn the fat, thus you can eat low cal and still not lose any weight.
And people who are Chinese dont usually get fat for genetic reasons.
Now, look at a Sumo, they eat mostly rice but they are fat.
Rice is bad for most people, especially people who have slow metabolisms, if you have a fast one and you eat rice you'll burn it off, but we arent talking about skinny chinese kids eating rice, we are talking about fat american kids.
Easier to digest = bad, because if it digests quickly, it gets stored as fat before you can burn it.
Its not essential but it helps. It boosts your metabolism. But you arent supposed to diet and lift weights at the same time, you cycle between a bulk phase and a cut phase.
When you cut, you diet for months and lose about 1-2lbs a week.
When you bulk, you bulk and gain about 1-2lbs a week. Eventually your ratio of muscle to fat goes out of balance and you get the ripped look.