in the near future, there will be no need for stem cells, or rather, stem cells will be made from sources no moralist, medical ethicist, or religious dogmatist could possibly object to
what better way to solve an intransigent divide between science and religion than to make the issue moot?
now if only someone can come up with a methodology to make evolution look like "the word of god", and we're all good
if you are grandma and all you are doing is checking your email and looing at cnn.com, you don't need anything above 56kbps
the problem is, grandma is missing out on future services, the march of progress
youtube straddles this issue: its not exactly impossible over 56kbps, but obviously video services are changing and evolving, and you need a larger pipe for that. and youtube is already a service grandma wants and needs, and grandma appreciates
visually, in terms of bulk and bells and whistles, they are kind of like the hummer version of military hardware compared to the jeep that is the blackberry
as an allegory to how the hummer gained popularity in the 1980s/ 1990s, perhaps the sectera will eventually be marketed to the public with the same cachet: overbearing quasimilitary american chic for the average suburbanite
that is, that violent videogames decrease violence in society
media is catharsis. what i mean by that is: what is seen in a movie, or read in a book, or played on a keyboard, is something that is released harmlessly there, and left there. something that would be expressed in the real world otherwise if there were no means for harmless escape
some people may consider me a ittle radical on the subject, but i am serious: more people should play more violent videogames. more people should consume more pornography. the result would be less violence and less trangressive sexual crimes in real life. i think violent offenders should be given access to violent videogames in prison, and given a copy on their release (if ever). i think sexual offenders should be given hardcore pornography. this would teach them how to cope with their urges and manage them without resorting to victimizing real people in the real world
and for those of us who can "self-medicate", and remove the baser urges we recognize in ourselves, and recognize as socially wrong, by releasing them harmlessly on a keyboard or a magazine, then please, by all means, allow us to do that
because the attraction to violent videogames, or sexual media, is really a HEALTHY instinct: its a recognition for the need to have catharsis on certain asocial urges, something the vast majority of us have. although, some people don't have any sexual or violent proclivities about themselves at all, and that's why they look at people who view pornography or violence as tainted somehow, and they see the media as a cause of this taint. this is a false line of reasoning on their part. the media is merely a symptom, not a cause. and much more than a symptom, it is a treatment. it is catharsis
violent or sexual media does not create monsters. we are already, or are already not, monsters to begin with. its just a question of whether we release in real life, in society, or in fantasy, in media-based pursuits
it is very easy, vey lazy, and very dumb to ape the usual cynical comments about our government (speaking as an american). but one of the bedrock principles of our government is checks and balances: if one branch gets out of line, another branch puts it back in its place. here, the legislative branch passed a law which abrogates freedom of expression. the judicial branch comes in, and squashes it. so celebrate, goddamn it, the system works
it is not useful for anyone to find that the system failed when it passed this law in the first place. people are weak, they make dumb mistakes. obviously, this law was an idiotic mistake. and it won't be the last idiotic law that is passed. but laws bet blocked, and overturned. please make note of that. there is a filter in place
of course, the diehards will find SOME way to complain about something. their first stop, of course, will be to list the familiar abuses of the bush administration... the bush administration that is now dead. the usual talking points and familiar executive branch excesses are history. move on, please find something new to whine and bitch and moan about
the biggest check of all, the biggest filter of all, the american people, just closed the chapter on that administration. of course i don't expect some of you to actually cheer when something good happens. for some of you, you seem congenitally incapable of doing that
whining and bitching and moaning. if that's all you can do, you've failed, not your government
but i am going to suppose for the moment you are being perfectly honest
in which case, i applaud your honesty for admitting a brutal truth about yourself
it is completely possible to be a moral psychopath. and what i mean by that is, you realize what and who you are, you get excited from inflicting pain, and your higher faculties works against your inherent nature to keep yourself from committing horrible acts
such a psychopath is actually a preferable person to someone who refuses to explore or accept their essential nature, psychopath or not
ugly honesty is always preferable to pleasant lies, but many people refuse to admit that there are dark corners of their mind. and when such corners remain unexplored, such a person has a potential to go out of control, and inflict real damage to themselves or others
willful blindness is never preferable to a cold reckoning of your darker self, and in such brutal honesty with yourself, you develop a sense of control over your darker side such that you don't bite yourself in the ass by losing control in certain situations
as a corollary, lets suppose for a moment you are a pedophile. you find yourself sexually excited by little boys. person A is horrified by these impulses, denies them, never admits them, runs away from them when they rear themselves. what happens to such a person? they wind up buggering a child in a moment of weakness and loss of control
meanwhile person B depressingly accepts these impulses, learns to recognize their appearance, explores them in their mind, and develops mechanisms for mollifying them and shortcircuiting them, going up to and including reporting oneself to others to prevent oneself to harming a child. a moral pedophile
everyone has a dark side. acceptance of it leads to an ability to control it and prevent it from hurting yourself or others. those who deny their darkside and never explore it, are in danger of succumbing to it and losing control and committing vile acts
you are forced to take another human life due to circumstances where your life is threatened
perfectly acceptable
however, during the taking of another human's life, you will find a number of emotional reactions to the event in different people
some will be revulsed and horrified and tormented by what they have done, even though all of society and their own sense of reason and higher faculties completely condones the act as necessary
then another person might find themselves playing the event out inside their mind again and again, and find excitement, titillation, enjoyment even
this person is a sociopath
it is their natural honest emotional reaction to the taking of another human life
that their natural predilection was revealed in a perfectly socially acceptable situation has absolutely no bearing on their inherent nature
in the courtroom, i stand up, and with the gun i snuck in, i blow the guy away
if, for the rest of my life, i am haunted and tortured by what i did, i'm not a sociopath
if i enjoyed it, i'm a sociopath
your visceral reaction to taking a life is completely different from your higher mental faculties. your higher mental faculties might reason that it is necessary for you to take another human life in the name of justice. but in doing the act of taking another human life, as commanded by your forebrain, your emotional reaction will vary from horror to revulsion to strange excitement. you will find utter revulsion, or enjoyment, in what you are compulsed to do by your allegiance to a sense of justice. which reveals your honest natural predilection, regardless of the context of the life taking
to make light of death and gallows humor is perfectly acceptable, its a mechanism for catharsis. works of fiction, or natural deaths, these come to mind
by simply admitting they need a coping mechanism, you are making a tacit admission of the wrongness of what they are doing. you don't need a coping mechanism to cope with a neutral experience or a good experience
and then you outline the same categories of psychological reaction that i do. well, thanks for repeating me
if you kill someone, and you make jokes about it, you are a sociopath. that you are forced into that situation by duty or obedience, rather than choosing to kill someone of your own free will, does not change the psychological honesty of how you react to the issue
if you download "big boob lovers 7" and get an erection, you like giant tits. if you are ordered to watch "big boob lovers 7" by your superior officer, and you get an erection, congratulations, you like giant tits
how the predilection is revealed has no bearing on the honesty of the predilection
doesn't crack jokes about it. unless they are a cretin or a sociopath, or have never actually taken a human life
so if you found the headline funny, please self identify as moron or psychopath or ignorant, and go about the rest of your day, content in the fact that you know a little bit more about your personal failings
the internet really is mostly a sea of mindless negativity, so it is everyone's job #1 to ignore most of what they see on it. i suppose if all i got was vitriole and random ratings and aggressive replies i would balk. but there's always someone worthwhile who responds to me, or someone worthwhile to respond to myself
besides, i have no stake in slashdot that feeds or houses me. this is all just completely pointless in the end. which is quite a liberating feeling, to be able to speak one's mind freely with no consideration as to consequences, since there are none
but that just makes me speak too freely, i wind up being strongly opinionated. as such, i become a target for the puerile and pedantic
Not a single county in Oklahoma stirred from the orderly phalanx marching behind Mr. McCain, the senator from Arizona who was the Republican nominee, and Mr. Driskill, the owner of an insurance agency in downtown Tulsa, said he was proud to be in those ranks. Statewide, two out of three voters supported Mr. McCain, the highest percentage in the nation.
But that staunchly Republican, conservative Oklahoma is harder to find now. While there are countless Mr. Driskills here -- and hardly anyone doubts that Mr. McCain would easily win again in a redo of the vote -- there are also new fractures and fault lines as some voters have shifted toward accepting what the rest of the country wrought in giving Mr. Obama a lopsided victory.
now that obama has a strong mandate, even a begruding one in republican strongholds, please, let him deliver
1. people see something like daft punk, or depeche mode, or erasure, a whole host of very electronic bands, in performance. all the time. if you assert that they are somehow less compelling than a performance of traditional instruments, i'll actually differ with you: watching some guy playing a trumpet, is well, boring. or rather: at least as boring, or exciting, as watching a guy press a button a computer keyboard on a stage or scratch a record. in other words, there is no objective criteria to new forms of music and new instruments that makes them any more, or less compelling, to an audience, than watching someone play a traditional instrument. and besides, concerts always have sideshows and gimmicks as the "entertainment" while you listen to the music, regardless of the act
2. if an artist doesn't want to tour and perform live, then, yes, you are absolutely right, he is giving up on a large portion of his income in internet dominated music world. to which i can only say: and? so what?
are you telling me that the income from the pre-internet music world somehow created more quality music? really? there's a whole host of dubious assumptions in this implication of yours. for starters, that the artist needs this money in the first place to create what he does, and conversely, that all of those millions in the pre-internet music world somehow guaranteed quality. what in your mind establishes this connection? the connection between money going in and music quality coming out, is completely nonexistent
or, rather, perhaps you are correct in one respect: pure technical recording quality... but then, only in a world where you needed high production values in order to create good music. which is now a historical reality, not the reality we find ourselves in today. today, some teenager in his parents basement with less that $1,000 can create music of higher objective audio quality than the best studio that millions could buy in the 1960s. which means that, if you are talking about quality in this regard, your point is mooted by simple technological progress
let me give you some advice: never go into business. you don't really grasp much of money making ventures and opportunities. your criteria for saying "not viable" is humorous. thanks for the laugh
1. reading from her books on stage and other special lectures and appearances 2. selling special signed copies and other unique author-tweaked material (hand drawn artwork, hand written material, etc.) 3. selling rights to hollywood to make a movie 4. selling figurines, MMORPG rights, licensed kids toys... 5. etc., etc., etc.
will jk rowling of the future make as much as jk rowling as the past?
no, not at all. probably a tenth of what jk rowling of the past has made so far. and?
and now we have a new argument: what coherent morality or philosophy dictates that artists, nevermind distributors, have a right to make obscene amounts of money off their works?
of course they deserve SOME remuneration and consideration. and its not like their fame is going away, which is a totally different kind of reward unto itself. ask any musician about female groupies and backstage antics if you don't think fame is another kind of capitalization
but they deserve obscene levels of remuneration? really? so i write a popular song. society now has the responsibility to make my great-grandhcildren millionaires because of that?
that's the current understanding of copyright, and its morally bankrupt. and soon to be economically bankrupt, regardless of current ip law. the internet simply routes around absurd current ip law
"I think you're right, which is a shame. There is music out there, really GOOD music, that will not survive in this business model."
could you explain why you think this way?
you apparently believe the pre-internet business model somehow supported quality music. yes, there was plenty of quality music under the pre-internet model
and plenty of crap
i think some starry eyed folks think quality will improve in the internet music business model. no, i believe quality will simply not change. for many reasons, not least of which: quality is completely subjective. i do not think the internet music business model will give us a flood of quality material, it will still give us plenty of crap
but i don't understand this thinking of yours that supposes that quality will go down
what WILL change is that the music world will become heavily fractured. before there were a few fiefdoms in music on a national level: pop, country, rap, etc. that's it. now, there will be a thousandfold such fiefdoms according to genre, but also, a massive new dimension of music fiefdoms: local and microlocal band appreciation will increase a lot due to distribution and networking ease. aficionados of a local new york city band may never hear of a los angeles band, and visa versa, when before, both la and nyc would be exposed to the same bands on radio
additionally, the ability to internationalize will be easier now, so that new york city band will also have a better chance to get a following in auckland and brisbane as well, as effortlessly as it has a chance to get a following in philadelphia. however, what is unknown is how that new york city band will promote in auckland and brisbane. not that in the pre-internet world they had a better ability to do so (unless they were among the rare few bands like oasis or the beatles). but the rare few bands like the oasis or the beatles will come again, and they will not be lost due to the nonexistence of the music conglomerates. no, they will find a way. quality always trickles up. and in fact, there is a lot of money, a new niche, for promotes who sniff out top level local bands that they think can go national and international as well, and make a financial bet by promoting such top shelf local acts, in order to reap the windfall of ancillary cash later
in fact, this model is a lot more democratic than the traditional music conglomerate practice of cherry picking bands according to whim and perceived taste. which means, according to some arguments, better qualit ymusic for all, after all
yes, i'm contradicting what i said before: maybe the internet music distribution model WILL result in better quality music, due to being more democratic than the old corporate model
all of your problems are real. but it helps to point out superior alternatives as well as problems. superior alternatives means alternatives that are economically superior as well, and therein lies the rub.
people don't like to abuse 10 year olds and irradiate their lungs. they do it, because even though they don't want to do it, they don't see a better way
show them the better way, don't just bitch and moan about the current state of affairs. anyone can do that, and its a quite useless function, as everyone knows these are problems already. everyone knows coal and sweat shops suck. they just don't want to read by candlelight and pay $50 for t-shirts. can you give them electric lights and $10 t-shirts without coal and sweatshops?
if you can, go collect your nobel prize for changing reality. if you can't, join the rest of us here who understand the depressing underbelly of reality already. you don't bring any new news to the table
2. distribute it online for free 3. make cash via ancillaries: special fan material, concerts, etc.
this is the economic model of the music industry for the future. probably for books and movies too
of course, there is always room for step 1.5: go into contract with a traditional music conglomerate to massively hype your music and reap larger windfalls of ancillary cash. this represents though a radically different business model for the traditional industry stalwarts: promoter. and nothing more. a much smaller financial footprint. oh well
but what there is NO more room for is revised step 2: charge for your music online
yes, itunes is radically successful and profitable. but mainly because it matches a low price point for a useful service: quick download, quality assurance, robust cataloging, easy searching. none of which can't eventually be beaten by competing free services as the riaa and the dead business philosophy it represents fades away
recorded music, from now on, is nothing more than advertising material
advertising material for revenue streams comprised of fan-appreciated ancillary materials and live concerts
Release dates for Inkheart (2008) Country Date Germany 11 December 2008 UK 12 December 2008 Brazil 25 December 2008 Iceland 26 December 2008 Singapore 22 January 2009 Taiwan 23 January 2009 Turkey 23 January 2009 USA 23 January 2009 France 28 January 2009 Argentina 29 January 2009 South Korea 29 January 2009 Mexico 30 January 2009 Czech Republic 12 March 2009 Slovakia 12 March 2009 Russia 19 March 2009 Croatia 26 March 2009 Netherlands April 2009 Australia 2 April 2009 Finland 3 April 2009
1. vessels of purity which are corrupted? 2. vessels of filth which are tamed?
i think a lot of people think children are corrupted by something in their development, and that something can be videogames. i haven't the faintest idea where these people come from, why they believe this, or why so many do think this way. i think it stems from an inability to accept something about their own human nature (which is not just bad, its good, bad, and ugly)
however, there are two good arguments against this "vessels of purity being corrupted" view of human nature and childhood development:
1. look at the behavior of humans during say, the time of the roman empire. violent and bloody and brutal. not many videogames, nevermind movies, or even books, or much of any media outside of a few rooms of scribes and wandering minstrels. flute music makes people axe murderers maybe? 2. look at the behavior of a group of toddlers for five minutes, many years away from playing their first game of gta. its not love and happiness, its hitting and punching and crying and screaming. its pretty much humanity without the frontal lobe. which, developmentally, is exactly what a toddler is. we're all pretty much a few neurons away from feces flinging monkeys with a superego grafted onto our foreheads
it all goes to show, if anyone has any problems with violence, its organic, its not something that is taught. nature versus nurture is a huge fountain of debate in human psychology, but when it comes to violence, to me at least, its pretty obvious that nature holds the balance of responsibility
of course, this doesn't stop unsavory people from trying "the devil made me do it" defense. its a just a same so many well-meaning but clueless people buy this defense
if you play 5 years of ultraviolent videogames every day, and you are psychologically normal, you have exactly 0% more chance of commiting a violent act in real life. meanwhile, if you are psychologically damaged in a certain way, and you never see a violent videogame in your life, you will still probably commit a transgressive act in your life. the presence, or lack thereof, of violent media, for either person, makes no difference at all
Slashdot Mirror
scientists are discovering ways to make adult cells revert to stem cell status
here's a recent methodology:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090107134633.htm
in the near future, there will be no need for stem cells, or rather, stem cells will be made from sources no moralist, medical ethicist, or religious dogmatist could possibly object to
what better way to solve an intransigent divide between science and religion than to make the issue moot?
now if only someone can come up with a methodology to make evolution look like "the word of god", and we're all good
but it suffered from a fatal error
if you are grandma and all you are doing is checking your email and looing at cnn.com, you don't need anything above 56kbps
the problem is, grandma is missing out on future services, the march of progress
youtube straddles this issue: its not exactly impossible over 56kbps, but obviously video services are changing and evolving, and you need a larger pipe for that. and youtube is already a service grandma wants and needs, and grandma appreciates
2. look at processes tab
3. go view, select columns, put in all columns
4. now click on the title of each column, which will sort ascending/ descending, and analyze each column by itself, one at a time
5. look especially for processes that are doing heavy cpu or heavy i/o, or other bizarre exotic behaviors, like high thread count
visually, in terms of bulk and bells and whistles, they are kind of like the hummer version of military hardware compared to the jeep that is the blackberry
as an allegory to how the hummer gained popularity in the 1980s/ 1990s, perhaps the sectera will eventually be marketed to the public with the same cachet: overbearing quasimilitary american chic for the average suburbanite
canada is merely unincorporated usa territory
that is, that violent videogames decrease violence in society
media is catharsis. what i mean by that is: what is seen in a movie, or read in a book, or played on a keyboard, is something that is released harmlessly there, and left there. something that would be expressed in the real world otherwise if there were no means for harmless escape
some people may consider me a ittle radical on the subject, but i am serious: more people should play more violent videogames. more people should consume more pornography. the result would be less violence and less trangressive sexual crimes in real life. i think violent offenders should be given access to violent videogames in prison, and given a copy on their release (if ever). i think sexual offenders should be given hardcore pornography. this would teach them how to cope with their urges and manage them without resorting to victimizing real people in the real world
and for those of us who can "self-medicate", and remove the baser urges we recognize in ourselves, and recognize as socially wrong, by releasing them harmlessly on a keyboard or a magazine, then please, by all means, allow us to do that
because the attraction to violent videogames, or sexual media, is really a HEALTHY instinct: its a recognition for the need to have catharsis on certain asocial urges, something the vast majority of us have. although, some people don't have any sexual or violent proclivities about themselves at all, and that's why they look at people who view pornography or violence as tainted somehow, and they see the media as a cause of this taint. this is a false line of reasoning on their part. the media is merely a symptom, not a cause. and much more than a symptom, it is a treatment. it is catharsis
violent or sexual media does not create monsters. we are already, or are already not, monsters to begin with. its just a question of whether we release in real life, in society, or in fantasy, in media-based pursuits
it is very easy, vey lazy, and very dumb to ape the usual cynical comments about our government (speaking as an american). but one of the bedrock principles of our government is checks and balances: if one branch gets out of line, another branch puts it back in its place. here, the legislative branch passed a law which abrogates freedom of expression. the judicial branch comes in, and squashes it. so celebrate, goddamn it, the system works
it is not useful for anyone to find that the system failed when it passed this law in the first place. people are weak, they make dumb mistakes. obviously, this law was an idiotic mistake. and it won't be the last idiotic law that is passed. but laws bet blocked, and overturned. please make note of that. there is a filter in place
of course, the diehards will find SOME way to complain about something. their first stop, of course, will be to list the familiar abuses of the bush administration... the bush administration that is now dead. the usual talking points and familiar executive branch excesses are history. move on, please find something new to whine and bitch and moan about
the biggest check of all, the biggest filter of all, the american people, just closed the chapter on that administration. of course i don't expect some of you to actually cheer when something good happens. for some of you, you seem congenitally incapable of doing that
whining and bitching and moaning. if that's all you can do, you've failed, not your government
so celebrate
score two for completely supporting my argument
thanks for both
but i am going to suppose for the moment you are being perfectly honest
in which case, i applaud your honesty for admitting a brutal truth about yourself
it is completely possible to be a moral psychopath. and what i mean by that is, you realize what and who you are, you get excited from inflicting pain, and your higher faculties works against your inherent nature to keep yourself from committing horrible acts
such a psychopath is actually a preferable person to someone who refuses to explore or accept their essential nature, psychopath or not
ugly honesty is always preferable to pleasant lies, but many people refuse to admit that there are dark corners of their mind. and when such corners remain unexplored, such a person has a potential to go out of control, and inflict real damage to themselves or others
willful blindness is never preferable to a cold reckoning of your darker self, and in such brutal honesty with yourself, you develop a sense of control over your darker side such that you don't bite yourself in the ass by losing control in certain situations
as a corollary, lets suppose for a moment you are a pedophile. you find yourself sexually excited by little boys. person A is horrified by these impulses, denies them, never admits them, runs away from them when they rear themselves. what happens to such a person? they wind up buggering a child in a moment of weakness and loss of control
meanwhile person B depressingly accepts these impulses, learns to recognize their appearance, explores them in their mind, and develops mechanisms for mollifying them and shortcircuiting them, going up to and including reporting oneself to others to prevent oneself to harming a child. a moral pedophile
everyone has a dark side. acceptance of it leads to an ability to control it and prevent it from hurting yourself or others. those who deny their darkside and never explore it, are in danger of succumbing to it and losing control and committing vile acts
you are forced to take another human life due to circumstances where your life is threatened
perfectly acceptable
however, during the taking of another human's life, you will find a number of emotional reactions to the event in different people
some will be revulsed and horrified and tormented by what they have done, even though all of society and their own sense of reason and higher faculties completely condones the act as necessary
then another person might find themselves playing the event out inside their mind again and again, and find excitement, titillation, enjoyment even
this person is a sociopath
it is their natural honest emotional reaction to the taking of another human life
that their natural predilection was revealed in a perfectly socially acceptable situation has absolutely no bearing on their inherent nature
and some guy kills her
in the courtroom, i stand up, and with the gun i snuck in, i blow the guy away
if, for the rest of my life, i am haunted and tortured by what i did, i'm not a sociopath
if i enjoyed it, i'm a sociopath
your visceral reaction to taking a life is completely different from your higher mental faculties. your higher mental faculties might reason that it is necessary for you to take another human life in the name of justice. but in doing the act of taking another human life, as commanded by your forebrain, your emotional reaction will vary from horror to revulsion to strange excitement. you will find utter revulsion, or enjoyment, in what you are compulsed to do by your allegiance to a sense of justice. which reveals your honest natural predilection, regardless of the context of the life taking
to make light of death and gallows humor is perfectly acceptable, its a mechanism for catharsis. works of fiction, or natural deaths, these come to mind
but what of real life killing equipment?
how's that funny again?
by simply admitting they need a coping mechanism, you are making a tacit admission of the wrongness of what they are doing. you don't need a coping mechanism to cope with a neutral experience or a good experience
and then you outline the same categories of psychological reaction that i do. well, thanks for repeating me
if you kill someone, and you make jokes about it, you are a sociopath. that you are forced into that situation by duty or obedience, rather than choosing to kill someone of your own free will, does not change the psychological honesty of how you react to the issue
if you download "big boob lovers 7" and get an erection, you like giant tits. if you are ordered to watch "big boob lovers 7" by your superior officer, and you get an erection, congratulations, you like giant tits
how the predilection is revealed has no bearing on the honesty of the predilection
doesn't crack jokes about it. unless they are a cretin or a sociopath, or have never actually taken a human life
so if you found the headline funny, please self identify as moron or psychopath or ignorant, and go about the rest of your day, content in the fact that you know a little bit more about your personal failings
the internet really is mostly a sea of mindless negativity, so it is everyone's job #1 to ignore most of what they see on it. i suppose if all i got was vitriole and random ratings and aggressive replies i would balk. but there's always someone worthwhile who responds to me, or someone worthwhile to respond to myself
besides, i have no stake in slashdot that feeds or houses me. this is all just completely pointless in the end. which is quite a liberating feeling, to be able to speak one's mind freely with no consideration as to consequences, since there are none
but that just makes me speak too freely, i wind up being strongly opinionated. as such, i become a target for the puerile and pedantic
whatever
obama is a secret communist muslim!
(nevermind the contradiction of terms in the idiotic propaganda some people believe)
i like that even in heavily republican places in the country, like oklahoma, since the election, approval and support for obama has swelled:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/20/us/politics/20tulsa.html?partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
now that obama has a strong mandate, even a begruding one in republican strongholds, please, let him deliver
1. people see something like daft punk, or depeche mode, or erasure, a whole host of very electronic bands, in performance. all the time. if you assert that they are somehow less compelling than a performance of traditional instruments, i'll actually differ with you: watching some guy playing a trumpet, is well, boring. or rather: at least as boring, or exciting, as watching a guy press a button a computer keyboard on a stage or scratch a record. in other words, there is no objective criteria to new forms of music and new instruments that makes them any more, or less compelling, to an audience, than watching someone play a traditional instrument. and besides, concerts always have sideshows and gimmicks as the "entertainment" while you listen to the music, regardless of the act
2. if an artist doesn't want to tour and perform live, then, yes, you are absolutely right, he is giving up on a large portion of his income in internet dominated music world. to which i can only say: and? so what?
are you telling me that the income from the pre-internet music world somehow created more quality music? really? there's a whole host of dubious assumptions in this implication of yours. for starters, that the artist needs this money in the first place to create what he does, and conversely, that all of those millions in the pre-internet music world somehow guaranteed quality. what in your mind establishes this connection? the connection between money going in and music quality coming out, is completely nonexistent
or, rather, perhaps you are correct in one respect: pure technical recording quality... but then, only in a world where you needed high production values in order to create good music. which is now a historical reality, not the reality we find ourselves in today. today, some teenager in his parents basement with less that $1,000 can create music of higher objective audio quality than the best studio that millions could buy in the 1960s. which means that, if you are talking about quality in this regard, your point is mooted by simple technological progress
let me give you some advice: never go into business. you don't really grasp much of money making ventures and opportunities. your criteria for saying "not viable" is humorous. thanks for the laugh
she can, and has, made money:
1. reading from her books on stage and other special lectures and appearances
2. selling special signed copies and other unique author-tweaked material (hand drawn artwork, hand written material, etc.)
3. selling rights to hollywood to make a movie
4. selling figurines, MMORPG rights, licensed kids toys...
5. etc., etc., etc.
will jk rowling of the future make as much as jk rowling as the past?
no, not at all. probably a tenth of what jk rowling of the past has made so far. and?
and now we have a new argument: what coherent morality or philosophy dictates that artists, nevermind distributors, have a right to make obscene amounts of money off their works?
of course they deserve SOME remuneration and consideration. and its not like their fame is going away, which is a totally different kind of reward unto itself. ask any musician about female groupies and backstage antics if you don't think fame is another kind of capitalization
but they deserve obscene levels of remuneration? really? so i write a popular song. society now has the responsibility to make my great-grandhcildren millionaires because of that?
that's the current understanding of copyright, and its morally bankrupt. and soon to be economically bankrupt, regardless of current ip law. the internet simply routes around absurd current ip law
"I think you're right, which is a shame. There is music out there, really GOOD music, that will not survive in this business model."
could you explain why you think this way?
you apparently believe the pre-internet business model somehow supported quality music. yes, there was plenty of quality music under the pre-internet model
and plenty of crap
i think some starry eyed folks think quality will improve in the internet music business model. no, i believe quality will simply not change. for many reasons, not least of which: quality is completely subjective. i do not think the internet music business model will give us a flood of quality material, it will still give us plenty of crap
but i don't understand this thinking of yours that supposes that quality will go down
what WILL change is that the music world will become heavily fractured. before there were a few fiefdoms in music on a national level: pop, country, rap, etc. that's it. now, there will be a thousandfold such fiefdoms according to genre, but also, a massive new dimension of music fiefdoms: local and microlocal band appreciation will increase a lot due to distribution and networking ease. aficionados of a local new york city band may never hear of a los angeles band, and visa versa, when before, both la and nyc would be exposed to the same bands on radio
additionally, the ability to internationalize will be easier now, so that new york city band will also have a better chance to get a following in auckland and brisbane as well, as effortlessly as it has a chance to get a following in philadelphia. however, what is unknown is how that new york city band will promote in auckland and brisbane. not that in the pre-internet world they had a better ability to do so (unless they were among the rare few bands like oasis or the beatles). but the rare few bands like the oasis or the beatles will come again, and they will not be lost due to the nonexistence of the music conglomerates. no, they will find a way. quality always trickles up. and in fact, there is a lot of money, a new niche, for promotes who sniff out top level local bands that they think can go national and international as well, and make a financial bet by promoting such top shelf local acts, in order to reap the windfall of ancillary cash later
in fact, this model is a lot more democratic than the traditional music conglomerate practice of cherry picking bands according to whim and perceived taste. which means, according to some arguments, better qualit ymusic for all, after all
yes, i'm contradicting what i said before: maybe the internet music distribution model WILL result in better quality music, due to being more democratic than the old corporate model
all of your problems are real. but it helps to point out superior alternatives as well as problems. superior alternatives means alternatives that are economically superior as well, and therein lies the rub.
people don't like to abuse 10 year olds and irradiate their lungs. they do it, because even though they don't want to do it, they don't see a better way
show them the better way, don't just bitch and moan about the current state of affairs. anyone can do that, and its a quite useless function, as everyone knows these are problems already. everyone knows coal and sweat shops suck. they just don't want to read by candlelight and pay $50 for t-shirts. can you give them electric lights and $10 t-shirts without coal and sweatshops?
if you can, go collect your nobel prize for changing reality. if you can't, join the rest of us here who understand the depressing underbelly of reality already. you don't bring any new news to the table
2. distribute it online for free
3. make cash via ancillaries: special fan material, concerts, etc.
this is the economic model of the music industry for the future. probably for books and movies too
of course, there is always room for step 1.5: go into contract with a traditional music conglomerate to massively hype your music and reap larger windfalls of ancillary cash. this represents though a radically different business model for the traditional industry stalwarts: promoter. and nothing more. a much smaller financial footprint. oh well
but what there is NO more room for is revised step 2: charge for your music online
yes, itunes is radically successful and profitable. but mainly because it matches a low price point for a useful service: quick download, quality assurance, robust cataloging, easy searching. none of which can't eventually be beaten by competing free services as the riaa and the dead business philosophy it represents fades away
recorded music, from now on, is nothing more than advertising material
advertising material for revenue streams comprised of fan-appreciated ancillary materials and live concerts
a world beyond the border of your mind (or at least, your country):
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0494238/releaseinfo
are human beings:
1. vessels of purity which are corrupted?
2. vessels of filth which are tamed?
i think a lot of people think children are corrupted by something in their development, and that something can be videogames. i haven't the faintest idea where these people come from, why they believe this, or why so many do think this way. i think it stems from an inability to accept something about their own human nature (which is not just bad, its good, bad, and ugly)
however, there are two good arguments against this "vessels of purity being corrupted" view of human nature and childhood development:
1. look at the behavior of humans during say, the time of the roman empire. violent and bloody and brutal. not many videogames, nevermind movies, or even books, or much of any media outside of a few rooms of scribes and wandering minstrels. flute music makes people axe murderers maybe?
2. look at the behavior of a group of toddlers for five minutes, many years away from playing their first game of gta. its not love and happiness, its hitting and punching and crying and screaming. its pretty much humanity without the frontal lobe. which, developmentally, is exactly what a toddler is. we're all pretty much a few neurons away from feces flinging monkeys with a superego grafted onto our foreheads
it all goes to show, if anyone has any problems with violence, its organic, its not something that is taught. nature versus nurture is a huge fountain of debate in human psychology, but when it comes to violence, to me at least, its pretty obvious that nature holds the balance of responsibility
of course, this doesn't stop unsavory people from trying "the devil made me do it" defense. its a just a same so many well-meaning but clueless people buy this defense
if you play 5 years of ultraviolent videogames every day, and you are psychologically normal, you have exactly 0% more chance of commiting a violent act in real life. meanwhile, if you are psychologically damaged in a certain way, and you never see a violent videogame in your life, you will still probably commit a transgressive act in your life. the presence, or lack thereof, of violent media, for either person, makes no difference at all