Often times albums that heavily sample need the support of a major just to pay off the licensing fees (The Avalanches' Since I left you is an example). Other albums include huge backing groups (many things done by Prince), a lot of epic rock projects (The Wall, for instance) require choral support or whole orchestras backing them.
I've already mentioned the teeny-bopper phenomenon. The 'artists' can't write their own music, so you have to higher musicians, etc to do it for them. Obviously, few people on slashdot listen to that crap, but it sells well (IE, there is a demand) so someone will always be making it.
I could go on and on.. there are plenty of types of music that aren't cheap to produce, and obviously if you're talented enough there's plenty of music you can make without the support of a major label..
You expect bands to tour without a record? Or young bands to tour without any kind of promotion? I agree, for many bands it is not neccessary, but other groups can't subsist on the relatively minimalist budget that a punk/rock (read: smaller) group can live off.
Try getting a larger band (10+ members) on tour without the support of some kind of establishment (be it their passed success or a major label investment).
Very true, the possibilities for an independent act are getting greater all the time. But certain albums and acts still rely on the major labels, and as long as that's the case the majors will still have reason to exist.
There's obviously no way I can argue that great independent acts are doing amazing things with music, things that the major labels wouldn't take a gamble on (groups like The Books come to mind). But there are still acts that require the major label money (be they teeny bopper or epic pop/rock/rap whatever).
It definitely is, but there are certain kinds of music which simply can't be recorded without a serious budget, and the major record companies are the only place to get that kind of cash.
And obviously record-company-made acts (Britney Spears, whatever) rely on the hype machine/music writing infrastructure to make their careers possible.
If someone steals your IP you deal with it in the courts, not through some trade organization. The RIAA doesn't even have the infrastructure to deal with those situations, they're only concern is making sure the recording companies get money for every possible use of a song (or 'to foster a business and legal climate that supports and promotes our members' creative and financial vitality' (from their website)).
And honestly, how much more can they charge per song? I found a lossless online store (finally) a few days ago, and they charge a minimum of $1.29 a track PLUS a $50 annual fee. That works out to way more than just buying the CD (in all it's lossless, archived, liner-noted, cover-arted glory). Honestly, CDs are enough of a rip off as it is, there simply isn't enough room to increase the price of a 30 minute album any more than the already inflated cost...
Studio time is expensive, man. The whole recording process (hiring a producer, studio musicians, whatever you need to get the sound you want) can be really expensive, so until that's no longer an issue there will still be labels around willing to front the cash in return for the potential profits a successful record can generate.
Some day the major labels will be irrelevent, but today is not that day (maybe that's why they're so desperate to maximize their profits in the short term... they know the long term doesn't exist).
While that may be the most probable path to martyrdom, there are alternatives:
For instance, the defendent in this case could forgo a traditional, or "rational", defense, and instead commit ritual seppukku on the steps of the courthouse. The effects could be wide ranging:
- The judge decides the case in favor of the defendent (he was so moved by the ritual sacrifice)
- The RIAA renounces its single-minded persuit of wealth (because the defendent reminded them how fragile life is) and the record companies go back to advancing music as an art form.
- Ritual suicide becomes an acceptable means of getting almost anything you want (post-humonously, obviously)
- We get to download tons of w4r3z!!!
In most people's book power production occurs when mechanical energy (such as flowing water) is converted by into electrical energy.
I'd buy that if 'most people' were mechanical engineers, but that's not the case. Mass (nuke plants), Gravity, and Chemical are all sources of PE which aren't directly related to KE (like flowing water, air, or, arguably, the photoelectric effect.. maybe...). All power plants just convert some form of energy into another, therefore the submitters slip is not a major one, and not worth fixing...
Silent Power Production is CONVERTING noisy power to silent power
Silent Power Production is converting AC to DC silently. I agree with your main points, though. Energy is conserved, therefore we're always converting it from something (mass, KE, various forms of PE, whatever).
Grandparent apparently thinks the/. editors should be able to find these pedantic little points, I think they've got their hands full with real spelling errors:) I mean, it's hard to argue that a PSU isn't outputting power...
But did they admit their mistake soon enough? I've been smoking pot 24/7 since that article ran (/. told me it was OK!) and now I may be severely retarded. Any other nerds in my boat?
Man.. I've really gotta stop trusting everything I read on the internets, someday this is gonna get me in trouble...
Oh well, I'll always have those free Xboxes and iPods I won...
If the next Thomas Paine is a blogger, how will we find him/her through all the spam? Honestly, the internet as a publication option is becoming less and less viable with all this white noise...
Yeah, totally agree. I was just throwing the limits out there, obviously there's no way it adds 10-20 lbs to the weight of a laptop, but given how much weight they needed to get such a tiny output I think there would be a 2-5 lb addition due to the fuel cell.
I'm guessing they run into weight issues. Their flash player prototype for instance, weighs 78.5g. Compare this to a standard flash player (Shuffle=22.112628 grams, Nano=42.5242847 grams).
So if we stick with the linear relationship, you're increasing the weight of the gadget by 2-3 times, and that's probably not acceptable in the case of laptops...
So, the universe (according to our understanding) is a constantly growing sphere with earth in the center?
No, no. That's the key difference between the observable universe and the actual universe itself. The observable universe is just the part of the universe we can actually see/be directly affected* by.
Sorry, I think I left a few "observables" out of my original reply. You're absolutely right, there's still a universe beyond the observable universe. Problem is, by the time you get to that part of the universe it will have become part of the observable universe (because you can't go faster than the speed of light).
Important note: as you move your theoretically observable universe changes. So the observable universe for your hypothetical Enterprise would be different from ours, as it would be able to see light which had not reached Earth.
The observable universe is the total volume of the universe from which light could have reached us since the beginning of said universe (the big bang or whatever).
In other words, as you get farther away from our point of observation (Earth and the area immediately around it) you eventually reach a point in space which is so far from us that light could not have reached us. Assuming that nothing can move faster than the speed of light, this sphere would include everything that could have possibly affected us since the beginning of the universe. Ugh. I hope that makes sense, and I hope I didn't screw that up.
Imagine there are a few people rather lost at the headline (we're not all astronomers/cosmologists/whatever:) ). Anyway, NOVA ran an excellent show on this a couple years ago, and as usual there was an excellent companion website.
If that doesn't answer your questions, well... there's always Wikipedia./I feel like a Karma whore linking to wikipedia, mod me as you see fit..
Pfft, what are you talking about? Every day millions of Americans demonstrate their desire to explore by searching their couch cushions for the remote!
They couldn't even bother to get an actual screenshot of the original HL. I have no idea where that bastardization came from, but I can guarentee it's not from the original campaign/models...
Not only that but the oldest game on the list is Quake, and it's 2+ years older than all the others. Lack of persepective much?
Newsflash: It takes more than 'luck' to motivate an economy, it takes an opportunity for financial gain. Simply put, there's still no way anyone can make money in space (forget about all those mining scenarios put forth by Science Fiction, none of them are anywhere near practicality).
The private sector won't do anything for decades, probably longer (that hasn't/couldn't be done by the government). Unprofitable ventures like this (and healthcare, and public transportation, although those two should not be profitable, from an ethical point of view, rather than simply not being feasibly profitable like the space program). Sure, they'll do what the Fed has done cheaper, but that's because their only real purpose is making money. Once they've got reliable and cheap sub-orbital/low orbit vehicles they'll stop 'inovating' and start collecting on the few space tourism dollars out there.
Ultimately, real progress will take a concentrated investment by the human race as a whole, no corporation is going to get us off this planet. No corporation is even capable of such a feat.
I doubt that's the case. MS's XBox Live already manages to ban most modded XBoxs. Only difference now is that they'll try and make the internet service mandatory (which they won't be able to do, so whatever).
The difference between Blizzard and the media reporting on videogames. Blizzard, as a company, doesn't actually think WoW (or any other videogame, ASFAIK) is evil. The media, on the other hand, has no idea whether video games are evil, but that doesn't stop them from claiming just that in order to create some kind of 'story' they feel their consumers will watch.
TFA's point is that the media isn't reporting on actual problems, they're just (*gasp*) sensationalizing.
Whether the above point is actually worth reading about, I have my doubts. I just thought your post needed a response...
In defense of those artists that do end up with a major label there really isn't much of a choice if you want to support yourself in a reasonable way as a musician.
Sure, some indie bands make it big (The Arcade Fire is now on MTV 2, as well as a few others) but those bands are an exception. It's far easier to make it big on a major label, and who are we to blame them for doing it?
Sure, it means they have to support the RIAA's legal actions, but such is life.. it's either that or go teach High School band (there aren't a whole lot of options for music majors).
Absolutely, I agree. I just wanted to point out what the submitter was trying to illustrate. I have no doubt that the study submitter sited was biased toward whoever funded it (as most 'studies' seem to be).
At any rate, there are exceptions to your post. I for instance, have absolutely no fear of ever being punished for my file sharing, yet media (music and videogames, I don't watch movies) is pretty much my only entertainment expense. I still buy music, not because I fear the consequences of coming into it illegally, but because I respect and want to support the artists or developers who created said media.
Obviously, this will never work in a culture with such a hardon for so-called pure capitalism (although if taken literally that phrase could not be farther from the truth), but I thought I'd present my idealistic alternative...
Bottom line, if the music industry still produced art those who actually enjoyed said art would still pay for it. It's a business though, and most of what they produce is utter shit. I guess this is their only recourse if they want people to continue buying their shit. Nevermind the fact that such business through legislation goes against our capitalist ideals.
They don't want anyone distributing unlicensed copies of music. It's illegal.
The RIAA doesn't care about the legality of file sharing, they care about making money. If file sharing actually made them money (as submitter is trying to suggest) then it would be a poor business practice to attempt to stop it.
Even if certain studies suggest a higher likelihood of legitimate purchases, going after individual infringers is well within their rights [...]
Only because Congress gave them that right, which is a little assinine to me. Why should some outmoded businesss model be kept alive via legislation? Bah humbug...
Submitter's point was that the sharing of music leads to more sales and thus more money for the RIAA. No, his statement is by no means truth of this assertion, but this is what he was try to suggest...
itunes gives 30 seconds which I think is reasonable
30 seconds of previewage isn't at all adequate for prog or trance, but.. whatever... just had to mention that.
Slashdot Mirror
Often times albums that heavily sample need the support of a major just to pay off the licensing fees (The Avalanches' Since I left you is an example). Other albums include huge backing groups (many things done by Prince), a lot of epic rock projects (The Wall, for instance) require choral support or whole orchestras backing them.
I've already mentioned the teeny-bopper phenomenon. The 'artists' can't write their own music, so you have to higher musicians, etc to do it for them. Obviously, few people on slashdot listen to that crap, but it sells well (IE, there is a demand) so someone will always be making it.
I could go on and on.. there are plenty of types of music that aren't cheap to produce, and obviously if you're talented enough there's plenty of music you can make without the support of a major label..
You expect bands to tour without a record? Or young bands to tour without any kind of promotion? I agree, for many bands it is not neccessary, but other groups can't subsist on the relatively minimalist budget that a punk/rock (read: smaller) group can live off.
Try getting a larger band (10+ members) on tour without the support of some kind of establishment (be it their passed success or a major label investment).
Very true, the possibilities for an independent act are getting greater all the time. But certain albums and acts still rely on the major labels, and as long as that's the case the majors will still have reason to exist.
There's obviously no way I can argue that great independent acts are doing amazing things with music, things that the major labels wouldn't take a gamble on (groups like The Books come to mind). But there are still acts that require the major label money (be they teeny bopper or epic pop/rock/rap whatever).
It definitely is, but there are certain kinds of music which simply can't be recorded without a serious budget, and the major record companies are the only place to get that kind of cash.
And obviously record-company-made acts (Britney Spears, whatever) rely on the hype machine/music writing infrastructure to make their careers possible.
If someone steals your IP you deal with it in the courts, not through some trade organization. The RIAA doesn't even have the infrastructure to deal with those situations, they're only concern is making sure the recording companies get money for every possible use of a song (or 'to foster a business and legal climate that supports and promotes our members' creative and financial vitality' (from their website)).
And honestly, how much more can they charge per song? I found a lossless online store (finally) a few days ago, and they charge a minimum of $1.29 a track PLUS a $50 annual fee. That works out to way more than just buying the CD (in all it's lossless, archived, liner-noted, cover-arted glory). Honestly, CDs are enough of a rip off as it is, there simply isn't enough room to increase the price of a 30 minute album any more than the already inflated cost...
Studio time is expensive, man. The whole recording process (hiring a producer, studio musicians, whatever you need to get the sound you want) can be really expensive, so until that's no longer an issue there will still be labels around willing to front the cash in return for the potential profits a successful record can generate.
Some day the major labels will be irrelevent, but today is not that day (maybe that's why they're so desperate to maximize their profits in the short term... they know the long term doesn't exist).
While that may be the most probable path to martyrdom, there are alternatives:
For instance, the defendent in this case could forgo a traditional, or "rational", defense, and instead commit ritual seppukku on the steps of the courthouse. The effects could be wide ranging:
- The judge decides the case in favor of the defendent (he was so moved by the ritual sacrifice)
- The RIAA renounces its single-minded persuit of wealth (because the defendent reminded them how fragile life is) and the record companies go back to advancing music as an art form.
- Ritual suicide becomes an acceptable means of getting almost anything you want (post-humonously, obviously)
- We get to download tons of w4r3z!!!
Let's try not to be narrowminded about this.
In most people's book power production occurs when mechanical energy (such as flowing water) is converted by into electrical energy.
I'd buy that if 'most people' were mechanical engineers, but that's not the case. Mass (nuke plants), Gravity, and Chemical are all sources of PE which aren't directly related to KE (like flowing water, air, or, arguably, the photoelectric effect.. maybe...). All power plants just convert some form of energy into another, therefore the submitters slip is not a major one, and not worth fixing...
This is a silly conversation, I should be asleep.
Silent Power Production is CONVERTING noisy power to silent power
/. editors should be able to find these pedantic little points, I think they've got their hands full with real spelling errors :) I mean, it's hard to argue that a PSU isn't outputting power...
Silent Power Production is converting AC to DC silently. I agree with your main points, though. Energy is conserved, therefore we're always converting it from something (mass, KE, various forms of PE, whatever).
Grandparent apparently thinks the
But did they admit their mistake soon enough? I've been smoking pot 24/7 since that article ran (/. told me it was OK!) and now I may be severely retarded. Any other nerds in my boat?
..
Man.. I've really gotta stop trusting everything I read on the internets, someday this is gonna get me in trouble.
Oh well, I'll always have those free Xboxes and iPods I won...
Will the next Thomas Paine be a blogger?
If the next Thomas Paine is a blogger, how will we find him/her through all the spam? Honestly, the internet as a publication option is becoming less and less viable with all this white noise...
Yeah, totally agree. I was just throwing the limits out there, obviously there's no way it adds 10-20 lbs to the weight of a laptop, but given how much weight they needed to get such a tiny output I think there would be a 2-5 lb addition due to the fuel cell.
I'm guessing they run into weight issues. Their flash player prototype for instance, weighs 78.5g. Compare this to a standard flash player (Shuffle=22.112628 grams, Nano=42.5242847 grams).
So if we stick with the linear relationship, you're increasing the weight of the gadget by 2-3 times, and that's probably not acceptable in the case of laptops...
So, the universe (according to our understanding) is a constantly growing sphere with earth in the center?
No, no. That's the key difference between the observable universe and the actual universe itself. The observable universe is just the part of the universe we can actually see/be directly affected* by.
Sorry, I think I left a few "observables" out of my original reply. You're absolutely right, there's still a universe beyond the observable universe. Problem is, by the time you get to that part of the universe it will have become part of the observable universe (because you can't go faster than the speed of light).
Important note: as you move your theoretically observable universe changes. So the observable universe for your hypothetical Enterprise would be different from ours, as it would be able to see light which had not reached Earth.
The observable universe is the total volume of the universe from which light could have reached us since the beginning of said universe (the big bang or whatever).
In other words, as you get farther away from our point of observation (Earth and the area immediately around it) you eventually reach a point in space which is so far from us that light could not have reached us. Assuming that nothing can move faster than the speed of light, this sphere would include everything that could have possibly affected us since the beginning of the universe. Ugh. I hope that makes sense, and I hope I didn't screw that up.
As usual Wikipedia has more information: Cosmic Light Horizon and Obxervable Universe
Imagine there are a few people rather lost at the headline (we're not all astronomers/cosmologists/whatever :) ). Anyway, NOVA ran an excellent show on this a couple years ago, and as usual there was an excellent companion website.
/I feel like a Karma whore linking to wikipedia, mod me as you see fit..
If that doesn't answer your questions, well... there's always Wikipedia.
Pfft, what are you talking about? Every day millions of Americans demonstrate their desire to explore by searching their couch cushions for the remote!
They couldn't even bother to get an actual screenshot of the original HL. I have no idea where that bastardization came from, but I can guarentee it's not from the original campaign/models...
Not only that but the oldest game on the list is Quake, and it's 2+ years older than all the others. Lack of persepective much?
Newsflash: It takes more than 'luck' to motivate an economy, it takes an opportunity for financial gain. Simply put, there's still no way anyone can make money in space (forget about all those mining scenarios put forth by Science Fiction, none of them are anywhere near practicality).
The private sector won't do anything for decades, probably longer (that hasn't/couldn't be done by the government). Unprofitable ventures like this (and healthcare, and public transportation, although those two should not be profitable, from an ethical point of view, rather than simply not being feasibly profitable like the space program). Sure, they'll do what the Fed has done cheaper, but that's because their only real purpose is making money. Once they've got reliable and cheap sub-orbital/low orbit vehicles they'll stop 'inovating' and start collecting on the few space tourism dollars out there.
Ultimately, real progress will take a concentrated investment by the human race as a whole, no corporation is going to get us off this planet. No corporation is even capable of such a feat.
I doubt that's the case. MS's XBox Live already manages to ban most modded XBoxs. Only difference now is that they'll try and make the internet service mandatory (which they won't be able to do, so whatever).
Ok, I'll bite..
The difference between Blizzard and the media reporting on videogames. Blizzard, as a company, doesn't actually think WoW (or any other videogame, ASFAIK) is evil. The media, on the other hand, has no idea whether video games are evil, but that doesn't stop them from claiming just that in order to create some kind of 'story' they feel their consumers will watch.
TFA's point is that the media isn't reporting on actual problems, they're just (*gasp*) sensationalizing.
Whether the above point is actually worth reading about, I have my doubts. I just thought your post needed a response...
In defense of those artists that do end up with a major label there really isn't much of a choice if you want to support yourself in a reasonable way as a musician.
Sure, some indie bands make it big (The Arcade Fire is now on MTV 2, as well as a few others) but those bands are an exception. It's far easier to make it big on a major label, and who are we to blame them for doing it?
Sure, it means they have to support the RIAA's legal actions, but such is life.. it's either that or go teach High School band (there aren't a whole lot of options for music majors).
Absolutely, I agree. I just wanted to point out what the submitter was trying to illustrate. I have no doubt that the study submitter sited was biased toward whoever funded it (as most 'studies' seem to be).
At any rate, there are exceptions to your post. I for instance, have absolutely no fear of ever being punished for my file sharing, yet media (music and videogames, I don't watch movies) is pretty much my only entertainment expense. I still buy music, not because I fear the consequences of coming into it illegally, but because I respect and want to support the artists or developers who created said media.
Obviously, this will never work in a culture with such a hardon for so-called pure capitalism (although if taken literally that phrase could not be farther from the truth), but I thought I'd present my idealistic alternative...
Bottom line, if the music industry still produced art those who actually enjoyed said art would still pay for it. It's a business though, and most of what they produce is utter shit. I guess this is their only recourse if they want people to continue buying their shit. Nevermind the fact that such business through legislation goes against our capitalist ideals.
They don't want anyone distributing unlicensed copies of music. It's illegal.
The RIAA doesn't care about the legality of file sharing, they care about making money. If file sharing actually made them money (as submitter is trying to suggest) then it would be a poor business practice to attempt to stop it.
Even if certain studies suggest a higher likelihood of legitimate purchases, going after individual infringers is well within their rights [...]
Only because Congress gave them that right, which is a little assinine to me. Why should some outmoded businesss model be kept alive via legislation? Bah humbug...
Submitter's point was that the sharing of music leads to more sales and thus more money for the RIAA. No, his statement is by no means truth of this assertion, but this is what he was try to suggest...
itunes gives 30 seconds which I think is reasonable
30 seconds of previewage isn't at all adequate for prog or trance, but.. whatever... just had to mention that.