I think you forgot to pay the composer of the music and the author of the lyrics.
Nope, that's in the first buck fifty. "Pay the people who make it."
Also the person who drew the original cover art and design.
See above.
And the advertising costs, which includes not only the web placement, radio and TV
That would be the second buck fifty. "Pay the people who promote it."
...the people who convince the DJs to play the song on the air/satellite/cable/Internet radio stations, write the press releases, and so on.
I'll bet if you stopped with the payola, these people would start to seek out music on their own. Seeing as how it's their job to play and promote music in the first place. If suddenly they had to find it on their own rather than be bribed into it - if their job was at stake - they'd go out and find it.
Payola is an inherently broken and wrong thing with the music industry. It's how lousy music gets on the airwaves. I don't even turn a radio on anymore these days.
But even if you don't agree with the idea of promotion costs, or even the idea of a system for artists to make money
Gigantic straw man. The people who make it should be paid. The people who promote it should be paid. The superfluous assholes in the middle jacking up the price twelve dollars a pop should be unemployed.
A negative value possibly, but certainly not a negative cost. The people creating the content wish to be paid. And it takes more people to make a movie, and more time to do it.
I'm talking about what it would take for the content creators to recoup and then make a profit - not consumer perception.
Also that's why I picked Hard Day's Night. It's a musical. When they break into the songs, they're basically music videos. The band is dubbed. It's the exact same music you get on the CD. Just with added video of the band faux-playing along, with some silly stuff added in. Exact same music, though.
True. But still, if you follow the math the overall industry is saying that the movie has a negative value.
In other words, the RIAA is saying the music for Hard Day's Night is worth $14. And Hollywood is saying the music plus the movie is worth $12. That would mean the movie alone is worth -2 bucks. We all know that can't be true so something else must be wrong.
And what's wrong is the RIAA's greed. The price on the CD is artificially inflated to the point where it competes with movies. And as we all know, movies cost FAR more to make than a CD of music. Hell, with the quality of home equipment these days a decent musician working solo can bang out a seriously impressive CD worth of music in their basement. A $50k basement studio would put you in the ballpark sound-wise with most major labels anymore.
And hell, look at the Lord of the Rings movies. Right now you can buy the entire trilogy for $25. And the movies cost $430 million to make.
And the CD for A Hard Day's Night is selling for right around half that. I'm sure it's difficult to make an album, and The Beatles are pretty good - but I have a hard time imagining that the expense to make the CD and the money to market it compares fairly with The Lord of the Rings. If they did, that would imply that Hard Day's Night cost 430M * (14/25)=240.8M in today's dollars. To make A Hard Day's Night - if the costs matched up.
This disparity in pricing is what puts people off and makes them not want to buy CDs.
IMHO, a fair CD price would be about three bucks. A buck fifty goes to the artist (which by today's standards would be so generous as to seem like a fairy tale), and the other buck fifty goes to production and promotion.
And yeah, I really mean that. That's what it's worth. Fifteen bucks for a CD is simply unbelievable. That's about twelve dollars worth of useless outdated bloat that the world simply doesn't need anymore.
C gives you lots of different ways to shoot yourself in the foot. C++ allows you to instantiate ten copies of ten feet and shoot them all at the same time.
The kernel of truth in this joke is that no language is going to make a lousy programmer into a good one. Rigor is required in every program. Rigor transcends language.
As for which language is best - learn many. Pick the best one for the given task at hand.
The Beatles, Hard Day's Night, the movie on DVD is twelve bucks at Best Buy. It pretty much has every song on the album in the movie. Twelve bucks.
The Beatles, Hard Day's Night, the CD. Has all the music, none of the movie. Price? Fourteen bucks. Same thing, but on media with less scratch resistance, less storage space, and oh yeah - no movie.
The reason why people aren't buying music is because it's not worth it. The price is artificially inflated, which makes consumers grumpy and unwilling to buy.
Not going to happen, pal. Not with requests, pleading, negative moderation - you name it.
And since you bring it up, you kind of left off that we kept a guy locked up for almost a half a year with no trial. For something he did in another country. Which happened to be legal there. A six month jail term for a thoughtcrime.
All this whining about China being a totalitarian regime would be better spent on keeping our own noses clean in that regard.
I'll bring up the Dmitry debacle every single chance I get, thank you very much. Six months in the can away from his young family - time lost forever.
What do you want to bet James gets less time? I'll bet he does. Imagine that. Jump a plane to communist China with the express intention of protesting there, and getting less time than you would if you talk about a simple security problem in a software product in the good 'ol USA.
This entire thing is shameful, and the only way to make sure it never happens again is to raise awareness. You do that by continually bringing it up.
2) Install millions of mufflers on millions of combustion engines which have difficult engineering restraints on them? Mufflers need to be small, lightweight, and inexpensive as design concerns - concerns that are placed at least on equal footing with efficiency. Possibly more so.
Here's what I do. Put your stuff on the curb the day after the garbage truck shows up so it will sit there for the next six days. Put a note on it.
Air Conditioner: Free. Works but it's a bit noisy, but yours if you want it.
Lawn Mower: Free. A bit smoky, has a loose rear wheel. Yours if you want it.
Those are two I've done. Both went somewhere before the next garbage day. Just stick a note on it and say it's free, and what might be wrong with it. I'd try something like this:
Old computer stuff: Free. Outdated, but worked the last time I used it. Yours if you want it.
I write system software and drivers for PDAs. The author is guessing.
There are two reasons for this. They are both bad.
Reason one: A battery that stays (apparently) full for a long time makes a phone look good. Even if it doesn't actually deserve to.
Reason two: When your phone still (apparently) has lots of charge left, you're more likely to use it. People who think their phone's going flat will make fewer, and shorter, calls. And that makes phone companies sad.
That's right - this is yet another example of the Curse of the Marketing Department. Both phone makers and cellular service providers want you to think that your phone is still pretty much full of charge even if it's almost half empty. For this reason, many of them tweak the charge meters to overestimate the remaining charge
Simply put, this is a load of bollocks. The guy who wrote this is guessing. He doesn't have any experience writing systems software.
I wrote a battery driver a few months back. Here's what I did.
I started a thread which would output the actual battery voltage an store it in a file every minute or so. Then charged it up overnight and ran it until the thing died. At the end of the run I have a battery profile that shows the measured voltage versus time. Then I did this a dozen times with different batteries, and under a few different usage scenarios - and made a composite graph of voltage versus time. Then I took a third order polynomial and fit that to the data. I could have done something with more math in it, but the unit I was working on doesn't have a floating point processor. The driver returns the remaining time as a percentage from the third order poly.
Now the problems - there is a fairly significant delta in between battery runs. In other words all batteries are not constructed alike. The number is approximate.
If you have an unusual battery, the numbers will be slightly off. And if you have a bad battery, all bets are off.
But tweaking the numbers? Never even heard of that. The author has no clue what is going on in there. Unless he's the lead developer, or the product is open source what he's proposing is a guess.
when we heard the recent two-episode Watchmen series announcement
I was wondering how in the hell you'd do The Watchmen in a single 2.5 hour movie. It'd be worse than the Fantastic Four movies. Here's the heroes, here's the bad guy, here's 10 minutes of action, there's the door.
Anyone have a reference where it says The Watchmen will be two movies?
I would counter that your line of reasoning seems to have a flaw. Namely:
In the US, most drivers are already distracted. The number one type of accident in the US is rear ending.
From the article I posted, which you may not have read:
The S.U.V. boom represents, then, a shift in how we conceive of safetyâ"from active to passive. It's what happens when a larger number of drivers conclude, consciously or otherwise, that the extra thirty feet that the TrailBlazer takes to come to a stop don't really matter, that the tractor-trailer will hit them anyway, and that they are better off treating accidents as inevitable rather than avoidable.
If you're distracted and look up and suddenly notice you need to stop in a hurry - if you stomp on the brake the SUV will take another 30 feet to stop. That's almost the entire length of a box trailer behind a semi, FYI.
Perhaps the rear-end phenomenon you are referring to is caused by gigantic SUVs rather than in spite of them.
Most of us think that S.U.V.s are much safer than sports cars. If you asked the young parents of America whether they would rather strap their infant child in the back seat of the TrailBlazer or the passenger seat of the Boxster, they would choose the TrailBlazer. We feel that way because in the TrailBlazer our chances of surviving a collision with a hypothetical tractor-trailer in the other lane are greater than they are in the Porsche. What we forget, though, is that in the TrailBlazer you're also much more likely to hit the tractor-trailer because you can't get out of the way in time. In the parlance of the automobile world, the TrailBlazer is better at "passive safety. " The Boxster is better when it comes to "active safety," which is every bit as important.
The safest cars are the ones that can dodge an accident, rather than plow through some obstacle and hope to survive due to sheer mass.
Ozzy made his choice. But he isn't sure he made the right one. So he wants a sanity check from his peer group - and suitable punishment if they decide he did wrong: "... on the mercy of the court.". To keep them honest he puts them in the same position he was in. If they decide the other way they can punish him - and in the process undo what he did. If they decide the same way they're accessories after the fact. And if some decide each way the ones that side with him are left with murder of the others as the only way to maintain the achievement of the "good end".
Not just that. They can either undo what he did, or keep quiet and effectively be accomplices. They all are now in the same boat.
Understandably, Rorschach realizes this and refuses to be complicit in Ozy's crime. He's a zero-tolerance type. Burn the world down if you must, but crime must be punished. That is why he refuses.
It's also probably why he dares Dr. Manhattan to destroy him. He knows he has to go public and that will most likely be the end of the world. Better he should die than bring about Armageddon.
Novell should be in front of the line and get their money before the others split up the remaining. Delaware jurisdiction makes this less likely, though.
With any luck that should mean the books will stay in the red. With a debt hanging over the company that should chase off any future "investors". The money should simply bounce right out of SCO's account and go straight to Novell.
WFW 3.11 fixed Windows 3.1.
Windows 98 SE fixed Windows 95.
Windows XP saved the world from Windows ME.
Something will save us from Vista.
If you number Windows 3.1 as the first release, Microsoft releases follow the same pattern that Star Trek movies do. The odd ones suck, and the even ones are ok.
That's why chaos math is useful. You don't really need to have long-term predictive numbers. It's really more about studying the dynamics of the system. How it responds in the short term to this and that. Which values drive the system and what shifts of behavior you can expect to see.
It's not (IMHO anyways) really intended to be predictive. It's really more descriptive.
For instance, you can come up with a Lorenzian system that has the massive sensitive dependence on initial variables. You can let it run for weeks on end and see parts of phase space the system never heads to. Then halt the system and restart. Ten minutes from now you won't be able to tell where your system will be, but you know where it might be, and where it won't be.
Chaos math isn't classical "plug the numbers in the equation and get an answer" math. It's about dynamics. It takes a slightly different mind set to be useful. Like when you first learn calculus. Rather than using equations, you have to think about deriving them. It requires you to rethink how you approach problems.
Yup. I'm not arguing there is. You've hit the nail on the head exactly. Soon as this became a political talking point anything resembling science went right out the window. Now there's no way to tell. Is this latest report good science, or is it political propaganda? No way to know thanks to people in Washington needing something new to argue about.
It's a shame, too. It might really be happening and by the time the Left vs. Right noise machine quiets down about it - it could be too late.
PS: No bet on the weather prediction. Lorenz proved that impossible back in the 60's.:)
Nah. If something gets warmer it is caused by Global Warming and the solution is to eliminate Western industrial civilization.
If something gets colder it is Global Climate Change and the solution is to eliminate Western industrial civilization.
Not a contradiction, even though it seems like one.
Study the bifurcation diagram. As you drive the system harder by turning up R (which may be analogous to global warming - i.e. more available heat energy might be described this way) notice how the system follows R, then suddenly begins oscillating between two extremes. Keep on driving R harder and it breaks into chaos.
The weather IMHO has a lot in common with the logistic map equation. It's present behavior is dependent on it's past state, it's swings are driven by the energy input to the system, etc.
I know it's a gross oversimplification, but so is a mass falling through a uniform gravitational field with no wind resistance and so on. It's still useful to think about.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you forgot to pay the composer of the music and the author of the lyrics.
Nope, that's in the first buck fifty. "Pay the people who make it."
Also the person who drew the original cover art and design.
See above.
And the advertising costs, which includes not only the web placement, radio and TV
That would be the second buck fifty. "Pay the people who promote it."
...the people who convince the DJs to play the song on the air/satellite/cable/Internet radio stations, write the press releases, and so on.
I'll bet if you stopped with the payola, these people would start to seek out music on their own. Seeing as how it's their job to play and promote music in the first place. If suddenly they had to find it on their own rather than be bribed into it - if their job was at stake - they'd go out and find it.
Payola is an inherently broken and wrong thing with the music industry. It's how lousy music gets on the airwaves. I don't even turn a radio on anymore these days.
But even if you don't agree with the idea of promotion costs, or even the idea of a system for artists to make money
Gigantic straw man. The people who make it should be paid. The people who promote it should be paid. The superfluous assholes in the middle jacking up the price twelve dollars a pop should be unemployed.
A negative value possibly, but certainly not a negative cost. The people creating the content wish to be paid. And it takes more people to make a movie, and more time to do it.
I'm talking about what it would take for the content creators to recoup and then make a profit - not consumer perception.
Also that's why I picked Hard Day's Night. It's a musical. When they break into the songs, they're basically music videos. The band is dubbed. It's the exact same music you get on the CD. Just with added video of the band faux-playing along, with some silly stuff added in. Exact same music, though.
No, there is no theatrical release. Just concerts. And licensing for commercials and movies and other usage. And broadcast royalties.
But yeah, other than all of that that there is no money to be had.
True. But still, if you follow the math the overall industry is saying that the movie has a negative value.
In other words, the RIAA is saying the music for Hard Day's Night is worth $14. And Hollywood is saying the music plus the movie is worth $12. That would mean the movie alone is worth -2 bucks. We all know that can't be true so something else must be wrong.
And what's wrong is the RIAA's greed. The price on the CD is artificially inflated to the point where it competes with movies. And as we all know, movies cost FAR more to make than a CD of music. Hell, with the quality of home equipment these days a decent musician working solo can bang out a seriously impressive CD worth of music in their basement. A $50k basement studio would put you in the ballpark sound-wise with most major labels anymore.
And hell, look at the Lord of the Rings movies. Right now you can buy the entire trilogy for $25. And the movies cost $430 million to make.
And the CD for A Hard Day's Night is selling for right around half that. I'm sure it's difficult to make an album, and The Beatles are pretty good - but I have a hard time imagining that the expense to make the CD and the money to market it compares fairly with The Lord of the Rings. If they did, that would imply that Hard Day's Night cost 430M * (14/25)=240.8M in today's dollars. To make A Hard Day's Night - if the costs matched up.
This disparity in pricing is what puts people off and makes them not want to buy CDs.
IMHO, a fair CD price would be about three bucks. A buck fifty goes to the artist (which by today's standards would be so generous as to seem like a fairy tale), and the other buck fifty goes to production and promotion.
And yeah, I really mean that. That's what it's worth. Fifteen bucks for a CD is simply unbelievable. That's about twelve dollars worth of useless outdated bloat that the world simply doesn't need anymore.
What's the difference between C and C++?
C gives you lots of different ways to shoot yourself in the foot. C++ allows you to instantiate ten copies of ten feet and shoot them all at the same time.
The kernel of truth in this joke is that no language is going to make a lousy programmer into a good one. Rigor is required in every program. Rigor transcends language.
As for which language is best - learn many. Pick the best one for the given task at hand.
Here' an example:
The Beatles, Hard Day's Night, the movie on DVD is twelve bucks at Best Buy. It pretty much has every song on the album in the movie. Twelve bucks.
The Beatles, Hard Day's Night, the CD. Has all the music, none of the movie. Price? Fourteen bucks. Same thing, but on media with less scratch resistance, less storage space, and oh yeah - no movie.
The reason why people aren't buying music is because it's not worth it. The price is artificially inflated, which makes consumers grumpy and unwilling to buy.
Lots of ad hominem, zero substance. You expect anyone to take that dreck seriously?
I'm not the one who should be embarrassed.
Now, please, STFU.
Not going to happen, pal. Not with requests, pleading, negative moderation - you name it.
And since you bring it up, you kind of left off that we kept a guy locked up for almost a half a year with no trial. For something he did in another country. Which happened to be legal there. A six month jail term for a thoughtcrime.
All this whining about China being a totalitarian regime would be better spent on keeping our own noses clean in that regard.
I'll bring up the Dmitry debacle every single chance I get, thank you very much. Six months in the can away from his young family - time lost forever.
What do you want to bet James gets less time? I'll bet he does. Imagine that. Jump a plane to communist China with the express intention of protesting there, and getting less time than you would if you talk about a simple security problem in a software product in the good 'ol USA.
This entire thing is shameful, and the only way to make sure it never happens again is to raise awareness. You do that by continually bringing it up.
Which I did. And will continue to do.
...with remaining eye.
And he wasn't even protesting.
Which makes more sense?
1) Install a single, as-large-as-you-want, possibly even fuel generating smokestack scrubber on a single smokestack, or:
2) Install millions of mufflers on millions of combustion engines which have difficult engineering restraints on them? Mufflers need to be small, lightweight, and inexpensive as design concerns - concerns that are placed at least on equal footing with efficiency. Possibly more so.
Which seems like the better idea?
Here's what I do. Put your stuff on the curb the day after the garbage truck shows up so it will sit there for the next six days. Put a note on it.
Air Conditioner: Free. Works but it's a bit noisy, but yours if you want it.
Lawn Mower: Free. A bit smoky, has a loose rear wheel. Yours if you want it.
Those are two I've done. Both went somewhere before the next garbage day. Just stick a note on it and say it's free, and what might be wrong with it. I'd try something like this:
Old computer stuff: Free. Outdated, but worked the last time I used it. Yours if you want it.
Some things are only weapons.
Let's see you slice bread with an AK-47.
I write system software and drivers for PDAs. The author is guessing.
There are two reasons for this. They are both bad.
Reason one: A battery that stays (apparently) full for a long time makes a phone look good. Even if it doesn't actually deserve to.
Reason two: When your phone still (apparently) has lots of charge left, you're more likely to use it. People who think their phone's going flat will make fewer, and shorter, calls. And that makes phone companies sad.
That's right - this is yet another example of the Curse of the Marketing Department. Both phone makers and cellular service providers want you to think that your phone is still pretty much full of charge even if it's almost half empty. For this reason, many of them tweak the charge meters to overestimate the remaining charge
Simply put, this is a load of bollocks. The guy who wrote this is guessing. He doesn't have any experience writing systems software.
I wrote a battery driver a few months back. Here's what I did.
I started a thread which would output the actual battery voltage an store it in a file every minute or so. Then charged it up overnight and ran it until the thing died. At the end of the run I have a battery profile that shows the measured voltage versus time. Then I did this a dozen times with different batteries, and under a few different usage scenarios - and made a composite graph of voltage versus time. Then I took a third order polynomial and fit that to the data. I could have done something with more math in it, but the unit I was working on doesn't have a floating point processor. The driver returns the remaining time as a percentage from the third order poly.
Now the problems - there is a fairly significant delta in between battery runs. In other words all batteries are not constructed alike. The number is approximate.
If you have an unusual battery, the numbers will be slightly off. And if you have a bad battery, all bets are off.
But tweaking the numbers? Never even heard of that. The author has no clue what is going on in there. Unless he's the lead developer, or the product is open source what he's proposing is a guess.
when we heard the recent two-episode Watchmen series announcement
I was wondering how in the hell you'd do The Watchmen in a single 2.5 hour movie. It'd be worse than the Fantastic Four movies. Here's the heroes, here's the bad guy, here's 10 minutes of action, there's the door.
Anyone have a reference where it says The Watchmen will be two movies?
Not to mention that this assumes you'll only get hit with one patent troll.
If I were a patent troll, I'd single out companies that have a track record of settling and paying up. Less costly and more effective.
BTW, that is why no matter what you should fight a patent troll. If everyone did, they'd dry up and go away.
I would counter that your line of reasoning seems to have a flaw. Namely:
In the US, most drivers are already distracted. The number one type of accident in the US is rear ending.
From the article I posted, which you may not have read:
The S.U.V. boom represents, then, a shift in how we conceive of safetyâ"from active to passive. It's what happens when a larger number of drivers conclude, consciously or otherwise, that the extra thirty feet that the TrailBlazer takes to come to a stop don't really matter, that the tractor-trailer will hit them anyway, and that they are better off treating accidents as inevitable rather than avoidable.
If you're distracted and look up and suddenly notice you need to stop in a hurry - if you stomp on the brake the SUV will take another 30 feet to stop. That's almost the entire length of a box trailer behind a semi, FYI.
Perhaps the rear-end phenomenon you are referring to is caused by gigantic SUVs rather than in spite of them.
You're focusing on passive safety rather than active safety, which is primarily a North American way of thinking.
Here, read this.
Most of us think that S.U.V.s are much safer than sports cars. If you asked the young parents of America whether they would rather strap their infant child in the back seat of the TrailBlazer or the passenger seat of the Boxster, they would choose the TrailBlazer. We feel that way because in the TrailBlazer our chances of surviving a collision with a hypothetical tractor-trailer in the other lane are greater than they are in the Porsche. What we forget, though, is that in the TrailBlazer you're also much more likely to hit the tractor-trailer because you can't get out of the way in time. In the parlance of the automobile world, the TrailBlazer is better at "passive safety. " The Boxster is better when it comes to "active safety," which is every bit as important.
The safest cars are the ones that can dodge an accident, rather than plow through some obstacle and hope to survive due to sheer mass.
Exactly. Ozy is a genius and maneuvered things just that way.
Now all those millions of deaths don't rest solely on his conscience alone. He has co-conspirators. It validates what he's done.
He did have doubts. Recall his final conversation with Dr. Manhattan. The way things ended though he was spared those doubts.
Also SPOILERS:
Ozzy made his choice. But he isn't sure he made the right one. So he wants a sanity check from his peer group - and suitable punishment if they decide he did wrong: "... on the mercy of the court.". To keep them honest he puts them in the same position he was in. If they decide the other way they can punish him - and in the process undo what he did. If they decide the same way they're accessories after the fact. And if some decide each way the ones that side with him are left with murder of the others as the only way to maintain the achievement of the "good end".
Not just that. They can either undo what he did, or keep quiet and effectively be accomplices. They all are now in the same boat.
Understandably, Rorschach realizes this and refuses to be complicit in Ozy's crime. He's a zero-tolerance type. Burn the world down if you must, but crime must be punished. That is why he refuses.
It's also probably why he dares Dr. Manhattan to destroy him. He knows he has to go public and that will most likely be the end of the world. Better he should die than bring about Armageddon.
Novell should be in front of the line and get their money before the others split up the remaining. Delaware jurisdiction makes this less likely, though.
With any luck that should mean the books will stay in the red. With a debt hanging over the company that should chase off any future "investors". The money should simply bounce right out of SCO's account and go straight to Novell.
WFW 3.11 fixed Windows 3.1.
Windows 98 SE fixed Windows 95.
Windows XP saved the world from Windows ME.
Something will save us from Vista.
If you number Windows 3.1 as the first release, Microsoft releases follow the same pattern that Star Trek movies do. The odd ones suck, and the even ones are ok.
That's why chaos math is useful. You don't really need to have long-term predictive numbers. It's really more about studying the dynamics of the system. How it responds in the short term to this and that. Which values drive the system and what shifts of behavior you can expect to see.
It's not (IMHO anyways) really intended to be predictive. It's really more descriptive.
For instance, you can come up with a Lorenzian system that has the massive sensitive dependence on initial variables. You can let it run for weeks on end and see parts of phase space the system never heads to. Then halt the system and restart. Ten minutes from now you won't be able to tell where your system will be, but you know where it might be, and where it won't be.
Chaos math isn't classical "plug the numbers in the equation and get an answer" math. It's about dynamics. It takes a slightly different mind set to be useful. Like when you first learn calculus. Rather than using equations, you have to think about deriving them. It requires you to rethink how you approach problems.
I'm not arguing that there isn't global warming.
Yup. I'm not arguing there is. You've hit the nail on the head exactly. Soon as this became a political talking point anything resembling science went right out the window. Now there's no way to tell. Is this latest report good science, or is it political propaganda? No way to know thanks to people in Washington needing something new to argue about.
It's a shame, too. It might really be happening and by the time the Left vs. Right noise machine quiets down about it - it could be too late.
PS: No bet on the weather prediction. Lorenz proved that impossible back in the 60's. :)
Nah. If something gets warmer it is caused by Global Warming and the solution is to eliminate Western industrial civilization.
If something gets colder it is Global Climate Change and the solution is to eliminate Western industrial civilization.
Not a contradiction, even though it seems like one.
Study the bifurcation diagram. As you drive the system harder by turning up R (which may be analogous to global warming - i.e. more available heat energy might be described this way) notice how the system follows R, then suddenly begins oscillating between two extremes. Keep on driving R harder and it breaks into chaos.
The weather IMHO has a lot in common with the logistic map equation. It's present behavior is dependent on it's past state, it's swings are driven by the energy input to the system, etc.
I know it's a gross oversimplification, but so is a mass falling through a uniform gravitational field with no wind resistance and so on. It's still useful to think about.