I worry that when the record companies are made moot, there won't be the ridiculous amount of money hoarded from consumers and turned into a subsidy for a few big bands to promote tours and support CD sales.
You answer the question yourself, kind of. Those huge amounts of money are still there, so there has to be a way for someone to get their hands on them. This is where media comes in. In the world of online music distribution, advertising becomes paramount. More importantly, airtime becomes orders of magnitude more important than it already is for mainstream music. Clubs and other venues also become more important; we might see quite a resurgence in live music. The problem is, bands and their agents aren't equipped to handle this kind of thing, so they'll need outside help. Guess who are, without a doubt, preparing to offer this kind of promotion (for a piece of the cake, of course) as we speak? That's right, the member organizations of the RIAA.
In this, it's important to realize that the lack of CDs does not mean that revenues from the sale of music will go down. In fact, when songs cost 50 cents or buck a piece, a lot of people will be willing to pay for one song, 'cause, hell, it's only 50 cents. I guess the average price for a CD track is around $1, so that means you only have to sell twice as many songs to make the same amount of money. At $.50 each, that will not be a problem--on the contrary, I see music sales revenues going UP, not only for artists, but overall.
In short, I see record companies transforming into airtime/advertising agents and tour-organizers. I also see MTV and their ilk (including online stations) become more important and, ultimately, soak up more of the cash that the record companies used to get.
"A *person* is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."
I started by siting down and calculating the energy of a bunch of my favorite dishes (as well as various junk foods that I eat). Then, for about a month and a half, I calculated the caloric content of everything I ate. Since then, I've been able to guesstimate calories in any dish pretty well.
My recommendation, then, is to sit down and figure the calories of, say, whatever you ate the past week. Then start doing it pre-emptively whenever it's your turn to cook, and post factum when it isn't. Make it into routine, and before you know it, you'll be able to guesstimate most things. Whenever you're in doubt, just calculate the correct answer. Also, try to guess the contents before doing the math; this will improve the efficiency of the training. Once you've reached the point where you can judge how many calories are in your intake, without planning the intake in advance, you're in a much better position to diet.
"A *person* is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."
So called "organic" (definition still unclear) will never fill the demand of 5+billion mouths.
You know, one thing about the whole GMO thing I've never understood is why "organic/ecological" must necessarily equal "non-GM". GM is our very best bet at making all agriculture organic, yet retaining the current production rates.
"A *person* is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."
They crossbred American honeybees, a rather benign form of bee that doesn't mind human presence, with African bees, which do.
Killer bees are one of the best arguments FOR genetic engineering: GE allows much more focused alteration of existing species, whereas traditional breeding is uncontrolled to say the least.
"A *person* is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."
Why would programmers worry about 1900 and 2100, and forget about 2000? The simple programming technique of every fourth year is a leap year will not fail.
This is true; however, the 400-rule is not as widely known as the 100-rule. For instance, I recall a book about C64 programming which only listed the 100-rule. I'm certain we'll see some problems, but just like Y2K, it'll be much less than people fear.
"A *person* is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."
If it's not convincing for Windows, why does the same argument suddenly become convincing for Linux?
While I'm as sick and tired of Windows-bashing as you appear to be, this is a question of context; specifically, the context of comparing two free unixen. A non-Unix system has no business being dragged into that context.
"A *person* is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."
It seems to me if you don't believe in God the most logical choice for a system of ethics is basically game theory, waying of the risks and rewards and making the choice which leaves you the best odds.
This is (at least for me) more or less correct: I tend to not rely on a codified system of ethics, but rather evaluate each ethical choice on its own conditions, and possible implications on myself and what I care about.
Now, "what I care about" is, of course, indirectly influenced by the ten commandments of the Old Testament, since I live in a Western society based on Christianity. I do, however, try to question my values and motives from time to time, seeing if there's anything that could work better.
"A *person* is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."
For one example, abused children seeking counseling or information on the net. I know, they could just see their school counselor, but maybe they don't have that much faith in the system (and some of them may have reason not to).
And that's just one example. In final analysis, however, kids are simply much smarter than most parents give them credit for. The best you can do for them is give them access to all information and let them make their own decisions. Without fear that their parents might find out if the decision was something they didn't want to share.
To those examples I would also add graphic depictions of violence.
...which would include a lot of medieval art, and most cave paintings.
It simply is not feasible to restrict access in any other way than to have a trusted person, such as a parent or a teacher, evaluate every single item.
I would not exactly call circumcision mutilation (certainly no worse than tatoos and piercings people get today).
In most cases, circumcision is much, much worse than any piercing or tatoo: It is not performed on consenting adults, but on defenseless children.
Yes, I KNOW some circumcision are performed on more mature people, but many are performed on children. BTW, the judaeo-christian sects aren't the worst in this regard--many African muslim sects are far worse.
Slashdot Mirror
You answer the question yourself, kind of. Those huge amounts of money are still there, so there has to be a way for someone to get their hands on them. This is where media comes in. In the world of online music distribution, advertising becomes paramount. More importantly, airtime becomes orders of magnitude more important than it already is for mainstream music. Clubs and other venues also become more important; we might see quite a resurgence in live music. The problem is, bands and their agents aren't equipped to handle this kind of thing, so they'll need outside help. Guess who are, without a doubt, preparing to offer this kind of promotion (for a piece of the cake, of course) as we speak? That's right, the member organizations of the RIAA.
In this, it's important to realize that the lack of CDs does not mean that revenues from the sale of music will go down. In fact, when songs cost 50 cents or buck a piece, a lot of people will be willing to pay for one song, 'cause, hell, it's only 50 cents. I guess the average price for a CD track is around $1, so that means you only have to sell twice as many songs to make the same amount of money. At $.50 each, that will not be a problem--on the contrary, I see music sales revenues going UP, not only for artists, but overall.
In short, I see record companies transforming into airtime/advertising agents and tour-organizers. I also see MTV and their ilk (including online stations) become more important and, ultimately, soak up more of the cash that the record companies used to get.
"A *person* is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."
My recommendation, then, is to sit down and figure the calories of, say, whatever you ate the past week. Then start doing it pre-emptively whenever it's your turn to cook, and post factum when it isn't. Make it into routine, and before you know it, you'll be able to guesstimate most things. Whenever you're in doubt, just calculate the correct answer. Also, try to guess the contents before doing the math; this will improve the efficiency of the training. Once you've reached the point where you can judge how many calories are in your intake, without planning the intake in advance, you're in a much better position to diet.
"A *person* is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."
You know, one thing about the whole GMO thing I've never understood is why "organic/ecological" must necessarily equal "non-GM". GM is our very best bet at making all agriculture organic, yet retaining the current production rates.
"A *person* is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."
Killer bees are one of the best arguments FOR genetic engineering: GE allows much more focused alteration of existing species, whereas traditional breeding is uncontrolled to say the least.
"A *person* is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."
This is true; however, the 400-rule is not as widely known as the 100-rule. For instance, I recall a book about C64 programming which only listed the 100-rule. I'm certain we'll see some problems, but just like Y2K, it'll be much less than people fear.
"A *person* is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."
While I'm as sick and tired of Windows-bashing as you appear to be, this is a question of context; specifically, the context of comparing two free unixen. A non-Unix system has no business being dragged into that context.
"A *person* is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."
It seems to me if you don't believe in God the most logical choice for a system of ethics is basically game theory, waying of the risks and rewards and making the choice which leaves you the best odds.
This is (at least for me) more or less correct: I tend to not rely on a codified system of ethics, but rather evaluate each ethical choice on its own conditions, and possible implications on myself and what I care about.
Now, "what I care about" is, of course, indirectly influenced by the ten commandments of the Old Testament, since I live in a Western society based on Christianity. I do, however, try to question my values and motives from time to time, seeing if there's anything that could work better.
"A *person* is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."
For one example, abused children seeking counseling or information on the net. I know, they could just see their school counselor, but maybe they don't have that much faith in the system (and some of them may have reason not to).
And that's just one example. In final analysis, however, kids are simply much smarter than most parents give them credit for. The best you can do for them is give them access to all information and let them make their own decisions. Without fear that their parents might find out if the decision was something they didn't want to share.
-Kvan.
It simply is not feasible to restrict access in any other way than to have a trusted person, such as a parent or a teacher, evaluate every single item.
-Kvan.
In most cases, circumcision is much, much worse than any piercing or tatoo: It is not performed on consenting adults, but on defenseless children.
Yes, I KNOW some circumcision are performed on more mature people, but many are performed on children. BTW, the judaeo-christian sects aren't the worst in this regard--many African muslim sects are far worse.
-Kvan.