"I can imagine that if we were able to isolate a region from the Higgs field (much as we use Faraday cages, i.e. metal boxes, to protect circuits from electromagnetic interferences), we can turn all the particles inside the region massless. You can imagine by yourself what this implies, for transportation, storage, etc."
In response to a second question about future applications. "Future of Higgs?"
Forgive my crude drawing above, but if I understand correctly, he's saying we can make a "Higgs Cage" that would make what's inside of it massless...
So if my above drawing was an aircraft, if "|_|" is a "Higgs Cage" then anything inside of it would be massless...therefor teh whole craft "" would require much less lift and force and have less drag. Essentially flying a C-131 with the equivalent of rubber band plane engines...
Which would allow for characteristics commonly associated with 'flying cars' or 'flying saucers'...possibly?
I asked about the technical application of work like the Higgs research at CERN and he responded.
"even if we cannot imagine possible direct applications of the Higgs bosons, we can for sure imagine possible applications of the technologies developed in order to detect it"
To Dr. Organtini,
Thank you for your time in responding. I appreciate your humble insistence that the universe tells US how IT works.
I'm starting to feel like the whole "standards will never evolve predictably" argument is a troll argument...
"The great thing about standards_There's so many to choose from."
haha, but in any context where standards change, there will be an **ongoing** conversation about what the standards should be. Evolving standards will **certainly** precipitate competing ideas. (see also xkcd comic linked below)
And people will discuss and debate those ideas. That is **normal**...actually its **necessary**
In this particular standards debate, HTML, there are clear goals and values. The conversation should be about which option meets those the best, other non-traditional options...then a **decision** and a moving forward.
That's how the "standards are important but foster endless arguments point" becomes a troll...
We know its possible to argue infinitely about standards...the idea is to **not** do that, thank you very much;)
Well, fatphil...:/ this is quite a turn of events...it saddens me that you are incapable of communicating yourself sufficiently to ask me your question about my question...
however, this phrase did make me laugh: "simply a key-hole analysis"....that is another way of telling me that you're just reacting and your analysis is not thought out
you also mention a 'straw man' fallacy...nice job!
that IS a type of fallacy! in order for you to claim I have made it, you need to show how my original question to the scientist (and the quotation from dr. Incandela director of CMS) is an example of that
I would like to address your 'question' but I was hoping you could restate it for me.
Please start from my original post that posed the question for the scientist, then the first AC reply, then my reply to him, then yours, etc. so I can see your logic.
Also, quotations help. Thanks I'll try to respond for you b/c I really think you are missing the point of my question.
Hi AC, thanks for the response. I'd suggest re-reading my question, however. It seems you think I am trying to 'say' that LRC was a bad science investment. I think ALL scientific data is valuable...even erroneous data can be very valuable.
First, I'm asking, not telling here. I'm quoting and asking a question. No bias. I want to know **if** this scientist thinks what you are saying I am saying.
I don't know! That's why I asked...the quotation from Dr. Incandela (awesome name) provided the basis for my question.
Also, you're just wrong about history when you say the following,
"All the technologies you enjoy (TVs, internet, cell phones, automobiles, AC, etc.) were based on research that likely seemed frivolous at the time"
absolutely incorrect:
television - was an application of an electron gun technology that was not derived at all from any 'finding' of a new particle....the tech and science for it was there for at least 50 years
internet - laughable...no discovery in particle physics initiated the ARPANET research whatsoever
cell phones - I am assuming you mean 'cellular' transmitters and receivers placed in a geographic grid of 'cells' that allows the handset to stay wirelessly connected to a transceiver? B/c they were working on that at FERMILAB weren't they???
Dr. Joe Incandela of UC Santa Barbara and CMS director said recently of the CERN Higgs results:
"This is so far out on a limb, **I have no idea where it will be applied**, We're talking about something **we have no idea** what the implications are and **may not be directly applied for centuries**."
you've been advertising your reproductive potential on your tools of work for decades...and you wonder why you don't get laid....
but seriously...GIMP is fine as a name...Gnu Image Manipulation Program....perfectly succinct and descriptive
sure, I love saying "Bring out the GIMP" whenever I run the program working in a group....but that Pulp Fiction bondage reference only hits a few people...seriously no one gets it except geeks
This part of your comment amazed me: "It is possible that the NSA has some proof that P=NP.."
I'm not up on my crypto-game these days (i'm in entrepreneur mode not scientist mode), but that's the right way to think...however, with actual code-breaking, there is ALWAYS a situation and context for the communication to be decoded that puts a 'spin' on the 'universe' of the message
My dad was a cryptographer in the US Navy during the 70s. He taught me cryptography from a wireline, communications engineer perspective. In other words, based on the Shannon-Weaver model: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon%E2%80%93Weaver_model
I LOVE the P=NP problem but its weird/fascinating that the state of the art in crypto is talking about P=NP as a matter of course on slashdot...
Gates stole other people's ideas. He used personal connections to undercut the legitimate...he hasn't earned an iota of respect for any sort of 'business' or 'design' accomplishments. Just because he made money doesn't mean his business ideas were good in any way.
I would love to read your description of Syrian P.M. Assad's wife...or of Jerry Sandusky...
You had me until this: "Since Facebook (like Google) is an advertising company, this makes a lot of sense"
You're right on about Facebook's $1Billion buying user data, but you're way wrong about it "making a lot of sense"
It is ridiculously foolish and a waste. Facebook.com is a information trading company that uses social networking to gather user data. They are currently doing the IPO in order for the investors and founders to take profits. The company is a legal blackmail scam essentially...one step up from those online based adventure games. You are projecting your own elementary understanding of advertising onto facebook.com's "business model"
The core problem is the business world and ignorance...but you don't help by drinking the Kool-Aide that facbook.com is a viable company....its a scammer that is fooling alot of people...that is NOT praiseworthy
"On a bit-for-bit (or qubit-for-qubit) scale, they're not necessarily faster than regular computers, they just process info differently."
Thank you. I have been trying and failing (in tweets @DrEpperly) to explain the concept you describe very succinctly. I have a telecommunications background so we just think of it as having two channels...sort of like the old 'dual-mode' phones...
When you get published saying this please send me a link;)
You list the benefits of the internet as a whole and comment as if those benefits are for users of facebook only...sounds like you drink the cool-aide;)
To develop more, you cite examples of entities (political parties, retailers, travel industry) and say that because those entities want information and facebook HAS information then facebook.com will be a profitable company
You're skipping about 1000 steps...its what Adam Smith called the 'black box'
See people buy things for all kinds of reasons, and marketing types have their own institutional problems for why they can't get a good sample (look at say, Neilsen ratings for more on this kind of ineptitude). Marketing people barely understand the internet, and you're saying facebook is smart for betting those companies will put alot of their money into just ONE internet ad channel...wouldn't ever happen on a scale to sustain...
And that ad sales volume has to be sustained over decades.
To use your refrigerator analogy, what's really happening is that facebook is saying that Sears and others like them will have enough data saying that people chose Sears based on facebook.com posts to justify a substantial, long-term ad buy that would sustain a quasi-profitable company with huge overhead.
That's not a smart bet in a good economy....let alone an economy where the Sear's of the world are closing hundreds of stores
So you're wrong on all counts...facebook is a bad business model, bad investment, and a wast of computer cycles for the most part The last one was IMHO
>>>I mean, "dark matter" sounds menacing and strange. Had they called it "candy matter"
I know that just because you are using an ad homonym attack on my argument via contextualizing my perspective as 'afraid' doesn't mean you don't have an important point to make.
So, disregarding your ad homonym dicta, I found this (paraphrased):
>>Just because the simplest explanation tends to be the best doesn't mean it is always the best
That's something I can address. You can't fight my balanced approach with unbalance and rebrand it as 'the balanced approach'...you are advocating going against confirmed observations. That's progress, of course, but it must be accurate, precise, falsifiable, and verifyable (among other things...ethics...)
Just because you can make a spreadsheet and modeling software output the result you want doesn't mean you get to turn science on its head in an instant.
Let me be clear: Dark Matter research is interesting and helpful, but its significance is out of proportion to the level of scientific rigor relative to other science that it contradicts.
So that's balance. My approach is skeptical yet open and optimistic and its the right approach.
Dark Matter researchers or researchers intersted in Dark Matter, or whoever should do all the research you want and I will look at it with interest. BUT I DECIDE when it is the best option on the table.
The only thing I am 'afraid' of is that your perspective might be the prevailing perspective in many academic and research institutions.
hey thanks for your contribution...seems like you know what you're talking about
I want to respond to this:
"this guy's explanation can't explain things like X, nor can they explain Y which, **in the field**, are considered much stronger constraints."
I dont want to squabble about X & Y...but ask you if X & Y were re-examined in a context that was absent a need for Dark Matter of any kind, is it possible that the researchers of X & Y would find another way to explain the observations?
Of course, yes, we could find that observations of the Bullet Cluster can fit a model sans-dark matter once we apply a comprehensive understanding of black holes...or not.
My point is, Dark Matter is as Dark Matter does...if its not an option, those PhD dissertations on galaxy collision physics are going to get written anyhow, and whatever explanation we can find will be the best until we find something better...
sure the CDM Theory of Cosmology fits observations...we can reverse engineer ANY result we want with the data analysis tools available...the point of my post is simply to ask, "What is more important to you, volume of published research on a topic or mathematic/scientific fitness?"
Your answer to my question is also the answer to your own questions of the External Validity of Carati's equations.
I think we'd agree generally but you speak with authority in one area:
"most of us did NOT get into this because it was our dream to keep making better robots..."
That's the problem...too many people, I'd say a whole generation of potential space explorers had to comprimise too much on their (our) dreams.
We have had the technology to put a human on Mars for over 30 years...we could have had a moon base functioning since the Carter administration, and we could have had REAL space planes that took off and landed like a plane should (X Program)....but WE CUT THOSE PROGRAMS
In favor of what...the ISS and the Shuttle...yep...I contend that too many people like you were silent....the silent generation of space explorers.
"If you haven't learned *any* programming because you say "There wasn't a class". Then you should probably forget about it. You're not going to make a good programmer, because you sound like the kind of person who only learns from classes. And that's likely to be a very major problem for you in your career."
And a problem for YOUR career too...people are changing...geeks today are not like geeks of even 20 years ago and there are plenty of other outlets for their talent than developing
If your profession is closed to noobs then you can never grow.
I used to be a snowboarding instructor. Part of how snowboarding went from a garage project to multi-billion industry is the "cool" cachet that comes with the sport. Not unlike Programmers, snowboarders view themselves at the top of the food chain and have high barriers to entry.
However, the key differences is, snowboarding (and skateboarding/surfing) has a well established informal mentoring program that basically takes the approcah: "If you have guts enough to try it then we can teach you the rest"
Developers and programmers need to stop basing their self-concept on being superior to others and learn that only by encouraging noobs can you control your industry and filter out only the noobs you want!!!
parent post is not only an obvious troll, but the attitude is poisonous for our profession...is he trying to say he never asked any questions when starting to implement a new skill? If you know everything about how to do a job, then by definition you're not a beginner. BEGINNERS MUST BE HELPED NOT SHUNNED!!!
i'm a CCNA, php developer (mostly in Drupal these days) that picked up web coding later in life (after years of database admin and music writing)
You missed OP's point...Google doesn't know the first thing about running a record label...neither do the guys in charge now...that's the problem
Sure Google engineers, if you put them in a room, could probably brainstorm a better model for paying artist $$$ in exchange for production and distribution costs, but that's not what this is about is it?
Article said "buy" the big record labels. No one in their right mind would ever buy those companies at their current valuation. Besides the intellectual property and some supply chain infrastructure the major record labels are worthless right now because their business model has been blown out.
From TFA: "— all of them. It could afford them — people tend to forget that the music industry is actually relatively small in economic terms, but wields a disproportionate influence with policy makers. Buying them would solve that problem too"
Slashdot Mirror
my drawing was supposed to look like this: ">|_|>" but i typed the wrong character
sort of a prototype of a flying saucer...or the LEM Research Lander the Apollo astronauts used: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lunar_Landing_Research_Vehicle_in_Flight_-_GPN-2000-000215.jpg
Most interesting/awesome part of answers, IMHO:
"I can imagine that if we were able to isolate a region from the Higgs field (much as we use Faraday cages, i.e. metal boxes, to protect circuits from electromagnetic interferences), we can turn all the particles inside the region massless. You can imagine by yourself what this implies, for transportation, storage, etc."
In response to a second question about future applications. "Future of Higgs?"
Forgive my crude drawing above, but if I understand correctly, he's saying we can make a "Higgs Cage" that would make what's inside of it massless...
So if my above drawing was an aircraft, if "|_|" is a "Higgs Cage" then anything inside of it would be massless...therefor teh whole craft "" would require much less lift and force and have less drag. Essentially flying a C-131 with the equivalent of rubber band plane engines...
Which would allow for characteristics commonly associated with 'flying cars' or 'flying saucers'...possibly?
I asked about the technical application of work like the Higgs research at CERN and he responded.
"even if we cannot imagine possible direct applications of the Higgs bosons, we can for sure imagine possible applications of the technologies developed in order to detect it"
To Dr. Organtini,
Thank you for your time in responding. I appreciate your humble insistence that the universe tells US how IT works.
_justin
I'm starting to feel like the whole "standards will never evolve predictably" argument is a troll argument...
"The great thing about standards_There's so many to choose from."
haha, but in any context where standards change, there will be an **ongoing** conversation about what the standards should be. Evolving standards will **certainly** precipitate competing ideas. (see also xkcd comic linked below)
And people will discuss and debate those ideas. That is **normal**...actually its **necessary**
In this particular standards debate, HTML, there are clear goals and values. The conversation should be about which option meets those the best, other non-traditional options...then a **decision** and a moving forward.
That's how the "standards are important but foster endless arguments point" becomes a troll...
We know its possible to argue infinitely about standards...the idea is to **not** do that, thank you very much ;)
Well, fatphil... :/ this is quite a turn of events...it saddens me that you are incapable of communicating yourself sufficiently to ask me your question about my question...
however, this phrase did make me laugh: "simply a key-hole analysis"....that is another way of telling me that you're just reacting and your analysis is not thought out
you also mention a 'straw man' fallacy...nice job!
that IS a type of fallacy! in order for you to claim I have made it, you need to show how my original question to the scientist (and the quotation from dr. Incandela director of CMS) is an example of that
hi fatphil, thanks for the response.
I would like to address your 'question' but I was hoping you could restate it for me.
Please start from my original post that posed the question for the scientist, then the first AC reply, then my reply to him, then yours, etc. so I can see your logic.
Also, quotations help. Thanks I'll try to respond for you b/c I really think you are missing the point of my question.
Hi AC, thanks for the response. I'd suggest re-reading my question, however. It seems you think I am trying to 'say' that LRC was a bad science investment. I think ALL scientific data is valuable...even erroneous data can be very valuable.
First, I'm asking, not telling here. I'm quoting and asking a question. No bias. I want to know **if** this scientist thinks what you are saying I am saying.
I don't know! That's why I asked...the quotation from Dr. Incandela (awesome name) provided the basis for my question.
Also, you're just wrong about history when you say the following,
"All the technologies you enjoy (TVs, internet, cell phones, automobiles, AC, etc.) were based on research that likely seemed frivolous at the time"
absolutely incorrect:
television - was an application of an electron gun technology that was not derived at all from any 'finding' of a new particle....the tech and science for it was there for at least 50 years
internet - laughable...no discovery in particle physics initiated the ARPANET research whatsoever
cell phones - I am assuming you mean 'cellular' transmitters and receivers placed in a geographic grid of 'cells' that allows the handset to stay wirelessly connected to a transceiver? B/c they were working on that at FERMILAB weren't they???
AC, etc...
Just so you know what actual particle physics application science looks like: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2406297,00.asp
Dr. Joe Incandela of UC Santa Barbara and CMS director said recently of the CERN Higgs results:
"This is so far out on a limb, **I have no idea where it will be applied**, We're talking about something **we have no idea** what the implications are and **may not be directly applied for centuries**."
(source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/04/stephen-hawking-and-higgs-boson-bet_n_1650024.html)
My questions: Do you agree that the direct application of the findings are as nebulous and abstract as he describes?
Please discuss the implications of your answer and how they relate to the economic choices of how humans use their scientific resources.
you've been advertising your reproductive potential on your tools of work for decades...and you wonder why you don't get laid....
but seriously...GIMP is fine as a name...Gnu Image Manipulation Program....perfectly succinct and descriptive
sure, I love saying "Bring out the GIMP" whenever I run the program working in a group....but that Pulp Fiction bondage reference only hits a few people...seriously no one gets it except geeks
see also: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/conoscenti
This part of your comment amazed me: "It is possible that the NSA has some proof that P=NP.."
I'm not up on my crypto-game these days (i'm in entrepreneur mode not scientist mode), but that's the right way to think...however, with actual code-breaking, there is ALWAYS a situation and context for the communication to be decoded that puts a 'spin' on the 'universe' of the message
My dad was a cryptographer in the US Navy during the 70s. He taught me cryptography from a wireline, communications engineer perspective. In other words, based on the Shannon-Weaver model: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon%E2%80%93Weaver_model
I LOVE the P=NP problem but its weird/fascinating that the state of the art in crypto is talking about P=NP as a matter of course on slashdot...
Jeez can you be my publicist???
Gates stole other people's ideas. He used personal connections to undercut the legitimate ...he hasn't earned an iota of respect for any sort of 'business' or 'design' accomplishments. Just because he made money doesn't mean his business ideas were good in any way.
I would love to read your description of Syrian P.M. Assad's wife...or of Jerry Sandusky...
You had me until this: "Since Facebook (like Google) is an advertising company, this makes a lot of sense"
You're right on about Facebook's $1Billion buying user data, but you're way wrong about it "making a lot of sense"
It is ridiculously foolish and a waste. Facebook.com is a information trading company that uses social networking to gather user data. They are currently doing the IPO in order for the investors and founders to take profits. The company is a legal blackmail scam essentially...one step up from those online based adventure games. You are projecting your own elementary understanding of advertising onto facebook.com's "business model"
The core problem is the business world and ignorance...but you don't help by drinking the Kool-Aide that facbook.com is a viable company....its a scammer that is fooling alot of people...that is NOT praiseworthy
I too wondered immediately what patents actually changed hands, and more importantly if any of them had ever been ruled upon by a court...
I am disappointed that many /.'ers comments seem to focus on the hype
"On a bit-for-bit (or qubit-for-qubit) scale, they're not necessarily faster than regular computers, they just process info differently."
Thank you. I have been trying and failing (in tweets @DrEpperly) to explain the concept you describe very succinctly. I have a telecommunications background so we just think of it as having two channels...sort of like the old 'dual-mode' phones...
When you get published saying this please send me a link ;)
You list the benefits of the internet as a whole and comment as if those benefits are for users of facebook only...sounds like you drink the cool-aide ;)
To develop more, you cite examples of entities (political parties, retailers, travel industry) and say that because those entities want information and facebook HAS information then facebook.com will be a profitable company
You're skipping about 1000 steps...its what Adam Smith called the 'black box'
See people buy things for all kinds of reasons, and marketing types have their own institutional problems for why they can't get a good sample (look at say, Neilsen ratings for more on this kind of ineptitude). Marketing people barely understand the internet, and you're saying facebook is smart for betting those companies will put alot of their money into just ONE internet ad channel...wouldn't ever happen on a scale to sustain...
And that ad sales volume has to be sustained over decades.
To use your refrigerator analogy, what's really happening is that facebook is saying that Sears and others like them will have enough data saying that people chose Sears based on facebook.com posts to justify a substantial, long-term ad buy that would sustain a quasi-profitable company with huge overhead.
That's not a smart bet in a good economy....let alone an economy where the Sear's of the world are closing hundreds of stores
So you're wrong on all counts...facebook is a bad business model, bad investment, and a wast of computer cycles for the most part
The last one was IMHO
interesting...you said
>>>I mean, "dark matter" sounds menacing and strange. Had they called it "candy matter"
I know that just because you are using an ad homonym attack on my argument via contextualizing my perspective as 'afraid' doesn't mean you don't have an important point to make.
So, disregarding your ad homonym dicta, I found this (paraphrased):
>>Just because the simplest explanation tends to be the best doesn't mean it is always the best
That's something I can address. You can't fight my balanced approach with unbalance and rebrand it as 'the balanced approach'...you are advocating going against confirmed observations. That's progress, of course, but it must be accurate, precise, falsifiable, and verifyable (among other things...ethics...)
Just because you can make a spreadsheet and modeling software output the result you want doesn't mean you get to turn science on its head in an instant.
Let me be clear: Dark Matter research is interesting and helpful, but its significance is out of proportion to the level of scientific rigor relative to other science that it contradicts.
So that's balance. My approach is skeptical yet open and optimistic and its the right approach.
Dark Matter researchers or researchers intersted in Dark Matter, or whoever should do all the research you want and I will look at it with interest. BUT I DECIDE when it is the best option on the table.
The only thing I am 'afraid' of is that your perspective might be the prevailing perspective in many academic and research institutions.
hey thanks for your contribution...seems like you know what you're talking about
I want to respond to this:
"this guy's explanation can't explain things like X, nor can they explain Y which, **in the field**, are considered much stronger constraints."
I dont want to squabble about X & Y...but ask you if X & Y were re-examined in a context that was absent a need for Dark Matter of any kind, is it possible that the researchers of X & Y would find another way to explain the observations?
Of course, yes, we could find that observations of the Bullet Cluster can fit a model sans-dark matter once we apply a comprehensive understanding of black holes...or not.
My point is, Dark Matter is as Dark Matter does...if its not an option, those PhD dissertations on galaxy collision physics are going to get written anyhow, and whatever explanation we can find will be the best until we find something better...
sure the CDM Theory of Cosmology fits observations...we can reverse engineer ANY result we want with the data analysis tools available...the point of my post is simply to ask, "What is more important to you, volume of published research on a topic or mathematic/scientific fitness?"
Your answer to my question is also the answer to your own questions of the External Validity of Carati's equations.
>> "It would be fun to try on a "smaller" asteroid"
Agree_asteroids are good training for the next step IMHO
parent is M$ fanboi troll or paid M$ staff
either way parent comment is irrelevant to the issue of the article as it is obviously biased severly
I think we'd agree generally but you speak with authority in one area:
"most of us did NOT get into this because it was our dream to keep making better robots..."
That's the problem...too many people, I'd say a whole generation of potential space explorers had to comprimise too much on their (our) dreams.
We have had the technology to put a human on Mars for over 30 years...we could have had a moon base functioning since the Carter administration, and we could have had REAL space planes that took off and landed like a plane should (X Program)....but WE CUT THOSE PROGRAMS
In favor of what...the ISS and the Shuttle...yep...I contend that too many people like you were silent....the silent generation of space explorers.
"Motivation is irrelevant."
No it is definitely fsking relevant. Your logical error is false equivalence.
An analogy: A person drives their car onto a sidewalk killing 5 and injuring dozens.
The driver would be a murderer by your logic, since the motivation is irrelevant.
I hope mods adjust your score down...you are definitely trolling
"If you haven't learned *any* programming because you say "There wasn't a class". Then you should probably forget about it. You're not going to make a good programmer, because you sound like the kind of person who only learns from classes. And that's likely to be a very major problem for you in your career."
And a problem for YOUR career too...people are changing...geeks today are not like geeks of even 20 years ago and there are plenty of other outlets for their talent than developing
If your profession is closed to noobs then you can never grow.
I used to be a snowboarding instructor. Part of how snowboarding went from a garage project to multi-billion industry is the "cool" cachet that comes with the sport. Not unlike Programmers, snowboarders view themselves at the top of the food chain and have high barriers to entry.
However, the key differences is, snowboarding (and skateboarding/surfing) has a well established informal mentoring program that basically takes the approcah: "If you have guts enough to try it then we can teach you the rest"
Developers and programmers need to stop basing their self-concept on being superior to others and learn that only by encouraging noobs can you control your industry and filter out only the noobs you want!!!
plz MOD PARENT DOWN
parent post is not only an obvious troll, but the attitude is poisonous for our profession...is he trying to say he never asked any questions when starting to implement a new skill? If you know everything about how to do a job, then by definition you're not a beginner. BEGINNERS MUST BE HELPED NOT SHUNNED!!!
i'm a CCNA, php developer (mostly in Drupal these days) that picked up web coding later in life (after years of database admin and music writing)
So what their prices are slightly higher? 5GB of free hosting is welcome.
You missed OP's point...Google doesn't know the first thing about running a record label...neither do the guys in charge now...that's the problem
Sure Google engineers, if you put them in a room, could probably brainstorm a better model for paying artist $$$ in exchange for production and distribution costs, but that's not what this is about is it?
Article said "buy" the big record labels. No one in their right mind would ever buy those companies at their current valuation. Besides the intellectual property and some supply chain infrastructure the major record labels are worthless right now because their business model has been blown out.
From TFA: "— all of them. It could afford them — people tend to forget that the music industry is actually relatively small in economic terms, but wields a disproportionate influence with policy makers. Buying them would solve that problem too"
I almost laughed when i read the last line