I don't believe the amounts of explosives weren't enough to do serious damage. That wasn't my point, if they had been able to detonate, the scare factor go off the charts and even more draconian measures would have ensued.
I don't really need to go to the concert if I have listened to the music
If you are saying that a CD is equivalent to seeing a musician play live...well I can't help you. I know most people would strongly disagree with you.
You can say that sufficient people will go to support the artist, but I seriously doubt that.
which is why all the major acts today are touring? they make more money touring than recording and selling copies (due to lousy deals by the labels)
In the last 50 years the concert has gone from being a place where new works are performed to being a place where the worship of the artist takes place.
quite beside the point. If an artist doesn't perform well, then they won't do well...something about the good rising the bad going out of business?
Promotion is driven by revenue. There are no prospects for revenue under the new regime
again, there's no money in live performance? ask Van Halen why they are getting back together...it ain't for the laughs.
Music and art both have a long long history that didn't involve copyright and printing money in the form of copies. They will be just fine. Different, but fine.
Movies? I expect most revenue and theater showings to disappear within a few years. Even Netflix is an abberation today - there is no way people are going to pay even a miniscule amount to Netflix if they can have the content for free.
You realize the movie industry said literally the same thing about the VCR right? It was going to completely destroy their industry. And now it's one of the largest parts of its revenue.
Now the relevant question is, if its such a big part of their revenue how will they survive if content is free? Well for starters you start by making movie going a 'fun' experience again. Shoulder to shoulder crammed seating econo-theaters probably don't work anymore. Stadium seating was one of the few really great creations in the modern movie experience. $10 popcorn? uh, maybe not. Make people want to go to the theater, not pretend like it's a prison where you are being granted a privilege to eat their food and sit in their theater.
The entertainment industry is certainly going to change in the next 20 or 30 years, but it's far from the doomsday scenario you envision. New ways of doing business already exist and are being used. When a local band can literally record, mix, distribute and market their songs *themselves* the possibilities for new and exciting things are just about limitless. certainly many won't survive, but that's not exactly a guarantee anyway.
And for the record, I work in the software industry. I get paid to develop software. I don't own the software I write, the people I write it for own it, and I make a pretty damned good living doing it.
You touch on the two most important security enhancements since 9/11:
1. Reinforced cockpit doors
2. Passengers no longer reacting passively
Those 2 things alone will prevent another 9/11 from ever happening again. 9/11 wasn't about bombs it was about controlling aircraft and using them as bombs. Flight #93 is proof of that. When the passengers fought back, the removed the control that the terrorists had and so the terrorists crashed the plane.
The only thing I'll disagree with you on is this
weapons or bombs, both of which are of little use outside of a direct confrontation with the passengers and crew
Bombs are quite useful outside of direct confrontation. If the underwear bomber or shoe bomber had been able to detonate without being interrupted, damage would have been done and we all be getting our colonoscopies for free during our strip searches at the airports. The planes may not have crashed but that wasn't ever the goal of those plans. Just scare us into reacting and they worked perfectly.
What you call 'taking advantage of you' could also be called 'free advertising'. A copy of a work (song, painting), have previously been treated as a 'product' in and of themselves. That will change to being a 'physical copy'. A digital copy of a work can be reproduced perfectly and in an infinite supply.
So that now the 'value' of a copy is going to be for practical purposes, zero.
The music industry is fighting this, but simply can't win that war. Eventually new artists will skip the established labels and go straight online and the labels and 'old' companies will wither.
As an artist, use the power of the internet to drive sales of the intangible things you create. Like playing a live concert, or an actual painting. That is the way of the future.
And to be sure there will be some 'need' for a good marketing company to promote bands, but it will be less of the master/slave relationship that the labels currently have and more of the customer/client relationship that exists in normal non-monopoly situations.
Russia/USSR had major political goals in expanding into Europe after WW2
I'd call having a large buffer between you and your enemy a pretty valuable resource, wouldn't you? So yes they took/stayed there for the resource. Wasn't like the locals had an ability to throw them out.
What they did in South Asia was about access to shipping for their resources. Money, not military.
again, access to shipping is a *huge* resource. Kinda why we took islands going across the Pacific in WWII (and yes I know the air fields were just as, if not more important). We needed places to stage and ship supplies rather than come all the way from Hawaii. Resources are basically money in any fashion you define since they by definition convert into money when traded or used.
the British definitely did not have overwhelming force in the Colonies.
Colonial period is more than just the US Colonies, just fyi;-) And they did have overwhelming force compared to the native Americans, guns vs bows you know. Much like the Conquistadors and their Central/South American invasion. Metal armor does wonders against a sword or arrows.
Not really sure what we're arguing about, you seem to think I mean to hamstring the US military and I've clearly never said that. I said that by having massive overwhelming force we need to make sure we don't wield it simply because it's an 'easier' way to do things than sitting down and hammering out compromises or doing things because a leader wants too.
Iraq is the most recent example of this. Simply no justification for us going there. We haven't invaded N. Korea, yet they pose a significantly bigger risk due to the nukes. Why? because they have the nukes and our overwhelming force can't stop them from being used before we take over.
very cute. Is that from the "If it rhymes it must be true dept"?
This is a serious breach of trust regarding the policy used to CLEAN UP THE GOPs MESS>
Still bad, I still am just as pissed off about this as I would be with GWB if he'd done it (which I'm pretty sure he did fudge facts on a legion of issues).
But Obama in no way caused the oil disaster. Well one *possible* avenue of responsibility stems from the Sec of Interior he chose, but that's so far down the list of directly attributable causes of the disaster it ain't even funny.
we don't see many big-stomps-little wars in isolation.
Wanna take a look at that statement from, say, any eastern block country? they got pretty well run over simply because Russia/USSR could.
barring outright aggressive wars of territorial conquest
Um, most wars are about territory and the resources that come with it aren't they?
What would you say about the Colonial times? overwhelming force by the occupiers didn't exactly restrain them. Britain had territories on every continent for about a century. Not like the natives would really stop it.
Somehow replied to my own comment instead of yours.
So here's mine:
Not saying anything of the sort. But with overwhelming superiority comes responsibilities that we don't wield it simply because we have it to wield.
Human nature is what it is, self reflection to know that is something we can strive to never forget.
I'm not disagreeing your statement. But I don't think they would have done it if we didn't have the overwhelming military superiority we had over Iraq.
You're making the assumption that a strong military invokes blood lust.
something about having a hammer and only seeing a lot of nails maybe?
Parity tends to produce cooperation, overwhelming superiority tends to produce arrogance towards those you are superior too.
Do you seriously thing we would have invaded Iraq if we didn't know our military could kick the crap out of them? (note this is different than actually planning for the consequences of *after* kicking the crack out of them which we didn't do either).
As I understand it (and others have suggested this isn't correct, I'm not convinced yet), the housing bubble was created because of the mergers of investment banks and regular banks and insurance companies. These then created the securitization of mortgages; financial instruments so complicated they literally needed rocket scientists to write the equations to make them work.
This was compounded by the significant increase in sub-prime mortgages (5 to 30 percent); which may attribute to Dem supported portions of the Glass-Steagel repeal act - again I'm not convinced of that.
Now on top of all of this, these financial companies started doing CDOs or credit default swaps. Basically, selling insurance on a debt that it won't go bad. Except since they weren't insurance companies they didn't need to maintain the required capital to back up said insurance 'policies'. See the mergers above.
Some of these were literally leveraged 50 times the value of the original debt. Since these securities (that no one understood) were selling so well there was significant pressure to sell more of them. Which meant we needed more mortgages to securitize. So now, mortgage companies are incentivized to sell more faster and less safe mortgages. Some also say that this is Fannie/Freddie's fault. Again I don't believe they were the prime problem.
With all of this happening, and a decided deregulation environment fostered by the GOP, we ended up with the financial disaster we got. Perhaps you can claim the Dems went along with that deregulation. However, the almost universal source for deregulation ideas comes from the GOP. I.e. the Dems are big gov't and the GOP are small gov't - less regulations.
I was blaming the lack of budgeting for the wars not the wars themselves.
I fully blame the Dems for being spineless on not opposing the Iraq war more forcefully. But Bush/GOP clearly are the 'responsible party' for the Iraq war (with said spineless Dem enablement).
for starters unemployment hasn't been over 10%. Close to it, but not over.
You're arguing the same original (false, in my opinion) point. That because the Dems had control of congress for the last year before the collapse, they should be blamed for it.
Sorry, when systemic risks are introduced over a decade, it takes a lot longer to fix thing than just a year or two.
If you want trends, how about jobs? When Obama took office we were losing 750K jobs a MONTH. We are now growing jobs every month albeit slowly. Obama has created more jobs than Bush did in his entire 2 terms. Of course that's because the unemployment was so high when he took office. Not a lot of place to go but up. Still means Bush left a massive job loss though.
Your quote is from 'before' the financial collapse. If you're using that quote to imply the Dems didn't deal with deficits because of the massive deficits we have now 'after' the collapse, that's just a wee bit disingenuous.
Likewise, the Dems passed healthcare reform that actually *reduces* the deficit.
Gridlock arguably proved useful during Clinton's years. The major difference being we have huge systemic problems now that we did not have then. Inaction will make things worse, not better. Take NJ and Gov Christie. His objection to the new train tunnel is shortsighted at best. NJ/NYC *will* need new infrastructure. It's been 100 years since that tunnel was built. When do you do it? Certainly the GOP didn't do it when they had a booming economy and majority power in all three houses.
The longsighted argument is you deficit spend now, so that when the private sector comes back, there's adequate infrastructure for them to succeed. We need jobs, we need economic activity and we need infrastructure. Use the 3rd to create the first two. That's the argument Dems unfortunately haven't been able to articulate to voters.
Sure, there is much more at play, but I believe you are being very naive to blame the party in the minority for an economic collapse.
I would say you are naive for assuming that the 'majority' power for more than a decade running up to the collapse isn't the primary source of the problems.
What policies did the Dems introduce that caused such a massive economic collapse? The GOPs removal of Glass-Steagal(sp?) was a horrendously bad decision that led *directly* to the financial crisis. Likewise, the massive Bush tax cuts that were unpaid for and the 2 wars that weren't accounted for in the budgets.
Bush also passed the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan without paying for it. Dems supported this as do I so I will accept joint responsibility for this.
Remember, the bailouts don't count since those happened *after* the collapse. What did the Dems do to cause it?
When the GOP steers the ship towards a waterfall, just because someone else grabs the wheel right before it goes over doesn't absolve the GOP for their primary role in sending it over.
You can claim credit for the economy growing like crazy under the GOP from 1995-2007 only if you also take the blame for the complete collapse of the economy in 2008-2009. You don't get the upside without also taking the downside.
The locomotive series 'Diesel Electrics' don't use batteries. The diesel simply is a generator to run the electric drive motors. Most long haul trains use this I'm pretty sure as its more efficient than just diesel power.
However, from here:
'Electro-diesels' do exist that have both full electric and diesel operation ability. These are mostly for localized areas where they need to be able to go full electric in limited areas (city centers).
this is exactly what the Volt was *supposed* to be. But now it's coming out that rather than decouple the ICE entirely, they just limited when it would help the wheels. So it's still 'just' a hybrid' unfortunately.
I agree though, seems like the efficiency savings of the electric motors should make this a no brainer of a design.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't believe the amounts of explosives weren't enough to do serious damage. That wasn't my point, if they had been able to detonate, the scare factor go off the charts and even more draconian measures would have ensued.
I don't really need to go to the concert if I have listened to the music
If you are saying that a CD is equivalent to seeing a musician play live...well I can't help you. I know most people would strongly disagree with you.
You can say that sufficient people will go to support the artist, but I seriously doubt that.
which is why all the major acts today are touring? they make more money touring than recording and selling copies (due to lousy deals by the labels)
In the last 50 years the concert has gone from being a place where new works are performed to being a place where the worship of the artist takes place.
quite beside the point. If an artist doesn't perform well, then they won't do well...something about the good rising the bad going out of business?
Promotion is driven by revenue. There are no prospects for revenue under the new regime
again, there's no money in live performance? ask Van Halen why they are getting back together...it ain't for the laughs.
Music and art both have a long long history that didn't involve copyright and printing money in the form of copies. They will be just fine. Different, but fine.
Movies? I expect most revenue and theater showings to disappear within a few years. Even Netflix is an abberation today - there is no way people are going to pay even a miniscule amount to Netflix if they can have the content for free.
You realize the movie industry said literally the same thing about the VCR right? It was going to completely destroy their industry. And now it's one of the largest parts of its revenue.
Now the relevant question is, if its such a big part of their revenue how will they survive if content is free? Well for starters you start by making movie going a 'fun' experience again. Shoulder to shoulder crammed seating econo-theaters probably don't work anymore. Stadium seating was one of the few really great creations in the modern movie experience. $10 popcorn? uh, maybe not. Make people want to go to the theater, not pretend like it's a prison where you are being granted a privilege to eat their food and sit in their theater.
The entertainment industry is certainly going to change in the next 20 or 30 years, but it's far from the doomsday scenario you envision. New ways of doing business already exist and are being used. When a local band can literally record, mix, distribute and market their songs *themselves* the possibilities for new and exciting things are just about limitless. certainly many won't survive, but that's not exactly a guarantee anyway.
And for the record, I work in the software industry. I get paid to develop software. I don't own the software I write, the people I write it for own it, and I make a pretty damned good living doing it.
1. Reinforced cockpit doors
2. Passengers no longer reacting passively
Those 2 things alone will prevent another 9/11 from ever happening again. 9/11 wasn't about bombs it was about controlling aircraft and using them as bombs. Flight #93 is proof of that. When the passengers fought back, the removed the control that the terrorists had and so the terrorists crashed the plane.
The only thing I'll disagree with you on is this
weapons or bombs, both of which are of little use outside of a direct confrontation with the passengers and crew
Bombs are quite useful outside of direct confrontation. If the underwear bomber or shoe bomber had been able to detonate without being interrupted, damage would have been done and we all be getting our colonoscopies for free during our strip searches at the airports. The planes may not have crashed but that wasn't ever the goal of those plans. Just scare us into reacting and they worked perfectly.
What you call 'taking advantage of you' could also be called 'free advertising'. A copy of a work (song, painting), have previously been treated as a 'product' in and of themselves. That will change to being a 'physical copy'. A digital copy of a work can be reproduced perfectly and in an infinite supply.
So that now the 'value' of a copy is going to be for practical purposes, zero.
The music industry is fighting this, but simply can't win that war. Eventually new artists will skip the established labels and go straight online and the labels and 'old' companies will wither.
As an artist, use the power of the internet to drive sales of the intangible things you create. Like playing a live concert, or an actual painting. That is the way of the future.
And to be sure there will be some 'need' for a good marketing company to promote bands, but it will be less of the master/slave relationship that the labels currently have and more of the customer/client relationship that exists in normal non-monopoly situations.
oh wow, haven't had a Kriek in too damn long!
you're right, you sell the IDEA of profits to schmucks who think you'll actually make them rich. You then take the money and launder it.
It's called shares of stock.
Doh! Loved that movie and totally missed the reference!
Russia/USSR had major political goals in expanding into Europe after WW2
I'd call having a large buffer between you and your enemy a pretty valuable resource, wouldn't you? So yes they took/stayed there for the resource. Wasn't like the locals had an ability to throw them out.
What they did in South Asia was about access to shipping for their resources. Money, not military.
again, access to shipping is a *huge* resource. Kinda why we took islands going across the Pacific in WWII (and yes I know the air fields were just as, if not more important). We needed places to stage and ship supplies rather than come all the way from Hawaii. Resources are basically money in any fashion you define since they by definition convert into money when traded or used.
the British definitely did not have overwhelming force in the Colonies.
Colonial period is more than just the US Colonies, just fyi ;-) And they did have overwhelming force compared to the native Americans, guns vs bows you know. Much like the Conquistadors and their Central/South American invasion. Metal armor does wonders against a sword or arrows.
Not really sure what we're arguing about, you seem to think I mean to hamstring the US military and I've clearly never said that. I said that by having massive overwhelming force we need to make sure we don't wield it simply because it's an 'easier' way to do things than sitting down and hammering out compromises or doing things because a leader wants too.
Iraq is the most recent example of this. Simply no justification for us going there. We haven't invaded N. Korea, yet they pose a significantly bigger risk due to the nukes. Why? because they have the nukes and our overwhelming force can't stop them from being used before we take over.
very cute. Is that from the "If it rhymes it must be true dept"?
This is a serious breach of trust regarding the policy used to CLEAN UP THE GOPs MESS>
Still bad, I still am just as pissed off about this as I would be with GWB if he'd done it (which I'm pretty sure he did fudge facts on a legion of issues).
But Obama in no way caused the oil disaster. Well one *possible* avenue of responsibility stems from the Sec of Interior he chose, but that's so far down the list of directly attributable causes of the disaster it ain't even funny.
we don't see many big-stomps-little wars in isolation.
Wanna take a look at that statement from, say, any eastern block country? they got pretty well run over simply because Russia/USSR could.
barring outright aggressive wars of territorial conquest
Um, most wars are about territory and the resources that come with it aren't they?
What would you say about the Colonial times? overwhelming force by the occupiers didn't exactly restrain them. Britain had territories on every continent for about a century. Not like the natives would really stop it.
Somehow replied to my own comment instead of yours.
So here's mine:
Not saying anything of the sort. But with overwhelming superiority comes responsibilities that we don't wield it simply because we have it to wield. Human nature is what it is, self reflection to know that is something we can strive to never forget.
And I'll give you this:
Which would be worse? lots of small proxy wars, or global nuclear war?
Would. You. Like. To. Play. A. Game.?
Not saying anything of the sort. But with overwhelming superiority comes responsibilities that we don't wield it simply because we have it to wield.
Human nature is what it is, self reflection to know that is something we can strive to never forget.
I'm not disagreeing your statement. But I don't think they would have done it if we didn't have the overwhelming military superiority we had over Iraq.
You're making the assumption that a strong military invokes blood lust.
something about having a hammer and only seeing a lot of nails maybe?
Parity tends to produce cooperation, overwhelming superiority tends to produce arrogance towards those you are superior too.
Do you seriously thing we would have invaded Iraq if we didn't know our military could kick the crap out of them? (note this is different than actually planning for the consequences of *after* kicking the crack out of them which we didn't do either).
As I understand it (and others have suggested this isn't correct, I'm not convinced yet), the housing bubble was created because of the mergers of investment banks and regular banks and insurance companies. These then created the securitization of mortgages; financial instruments so complicated they literally needed rocket scientists to write the equations to make them work.
This was compounded by the significant increase in sub-prime mortgages (5 to 30 percent); which may attribute to Dem supported portions of the Glass-Steagel repeal act - again I'm not convinced of that.
Now on top of all of this, these financial companies started doing CDOs or credit default swaps. Basically, selling insurance on a debt that it won't go bad. Except since they weren't insurance companies they didn't need to maintain the required capital to back up said insurance 'policies'. See the mergers above.
Some of these were literally leveraged 50 times the value of the original debt. Since these securities (that no one understood) were selling so well there was significant pressure to sell more of them. Which meant we needed more mortgages to securitize. So now, mortgage companies are incentivized to sell more faster and less safe mortgages. Some also say that this is Fannie/Freddie's fault. Again I don't believe they were the prime problem.
With all of this happening, and a decided deregulation environment fostered by the GOP, we ended up with the financial disaster we got. Perhaps you can claim the Dems went along with that deregulation. However, the almost universal source for deregulation ideas comes from the GOP. I.e. the Dems are big gov't and the GOP are small gov't - less regulations.
So I do blame the GOP for the mess.
I was blaming the lack of budgeting for the wars not the wars themselves.
I fully blame the Dems for being spineless on not opposing the Iraq war more forcefully. But Bush/GOP clearly are the 'responsible party' for the Iraq war (with said spineless Dem enablement).
for starters unemployment hasn't been over 10%. Close to it, but not over.
You're arguing the same original (false, in my opinion) point. That because the Dems had control of congress for the last year before the collapse, they should be blamed for it.
Sorry, when systemic risks are introduced over a decade, it takes a lot longer to fix thing than just a year or two.
If you want trends, how about jobs? When Obama took office we were losing 750K jobs a MONTH. We are now growing jobs every month albeit slowly. Obama has created more jobs than Bush did in his entire 2 terms. Of course that's because the unemployment was so high when he took office. Not a lot of place to go but up. Still means Bush left a massive job loss though.
Your quote is from 'before' the financial collapse. If you're using that quote to imply the Dems didn't deal with deficits because of the massive deficits we have now 'after' the collapse, that's just a wee bit disingenuous.
Likewise, the Dems passed healthcare reform that actually *reduces* the deficit.
Gridlock arguably proved useful during Clinton's years. The major difference being we have huge systemic problems now that we did not have then. Inaction will make things worse, not better. Take NJ and Gov Christie. His objection to the new train tunnel is shortsighted at best. NJ/NYC *will* need new infrastructure. It's been 100 years since that tunnel was built. When do you do it? Certainly the GOP didn't do it when they had a booming economy and majority power in all three houses.
The longsighted argument is you deficit spend now, so that when the private sector comes back, there's adequate infrastructure for them to succeed. We need jobs, we need economic activity and we need infrastructure. Use the 3rd to create the first two. That's the argument Dems unfortunately haven't been able to articulate to voters.
Sure, there is much more at play, but I believe you are being very naive to blame the party in the minority for an economic collapse.
I would say you are naive for assuming that the 'majority' power for more than a decade running up to the collapse isn't the primary source of the problems.
What policies did the Dems introduce that caused such a massive economic collapse? The GOPs removal of Glass-Steagal(sp?) was a horrendously bad decision that led *directly* to the financial crisis. Likewise, the massive Bush tax cuts that were unpaid for and the 2 wars that weren't accounted for in the budgets.
Bush also passed the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan without paying for it. Dems supported this as do I so I will accept joint responsibility for this.
Remember, the bailouts don't count since those happened *after* the collapse. What did the Dems do to cause it?
When the GOP steers the ship towards a waterfall, just because someone else grabs the wheel right before it goes over doesn't absolve the GOP for their primary role in sending it over.
You can claim credit for the economy growing like crazy under the GOP from 1995-2007 only if you also take the blame for the complete collapse of the economy in 2008-2009. You don't get the upside without also taking the downside.
indeed you are correct.
Not quite.
The locomotive series 'Diesel Electrics' don't use batteries. The diesel simply is a generator to run the electric drive motors. Most long haul trains use this I'm pretty sure as its more efficient than just diesel power.
However, from here: 'Electro-diesels' do exist that have both full electric and diesel operation ability. These are mostly for localized areas where they need to be able to go full electric in limited areas (city centers).
this is exactly what the Volt was *supposed* to be. But now it's coming out that rather than decouple the ICE entirely, they just limited when it would help the wheels. So it's still 'just' a hybrid' unfortunately.
I agree though, seems like the efficiency savings of the electric motors should make this a no brainer of a design.