You mention Jeff Beck to some teenager today, and they will ask what did he RAP?
Yeah, the key word there is "some". Most people in the masses don't know Jeff Beck from MC Hammer. You've got to draw the line on what you'd expect a non-music lover to know. I doubt that 2% of all people could name any work Jeff Beck has ever done. You'd doubtlessly find more people with some years behind them who would know but some of that comes with musical experience, not just age on it's own.
It's easy to drop his name among music lovers but he's a hard sell to most guys who just listen to the radio (regardless of format)
They would tell you that Billy Cobham is a drum machine.
Again, 98%+ off all people have never heard Cobham or Mahavishnu Orchestra. You're dropping an obscure reference and expecting Joe Sixpack to pick up on it? You're expecting too much out of the wrong crowd.
There aint no musicianship approaching Steely Dan anywhere in music today.
Yeah, Steely. Finally we come to a band that I'm fairly confident Joe Sixpack would recognize. Say Fagen or Becker though and you're going to get a blank expression in a lot of cases. It is unfortunate but most people simply don't get into music. That's the bottom line. And I honestly have to disagree with you too. I think that while the guys were meticulous in their writing, performance and production of music I certainly think there are musicians on the same level. You're not going to find it in today's pop radio playlists but by all rights it seems that Steely didn't belong there either. Even Fagen and Becker admit that SD was an anomaly and, for the most part, a million things that went right when anything could have gone wrong.
But I guess it's what you're into that makes all the difference as far as finding someone what you consider talented on the level of Steely Dan. Scoff if you want but Metheny (IMHO) is one of the best musicians out there and when it comes down to it he could give Steely Dan a run for their money but the musical styles have a wide enough gap in them that it would be hard, if not impossible, not to let personal bias prejudice one's decision.
It's an OkiData C5300n. (and yes, I know they're cheaper now).
In all honesty I thought about trying to create my own print driver for it but I know nothing about print drivers and I highly doubt I have enough coding skill to pull it off.
I can download Linux for $0. It is a full-fledged operating system. If Linux can cost $0, so should Windows and Mac OS X.
But do you know what isn't free for Linux? Drivers for my 600 USD printer.
I have no problems getting these drivers for Windows and probably no problem getting them for OSX as well.
While I do run Linux on a limited basis in my home I can honestly say that it's not a solution. Grumble all you want to about it but when it comes down to it Linux doesn't support what Windows does in my environment.
So I'd gladly pay the 400 USD for Vista Extreme (or whatever the hell they're calling it) to keep my printer going. I'd pay for a Linux driver for my printer too. One simply does not exist.
This is yet another example (in a long list of examples) of why some people can not simply "march with the penguins".
Linux is not a total solution, stop marketing it like it is one or be just as guilty as the asshats at Microsoft and Apple. At least in their cases I can honestly say there is support for my hardware.
And even if I could get these drivers I'm still not going 100% Linux because of the lack of applications I need to do my daily things. Don't get me wrong; Linux is neat, I enjoy playing around with it, it does a lot of what Joe Sixpack needs it to do but it's still not where Windows is today in overall applications and hardware support. You may complain that it's the fault of MS and the market forces but that doesn't get my printer printing.
You can call it that all you want but it's not going to stop the current way of doing business by the MPAA. In fact, you're fueling their fire, giving them the ultimate legitimacy.
We've seen and heard that pirating music/movies/software is taking a stand. I don't see it working well as the efforts to beat down the violators continue.
But do what you want. You know the rules. Don't come crying about it once you become a perp instead of a pirate.
Have you ever listened to any Canned Heat other than what's on the radio?
I actually own Canned Heat albums. I own just as much Canned Heat as I do the Beastie Boys, in fact (2 albums each). But, just as another thread that came out of this, it's not a personal opinion type of thing. We're talking about the music business, not who's talented and who's not. This isn't about what deserves more attention but rather who gets it. And if you knew me you'd realize that this has nothing to do with fanboism.
Given that, I'd agree with your comparison of the Beastie Boys to the Rolling Stones,
both pretty overrated.
I'd disagree if we were talking about their early stuff for both bands. But the Stones endured a much drier period than the BBs ever have. It's another reason I compare the two. But I also see that the BBs are keeping their fanbase fresh and their music is certainly more progressive than most other bands with a 20 year history.
btw, Switched-on Bach is still a good album. Bach is never goes bad.
But Wendy Carlos does. Again, I'm not really here to argue who has talent but rather how the market (and time) does change our perspectives on music. Today's music isn't going to be seen the same as it does by today's fans in 20 years.
There was a point when people raved for Wendy Carlos. I'm sure many people still have their old Switched on Bach album collecting dust. I'm sure many of them have forgotten what attracted them to buy it in the first place.
Problem is the 20%
which is good all depends on who you ask.
In time that's less of an issue though because blander stuff is shed off like dead skin. I even see it in my own collection; stuff that I thought was fantastic at a time that today I question my judgement on. The market helps determine most of what becomes a classic and it certainly shows in a lot of older music that has gotten played to death on the local classic rock station.
I was thinking of the retro-kitsch sound and artwork (cheesy use of analogue synths and vocoder- both of which I love sometimes, but not in the way the BBs used them).
How is using it in one fashion any "cheesier" than another? Granted, some things are done for pure camp value. These efforts are normally one notch lower than satire and most are easy to see. I don't see this in the BBs.
No, I said it became uber-fashionable to like them in the mid-late 1990s, and it had more to do with them being latched on as "fashionable" by certain types, with lots of other people following. I'm sure there are people who'd be fans anyway.
You can not tell me you don't think this wasn't the same with the Stones. Do you really think all of the Stones popularity was from making the best music at the time and nothing else? Come on, Mick Jagger is an icon not because of his music but because of his "fashion". Not to go as far as to say he was the Marilyn Manson of his day but Mick has a fan appeal all his own aside from his music, the same is partially true of the BBs but no where near the level of Mick. I don't think you'll see this kind of thing out of them.
I think you've mistaken me for a diehard Stones/Who/whatever fan. I'm not; the Stones today are a tribute act to their earlier selves and little more. But some of the stuff they recorded during the 1960s/early-1970s is (and will continue to be) justifiably remembered.
Actually, I'm assuming nothing about you. I'm not talk as a fan to a fan here, I'm neither a big Stones or BBs fan. I agree that the Stones have great tracks that are worth listening too (mostly very early Stones for me). The bottom line is that there was a point in the Stones history were they were frankly having problems moving new albums off the shelves. My comment about The Who was, again, not pointed at you but rather a general remark on bands that produce next to nothing in their twilight years but continue to pulling the cash by touring. The BBs don't have enough status for this yet but I'll be highly disappointed if they go this route when they do. I feel that way about any artist I have any respect for.
Not that Grand Royal seemed especially significant, it was always mentioned that it was the BB's label, cool by association.
And how does this reflect on the BBs? If people decide to follow them blindly it's not their fault. At least no more than other labels that were being held high at the same time for no real reason such as Maverick or even earlier Tommy Boy and Factory Records.
The Stones, regardless of how pointless they are today, have created a legacy that *has* endured. If you're saying that in 20 years time, the BBs will have a greater popular legacy, then... we'll wait and see. I don't think it's at all likely, personally.
Yeah, maybe I'm trying hard to predict the future there but as it stands today the BBs (and actually, I was only using them as an example) probably have the biggest chance out of the music of the past decade or so to come out as a legacy band. Name me others if you disagree? I'm willing to listen but consider that most bands today don't have the history behind them to qualify as a legacy band let alone the fan base... I just don't see many who can do it.
Anyway, I don't doubt that they did some stuff that was okay if you're into that sort of thing
See, this is the problem with seeing things like that: "if you're into that sort of thing" is contaminating not only this thread by it also shows how you look at it. This has nothing to do with being a fan, it has to do with the raw numbers and the trends. If I had my way bands like Mission of Burma would be the next Rolling Stones and The Orb would be the next Pink Floyd. But looking at the history and the current listener trends it's just not going to happen. It's not what I want that matters, it's the way things are that matter. Although I will admit that I'm far more interested in what the BBs are
On the e-music front, I don't think anyone will argue that NIN was a front-runner. After all, he created a whole new genre.
Industrial existed for a while before NIN. Trent had the fortune to bring it to the masses. Rarely do the first people in a genre ever get the credit because it normally takes it a while for it to swing around.
As for Industrials claims within e-music? Some of it may hold ground but all in all it's still using the same sequencer techniques that had been going on at the early days of Berlin School. Even Berlin School probably can't lay full claim to electronic sequencer technology although it is known that many of the early Krautrockers who stuck around did develop their own technologies or work with those who did because of gaps in the early generations of this technology.
I guess it could even be argued that player pianos and music boxes are early forerunners to electronic sequencers. It's the same theory just a different platform.
But if you follow the legacy of Industrial music back you're going to find a rich heritage but where you might draw the line on what is and is not industrial is going to have both followers and detractors. If you want to consider NIN the first industrial band no one can stop you but I lean more towards Skinny Puppy and Ministry and their associated teams at Network Records and Wax Trax Records. That may even be a bit premature but I'm not a big Industrial fan either. I'd recommend finding someone who's spent a lot of time in the Industrial circles if you're really interested in it's history. I was into it for a while in my high school years and still listen to some stuff today but my tastes in this kinda raw e-music area has turned more to noise than industrial.
There's a ton of stuff going on in early Industrial that's not much different from late 70s/early 80s american punk where labels were less a group of bands recording for the same company but rather the company being composed of artists who worked together on different projects given different names. Labels like Discord and SST Records often had members that floated between bands and sometimes it got to the point where there were less musicians than the number of names they recorded under by using different lineups. Wax Trax, in it's early days, is certainly a testament to this way of doing business as the same core musicians worked on nearly every project.
It's like a musician by the name of Pete Namlook. He does tons of e-music work with different artists and everything on his label (FAX +49-69/450464) seems to involve him. The man has about 140 releases to his credit but there are so many different project names and line ups it would be enough to keep you on your toes for years on end even as a hardcore e-music fan.
The Beastie Boys? Eurgh. Started out doing fratboy music (which at least wasn't pretending to be anything more).
Actually, they started out doing hardcore punk but go on...
Then they went along the self-consciously cheesy 70s retro path just when it was coming into vogue.
Christ, a few videos that had some retro refrence to them and you're ready to write them off. BTW: Those videos were done by Spike Jonez, everything else he was doing at the time had the same feel to it. The BBs probably had little to do with it and even if they did how is that different from the Stones doing their little Disco struts in the 70s? If anything the BBs are falling right in line in with the likes of the Stones and other big names like Elton John. So much for that theory.
That's when they started getting lauded as creative geniuses and could do no wrong in the eyes of the sheep-like hipster crowd.
So having a fan base makes the fans sheep? Anywho... strike another point up for the BBs being the next RSs. The Stones put out a bunch of unsellable shit for a few years there and no one but Stones fans bothered to listen. The BBs have a much better track record than the Stones in this area. And you call the fans sheep but at least the BBs weren't riding past glories for some fresh cash. (can anyone say "The Who"?)
You knew a band was becoming successful when the rumours about them signing to the Beastie Boy's oh-so-fashionable "Grand Royal" label in the US
What's your point?
But the opinion of a bunch of late-90s Nathan Barley-types means precisely nothing. The Beastie Boys were- and still are- a bunch of overrated white nerds, and I couldn't give a toss about their music.
So that's how the BBs are still keeping it going some 20 years later? I "couldn't give a toss" about the Stones, for the most part, either. Does that means the Stones are doomed?
I hate to break this to you but the Stones, while a banner for everything that is good and right out rock and roll for some, are mostly disliked. That's why they only sell millions of albums instead of billions. A majority of people have never cared for any one band. If half the people who listen to the BBs today continue to listen to them in the future without the BBs ever gaining another fan they'll still be bigger than the Stones.
Think of it what you will but the days of mega-star bands that go on and on is far from over. The Stones are just the ones that are easy to point out today.
I know people are going to complain that I'm a BBs apologist or some nonsense. It's certainly not true. While I do own two whole albums by them the fact is that the BBs have changed their style, continued to advance themselves in a relatively stagnant market and maintain a fan base that not many other bands in the last 20 years have. You may still think of them as young snots but the bottom line is that the BBs are now at the legacy stage with a history behind them. Groan if you want but hey, even Meatloaf still tours.
(And just for the record, I happen to own more of The Who than the Beastie Boys.)
They should make movies, music etc. much cheaper and without DRM, especially the main stream media. Sure they can say, that it costs a lot to create stuff, but if we give the performing people according to what they do and not what they look like, that would make the costs plummet. I always hate when they talk about an actor, getting $13 million for maybe a year long project. I probably won't ever make that in my life. I currently think I am paid pretty well (70k+) and I can support myself. I can understand that they probably need/want/deserve more but anything over $2m/year is a little overrated for me.
Then don't go. Boycott. Protest. Shake your fists at them a bit. Why do you think someone else should or shouldn't have to do something because, in your eyes, it's over rated? Actors make big bucks because it draws a large fan base. If you want to make a statement about it don't have it be that some unknown power should stifle the entertainment industry because you, Guruevi, don't see the value in it.
Maybe you're right but I, for one, would feel better about letting the market forces decide. I vote with my dollars and I sleep well at night knowing that I don't need to call on some government to control how much money Chuck Norris will make for doing Sidekicks XVI. Anytime you invite anyone to regulate anything on your behalf, instead of taking the matter into your own hands, you're just asking to get bit on the ass.
Also, eliminate organizations like RIAA, MPAA and other shills that are not adding any positive value to the process (that includes DRM, ratings etc). Look at any standard business model, any piece in an organization that is not performing or delivering any added value (short or long term) to the organization is (usually) cut loose.
Ever notice that it's not lobby groups? Again, vote with your dollars. The RIAA and the MPAA are privately funded organizations. You're not going to get them outlawed in any form. It's an unrealistic solution.
And do you think for a second that even if the RIAA would find itself in the unemployment lines tomorrow that it would stop Sony or whomever from using DRM? At this point and time it almost seems like the RIAA is outliving its usefulness not because the public is taking a stand but rather because legislation and technology is going to help the large recording firms get their own way without the need of a lobby presence up on the hill.
When the day comes that the RIAA closes its doors because labels have no use for them don't bother to celebrate; that's the day that your ability to listen to large label music will decidedly bought from under you.
If that thought doesn't bother you than you shouldn't be bitching in the first place.
A couple weeks ago, maybe as long as two months. TD is still VERY active. Even that's an understatement.
Force Majeure was the last really good thing I recall from them, and I have it on LP...
It's a personal thing. Being a TD fan and within TD fan circles there are a lot of people who'd agree with you that when TD left the Berlin School sound that it was pretty much over for them. I disagree. The early-mid eighties stuff still held a lot of value, the late 80s/early 90s work left a ton to be desired (also their least productive period, oddly enough) but they've since started to move in a few different directions and I'm finding that's while it's a mixed bag it's still worth my time and money. We're never going to see the Froese, Franke, Baumann quality era again but it's still worthwhile. It seems the more core fans are in with me on this opinion as well. To each their own. I'm fairly sure that TD will continue to produce for a while longer even tho Edgar is getting up there in years.
You forgot to mention ELO and Nine Inch Nails for other counterparts on MIDI ports and computer programming....:)
Absolutely. I brought up the bands I did because they were really the front runners of "strong" electronic music. Most people who slag e-music for being too simple or too easy are fast to forget other artists to whom which there is little or no questions of quality but have used e-music to their advantage such as Pink Floyd, Yes, ELP and Alan Parsons Project. It's a shame that people can't look beyond the sequencers and keyboards and see that it still takes a vision and a skill to produce good e-music. The creativity is certainly there and worth at least giving a listen to every now and then.
It would be like saying that "Neil Young? You mean the feedback guy?". Anyone who's listened to Neil knows it's not that easy to dismiss him.
I think their sales figures might even be higher if my son and others like him didn't just walk over to dad's collection and pull some rips for his player.
This is true to a point but if it wasn't for us loyalist fans these kids today may never turn on to classic stuff. It's an odd paradox: either they get it for free from you and maybe fill in a few gaps in your collection with a real honest-to-God CD or they never find out about it and it never sells in the first place. I think the situation is pretty good as it is.
And at those old rocker concerts, there are not just old farts like us there, lots of young people.
These kids are mostly brought by their parents at this point. Not to say that don't appreciate the music but 40 bucks for a concert is pretty heavy for a kid stocking shelves at the local grocery store. In my case my parents were big Doo-Wop fans. The closest I would have ever gotten to a Rush concert would be to see the Skyliners at some county fair gig.
True too, I was broke as a kid too, but radio was more interesting then... at least it was to me... doesn't seem like they listen to much radio these days. At least it's not as vital as it was back then
Radio was probably more interesting then but that's one reason I praise the internet; music accessibility. Aside from classic rock I'm a big Krautrock/Berlin School Electronic fan. If it was upto the radio I wouldn't be into it at all. If it was upto my local Sam Goody I'd own about 8 Tangerine Dream CDs. I was lucky enough to get along with the owner of a small music store who was willing to order me in stuff (even though he proclaimed it as trash). With the internet I can simply goto Amazon/iTunes/a bands website. I'm no longer limited to the radio rotation only. God forbid too, nothing against LZ but my local stations just seem to "get the Led" out all too often.
I did turn him on to the Clash too...
Maybe there's hope for the lad yet.:)
Also, I didn't sell my vinyl (you heretic)
Call it what you will but at the time it seemed like the best move to make. While I appreciate the quality of vinyl it doesn't play well in my cars CD player and if the choice comes down to cassette or CD you know which one I'm going to take.
That and the fact that I would have had to have bought just about every copy of Close To the Edge just to keep a good copy around. Taking care of LPs can only go so far in preserving them. I'm afraid you're involved in a losing battle.
The music they are interested in has no long term value, unlike the Beatles/Stones/et al.
Come on. The 60s and 70s didn't have fodder music? Please.
When's the last time you listened to your Soft Machine albums? When's the last time you listened to Wendy Carlos? Or how about Iron Butterfly?
Every era of music has trash and time washes it away to expose what of value is left. The Beastie Boys are the Rolling Stones of tomorrow. Bands like Iron Butterfly and Canned Heat are only selling on Ryko comps today. In another 20 years we'll be seeing the commercials for comps that have crap on it like "Whoop! There It Is" and "Who Let The Dogs Out" and people who are the same age as you are today are going to buy them and say the same thing about the music of 2027.
It always bothers me that people claim there is no good music "like the stones" because they can't be bothered to give other music a try. I know if I only listened to my classic rock station the newest good music I would be hearing is The Clash too.
Fiddling with MIDI settings all day isn't producing music - it's computer programming.
Really? How about telling that to Tangerine Dream or Kraftwerk or Ash Ra Tempel? This type of thing has been going on for over 30 years, don't act like it's new. And if "fiddling with midi" is all it takes to sell an album you'd be doing it too. Just because a music is made with electronics doesn't make it easy. Granted that doesn't make it good either but there are tons of guys that "just decided to pick up a guitar" too. Some of them did well (like The Ramones and BTO*) and most ended up playing a few gigs for beers. It's really no different.
* Before anyone bitches, let's at least be honest enough to admit that bands like BTO and Grand Funk were simple "good times" music and not really the height of talent.
Because collectors are mostly done converting their Cassettes to CD format
A real collector NEVER buys pre-recorded music on cassette. It was cheaper to buy the LP and a good quality blank cassette and make your own cassette copy while retaining the original quality of wax.
Even when cassettes were half the price of CDs I never bought cassettes because the quality sucked that bad. Making my own cassette was always a much better deal even though the cost was much higher.
For all the CD's unsold and rotting on the shelves... they are assembly-line crap...
I ask you to go look at the charts and see what is selling. While I agree much of it is radio fodder the bottom line is that Justin Timberlake or 50Cent or whomever outsold Pink Floyd last year. Pink Floyd is timeless and will continue to sell long after Timberlake and his ilk are worm food but that still doesn't make it deniable that pop outsells classic rock. The industry had it good when we classic rock fans were busy replacing our wax with CDs, either they don't want to fess upto this truth or they're too stupid to see that the format change was a bubble that was going to bust once guys in their 40s and 50s re-bought their Steely Dan on CD. I know I personally sold a ton of old vinyl to walk out of the local music store with a handful of CDs. Once I replaced most of my LPs my buying went from a floodgate to a trickle. I have over 1300 CDs in my collection, the vast majority of them were bought between 1990 and 1995. Today there are a few new releases that still get me shelling out the dollars but the back catalogs that I don't own I have no intention of buying. And no, I don't download music and play it in heavy rotation. That's not to say I don't sample but the downloads are no replacement from me supporting artists I like.
in fact last night I turned him on to... the Cars!
Please, God, NO!!! (I kid, I kid)
The rockers with walkers are making a killing because the industry today is creatively bankrupt. Bring on Jagger, the Stones and their musical wheelchairs.
No, these guys are making money from people like us who have the expendable cash that a 15 year old can't swing to see Nelly in concert.
I'm not that old, 34. When I was a kid in school it was all I could do to collect my change to buy the new Rush album. I went to very few concerts until I became employed. Even in the early days it was mostly cheap punk concerts (5 bucks for 5 bands is a good price for a kid in an old pair of Chucks with beat up skateboard). Since I landed my first real job in 1996 I've seen Rush 13 times before that? only twice. I now have the cash to see them 2-4 times on tour. I love every minute of it but feeding my Rush addiction has less to do with the music of today than my ability to finally be able to pay out to see it. I would have loved to have seen Rush back in the 80s. I just didn't have the funds.
Is there or can there be a split format player? I don't know a whole hell of a lot about BR vs HD-DVD. I was just wondering if we might see players of this nature in the future like we had seen as we had DVD/LaserDisc players during the transition phase of the formats.
For the same reason American GIs were policing Germany and Japan 60 years ago.
What do you mean "were"?
I hate to have to clue the/. crowd into this little fact but the Americans are still policing Germany and Japan.
Granted, there is no insurgency, there is no Iron Curtain nor any cold war any longer but the fact is that had the US and associated allies abandoned their posts in these nations after the ink on the peace treaties were signed there would have been another war the next day. While this occupation has gone on for far too long don't think for a second that the peace treaties truely put everything at peace. How the hell do you think WWII started in the first place?
It's good to see people keeping an eye out for the big brother factor but I think we're all a bit too quick to think that there is going to be a defined point where everyone is going to drop their weapons and return to their farms and markets the next day. It simply doesn't happen.
There was a pretty interesting article today on MSNBC.com about seeing the problems in Iraq and the rest of the middle east from the eyes of an American Muslim. I recommend people who don't understand the Sunni/Shiite conflicts to go read this. It's not overly involved and it makes it a bit easier to understand what is really wrong not to mention it gives some insight into what is really more a matter of gang warfare as opposed to a real insurgency.
Let's face facts, and not to make light the tragedy of the holocaust, but how long does a society need to live with the sins of it's past?
It's a fairly safe bet that today's German gamer isn't the same guy shoveling the bodies of holocaust victims into mass graves.
When can we get over this image of German = Nazi? How long until I don't have to feel bad about being a white American male because of slave owners who have been worm food for over a century?
We need to stop pinning the past of a society on today's citizens.
I don't know if it's as much a question of if a game of any type is a spectator sport but more of if the type of person interested in a certain of game is a spectator.
From my experience, I'm not a spectator. Not to say I can't appreciate a good play/move in a sporting/gaming event but the idea of actually watching an entire game doesn't do the trick for me.
Beyond video gaming I've also played paintball and skateboarded for several years. I can't stand to watch either of these. I don't think it has to do with the watchability of the game/sport but rather my ability to watch and not do.
Oddly enough these activities have low draws in TV ratings. Maybe the type of person who skates, plays paintball or plays video games just isn't the same type of person to sit down with a sixer of Bud Light and scream at a TV set.
That's a pretty stiff penalty to stick Mac users with.
Any stiffer than Apple forcing PC users to buy Apple hardware to run an Apple OS? I guess, by your own standards, it's just one more reason to never buy Apple.
It has been 35 years since the last moon landing and, in that time, NASA has done nothing except waste money on the space shuttle and send up a few probes and satellites.
If your outlook on what NASA has done since a handful of moon landings as nothing more than "waste money on the space shuttle and send up a few probes and satellites" it's no wonder you're a cynic.
It seems that if people boots aren't planet firmly on some moon or planet that it's all pointless to you.
In all honesty NASA could get people back to the moon in a few years with the right funding. There's no question of that, really. But tell me this: Why bother to go back to the moon for a few days and come back? Not to say that this wasn't an extraordinary accomplishment in it's time and place but short holidays to the moon right now would be as meaningful to science as having someone fly the original Wright brothers plane again.
In the meantime we're learning TONS about space that those involved in the moon launches could never have guessed.
If you're willing to ignore all of this research than I'm afraid it's going to be one hell of a long time until NASA or any other space exploratory group ever does anything noteworthy in your eyes.
Sadly there are millions of Joe Sixpacks who are on your side. I hope you guys have a blast getting together to shout NASA down while reaping the rewards of their research. Most people who do this shrug their shoulders and shuffle along when you point out what NASA has done for them (nearly single handedly at that). And guess what? Next to none of it has anything to do with the moon landings. The moon landings where nothing but a political gesture for technological achievement. Again, that's not to say it wasn't extraordinary in it's time but in hindsight it took the lion share of some really golden era funding for which the research returns was pathetically small compared to todays "[couple of] probes and satellites".
NASA is just a wasteful old baby-boomer pipe dream.
On the plus side you must recognize that NASA is putting out a lot of research that is free to the public. This is going to be a keystone in the future of private space flight ventures. So while I agree that NASA is riding the edge of usefulness they have contributed a lot and still have room to contribute more in the areas where the private sector would not see enough ROI on some projects. This pure research could still offer a lot in the overall understanding of what it's going to take to get people into space, what it's going to take to keep them there on a functional basis and a reason to go that offers a profit motive to corporations.
Without profit motive the private sector is going to be just as slow, if not slower, than NASA. We'd have to ride the coat tails of philanthropy into the final frontier. That's not exactly a glowing prospect.
Slashdot Mirror
You mention Jeff Beck to some teenager today, and they will ask what did he RAP?
Yeah, the key word there is "some". Most people in the masses don't know Jeff Beck from MC Hammer. You've got to draw the line on what you'd expect a non-music lover to know. I doubt that 2% of all people could name any work Jeff Beck has ever done. You'd doubtlessly find more people with some years behind them who would know but some of that comes with musical experience, not just age on it's own.
It's easy to drop his name among music lovers but he's a hard sell to most guys who just listen to the radio (regardless of format)
They would tell you that Billy Cobham is a drum machine.
Again, 98%+ off all people have never heard Cobham or Mahavishnu Orchestra. You're dropping an obscure reference and expecting Joe Sixpack to pick up on it? You're expecting too much out of the wrong crowd.
There aint no musicianship approaching Steely Dan anywhere in music today.
Yeah, Steely. Finally we come to a band that I'm fairly confident Joe Sixpack would recognize. Say Fagen or Becker though and you're going to get a blank expression in a lot of cases. It is unfortunate but most people simply don't get into music. That's the bottom line. And I honestly have to disagree with you too. I think that while the guys were meticulous in their writing, performance and production of music I certainly think there are musicians on the same level. You're not going to find it in today's pop radio playlists but by all rights it seems that Steely didn't belong there either. Even Fagen and Becker admit that SD was an anomaly and, for the most part, a million things that went right when anything could have gone wrong.
But I guess it's what you're into that makes all the difference as far as finding someone what you consider talented on the level of Steely Dan. Scoff if you want but Metheny (IMHO) is one of the best musicians out there and when it comes down to it he could give Steely Dan a run for their money but the musical styles have a wide enough gap in them that it would be hard, if not impossible, not to let personal bias prejudice one's decision.
It's an OkiData C5300n. (and yes, I know they're cheaper now).
In all honesty I thought about trying to create my own print driver for it but I know nothing about print drivers and I highly doubt I have enough coding skill to pull it off.
I can download Linux for $0. It is a full-fledged operating system. If Linux can cost $0, so should Windows and Mac OS X.
But do you know what isn't free for Linux? Drivers for my 600 USD printer.
I have no problems getting these drivers for Windows and probably no problem getting them for OSX as well.
While I do run Linux on a limited basis in my home I can honestly say that it's not a solution. Grumble all you want to about it but when it comes down to it Linux doesn't support what Windows does in my environment.
So I'd gladly pay the 400 USD for Vista Extreme (or whatever the hell they're calling it) to keep my printer going. I'd pay for a Linux driver for my printer too. One simply does not exist.
This is yet another example (in a long list of examples) of why some people can not simply "march with the penguins".
Linux is not a total solution, stop marketing it like it is one or be just as guilty as the asshats at Microsoft and Apple. At least in their cases I can honestly say there is support for my hardware.
And even if I could get these drivers I'm still not going 100% Linux because of the lack of applications I need to do my daily things. Don't get me wrong; Linux is neat, I enjoy playing around with it, it does a lot of what Joe Sixpack needs it to do but it's still not where Windows is today in overall applications and hardware support. You may complain that it's the fault of MS and the market forces but that doesn't get my printer printing.
Pirating movies is voting with one's dollars.
You can call it that all you want but it's not going to stop the current way of doing business by the MPAA. In fact, you're fueling their fire, giving them the ultimate legitimacy.
We've seen and heard that pirating music/movies/software is taking a stand. I don't see it working well as the efforts to beat down the violators continue.
But do what you want. You know the rules. Don't come crying about it once you become a perp instead of a pirate.
Have you ever listened to any Canned Heat other than what's on the radio?
I actually own Canned Heat albums. I own just as much Canned Heat as I do the Beastie Boys, in fact (2 albums each). But, just as another thread that came out of this, it's not a personal opinion type of thing. We're talking about the music business, not who's talented and who's not. This isn't about what deserves more attention but rather who gets it. And if you knew me you'd realize that this has nothing to do with fanboism.
Given that, I'd agree with your comparison of the Beastie Boys to the Rolling Stones, both pretty overrated.
I'd disagree if we were talking about their early stuff for both bands. But the Stones endured a much drier period than the BBs ever have. It's another reason I compare the two. But I also see that the BBs are keeping their fanbase fresh and their music is certainly more progressive than most other bands with a 20 year history.
btw, Switched-on Bach is still a good album. Bach is never goes bad.
But Wendy Carlos does. Again, I'm not really here to argue who has talent but rather how the market (and time) does change our perspectives on music. Today's music isn't going to be seen the same as it does by today's fans in 20 years.
There was a point when people raved for Wendy Carlos. I'm sure many people still have their old Switched on Bach album collecting dust. I'm sure many of them have forgotten what attracted them to buy it in the first place.
Problem is the 20% which is good all depends on who you ask.
In time that's less of an issue though because blander stuff is shed off like dead skin. I even see it in my own collection; stuff that I thought was fantastic at a time that today I question my judgement on. The market helps determine most of what becomes a classic and it certainly shows in a lot of older music that has gotten played to death on the local classic rock station.
I was thinking of the retro-kitsch sound and artwork (cheesy use of analogue synths and vocoder- both of which I love sometimes, but not in the way the BBs used them).
How is using it in one fashion any "cheesier" than another? Granted, some things are done for pure camp value. These efforts are normally one notch lower than satire and most are easy to see. I don't see this in the BBs.
No, I said it became uber-fashionable to like them in the mid-late 1990s, and it had more to do with them being latched on as "fashionable" by certain types, with lots of other people following. I'm sure there are people who'd be fans anyway.
You can not tell me you don't think this wasn't the same with the Stones. Do you really think all of the Stones popularity was from making the best music at the time and nothing else? Come on, Mick Jagger is an icon not because of his music but because of his "fashion". Not to go as far as to say he was the Marilyn Manson of his day but Mick has a fan appeal all his own aside from his music, the same is partially true of the BBs but no where near the level of Mick. I don't think you'll see this kind of thing out of them.
I think you've mistaken me for a diehard Stones/Who/whatever fan. I'm not; the Stones today are a tribute act to their earlier selves and little more. But some of the stuff they recorded during the 1960s/early-1970s is (and will continue to be) justifiably remembered.
Actually, I'm assuming nothing about you. I'm not talk as a fan to a fan here, I'm neither a big Stones or BBs fan. I agree that the Stones have great tracks that are worth listening too (mostly very early Stones for me). The bottom line is that there was a point in the Stones history were they were frankly having problems moving new albums off the shelves. My comment about The Who was, again, not pointed at you but rather a general remark on bands that produce next to nothing in their twilight years but continue to pulling the cash by touring. The BBs don't have enough status for this yet but I'll be highly disappointed if they go this route when they do. I feel that way about any artist I have any respect for.
Not that Grand Royal seemed especially significant, it was always mentioned that it was the BB's label, cool by association.
And how does this reflect on the BBs? If people decide to follow them blindly it's not their fault. At least no more than other labels that were being held high at the same time for no real reason such as Maverick or even earlier Tommy Boy and Factory Records.
The Stones, regardless of how pointless they are today, have created a legacy that *has* endured. If you're saying that in 20 years time, the BBs will have a greater popular legacy, then... we'll wait and see. I don't think it's at all likely, personally.
Yeah, maybe I'm trying hard to predict the future there but as it stands today the BBs (and actually, I was only using them as an example) probably have the biggest chance out of the music of the past decade or so to come out as a legacy band. Name me others if you disagree? I'm willing to listen but consider that most bands today don't have the history behind them to qualify as a legacy band let alone the fan base... I just don't see many who can do it.
Anyway, I don't doubt that they did some stuff that was okay if you're into that sort of thing
See, this is the problem with seeing things like that: "if you're into that sort of thing" is contaminating not only this thread by it also shows how you look at it. This has nothing to do with being a fan, it has to do with the raw numbers and the trends. If I had my way bands like Mission of Burma would be the next Rolling Stones and The Orb would be the next Pink Floyd. But looking at the history and the current listener trends it's just not going to happen. It's not what I want that matters, it's the way things are that matter. Although I will admit that I'm far more interested in what the BBs are
On the e-music front, I don't think anyone will argue that NIN was a front-runner. After all, he created a whole new genre.
Industrial existed for a while before NIN. Trent had the fortune to bring it to the masses. Rarely do the first people in a genre ever get the credit because it normally takes it a while for it to swing around.
As for Industrials claims within e-music? Some of it may hold ground but all in all it's still using the same sequencer techniques that had been going on at the early days of Berlin School. Even Berlin School probably can't lay full claim to electronic sequencer technology although it is known that many of the early Krautrockers who stuck around did develop their own technologies or work with those who did because of gaps in the early generations of this technology.
I guess it could even be argued that player pianos and music boxes are early forerunners to electronic sequencers. It's the same theory just a different platform.
But if you follow the legacy of Industrial music back you're going to find a rich heritage but where you might draw the line on what is and is not industrial is going to have both followers and detractors. If you want to consider NIN the first industrial band no one can stop you but I lean more towards Skinny Puppy and Ministry and their associated teams at Network Records and Wax Trax Records. That may even be a bit premature but I'm not a big Industrial fan either. I'd recommend finding someone who's spent a lot of time in the Industrial circles if you're really interested in it's history. I was into it for a while in my high school years and still listen to some stuff today but my tastes in this kinda raw e-music area has turned more to noise than industrial.
There's a ton of stuff going on in early Industrial that's not much different from late 70s/early 80s american punk where labels were less a group of bands recording for the same company but rather the company being composed of artists who worked together on different projects given different names. Labels like Discord and SST Records often had members that floated between bands and sometimes it got to the point where there were less musicians than the number of names they recorded under by using different lineups. Wax Trax, in it's early days, is certainly a testament to this way of doing business as the same core musicians worked on nearly every project.
It's like a musician by the name of Pete Namlook. He does tons of e-music work with different artists and everything on his label (FAX +49-69/450464) seems to involve him. The man has about 140 releases to his credit but there are so many different project names and line ups it would be enough to keep you on your toes for years on end even as a hardcore e-music fan.
The Beastie Boys? Eurgh. Started out doing fratboy music (which at least wasn't pretending to be anything more).
Actually, they started out doing hardcore punk but go on...
Then they went along the self-consciously cheesy 70s retro path just when it was coming into vogue.
Christ, a few videos that had some retro refrence to them and you're ready to write them off. BTW: Those videos were done by Spike Jonez, everything else he was doing at the time had the same feel to it. The BBs probably had little to do with it and even if they did how is that different from the Stones doing their little Disco struts in the 70s? If anything the BBs are falling right in line in with the likes of the Stones and other big names like Elton John. So much for that theory.
That's when they started getting lauded as creative geniuses and could do no wrong in the eyes of the sheep-like hipster crowd.
So having a fan base makes the fans sheep? Anywho... strike another point up for the BBs being the next RSs. The Stones put out a bunch of unsellable shit for a few years there and no one but Stones fans bothered to listen. The BBs have a much better track record than the Stones in this area. And you call the fans sheep but at least the BBs weren't riding past glories for some fresh cash. (can anyone say "The Who"?)
You knew a band was becoming successful when the rumours about them signing to the Beastie Boy's oh-so-fashionable "Grand Royal" label in the US
What's your point?
But the opinion of a bunch of late-90s Nathan Barley-types means precisely nothing. The Beastie Boys were- and still are- a bunch of overrated white nerds, and I couldn't give a toss about their music.
So that's how the BBs are still keeping it going some 20 years later? I "couldn't give a toss" about the Stones, for the most part, either. Does that means the Stones are doomed?
I hate to break this to you but the Stones, while a banner for everything that is good and right out rock and roll for some, are mostly disliked. That's why they only sell millions of albums instead of billions. A majority of people have never cared for any one band. If half the people who listen to the BBs today continue to listen to them in the future without the BBs ever gaining another fan they'll still be bigger than the Stones.
Think of it what you will but the days of mega-star bands that go on and on is far from over. The Stones are just the ones that are easy to point out today.
I know people are going to complain that I'm a BBs apologist or some nonsense. It's certainly not true. While I do own two whole albums by them the fact is that the BBs have changed their style, continued to advance themselves in a relatively stagnant market and maintain a fan base that not many other bands in the last 20 years have. You may still think of them as young snots but the bottom line is that the BBs are now at the legacy stage with a history behind them. Groan if you want but hey, even Meatloaf still tours.
(And just for the record, I happen to own more of The Who than the Beastie Boys.)
They should make movies, music etc. much cheaper and without DRM, especially the main stream media. Sure they can say, that it costs a lot to create stuff, but if we give the performing people according to what they do and not what they look like, that would make the costs plummet. I always hate when they talk about an actor, getting $13 million for maybe a year long project. I probably won't ever make that in my life. I currently think I am paid pretty well (70k+) and I can support myself. I can understand that they probably need/want/deserve more but anything over $2m/year is a little overrated for me.
Then don't go. Boycott. Protest. Shake your fists at them a bit. Why do you think someone else should or shouldn't have to do something because, in your eyes, it's over rated? Actors make big bucks because it draws a large fan base. If you want to make a statement about it don't have it be that some unknown power should stifle the entertainment industry because you, Guruevi, don't see the value in it.
Maybe you're right but I, for one, would feel better about letting the market forces decide. I vote with my dollars and I sleep well at night knowing that I don't need to call on some government to control how much money Chuck Norris will make for doing Sidekicks XVI. Anytime you invite anyone to regulate anything on your behalf, instead of taking the matter into your own hands, you're just asking to get bit on the ass.
Also, eliminate organizations like RIAA, MPAA and other shills that are not adding any positive value to the process (that includes DRM, ratings etc). Look at any standard business model, any piece in an organization that is not performing or delivering any added value (short or long term) to the organization is (usually) cut loose.
Ever notice that it's not lobby groups? Again, vote with your dollars. The RIAA and the MPAA are privately funded organizations. You're not going to get them outlawed in any form. It's an unrealistic solution.
And do you think for a second that even if the RIAA would find itself in the unemployment lines tomorrow that it would stop Sony or whomever from using DRM? At this point and time it almost seems like the RIAA is outliving its usefulness not because the public is taking a stand but rather because legislation and technology is going to help the large recording firms get their own way without the need of a lobby presence up on the hill.
When the day comes that the RIAA closes its doors because labels have no use for them don't bother to celebrate; that's the day that your ability to listen to large label music will decidedly bought from under you.
If that thought doesn't bother you than you shouldn't be bitching in the first place.
When's the last time TD released an album?
:)
A couple weeks ago, maybe as long as two months. TD is still VERY active. Even that's an understatement.
Force Majeure was the last really good thing I recall from them, and I have it on LP...
It's a personal thing. Being a TD fan and within TD fan circles there are a lot of people who'd agree with you that when TD left the Berlin School sound that it was pretty much over for them. I disagree. The early-mid eighties stuff still held a lot of value, the late 80s/early 90s work left a ton to be desired (also their least productive period, oddly enough) but they've since started to move in a few different directions and I'm finding that's while it's a mixed bag it's still worth my time and money. We're never going to see the Froese, Franke, Baumann quality era again but it's still worthwhile. It seems the more core fans are in with me on this opinion as well. To each their own. I'm fairly sure that TD will continue to produce for a while longer even tho Edgar is getting up there in years.
You forgot to mention ELO and Nine Inch Nails for other counterparts on MIDI ports and computer programming....
Absolutely. I brought up the bands I did because they were really the front runners of "strong" electronic music. Most people who slag e-music for being too simple or too easy are fast to forget other artists to whom which there is little or no questions of quality but have used e-music to their advantage such as Pink Floyd, Yes, ELP and Alan Parsons Project. It's a shame that people can't look beyond the sequencers and keyboards and see that it still takes a vision and a skill to produce good e-music. The creativity is certainly there and worth at least giving a listen to every now and then.
It would be like saying that "Neil Young? You mean the feedback guy?". Anyone who's listened to Neil knows it's not that easy to dismiss him.
I knew that you'd be kinda strapped for cash then, so I went out of my way to see several Rush concerts for your benefit during the mid/late 80's.
And you didn't even get me a t-shirt? Man, I've been hosed.
I think their sales figures might even be higher if my son and others like him didn't just walk over to dad's collection and pull some rips for his player.
:)
This is true to a point but if it wasn't for us loyalist fans these kids today may never turn on to classic stuff. It's an odd paradox: either they get it for free from you and maybe fill in a few gaps in your collection with a real honest-to-God CD or they never find out about it and it never sells in the first place. I think the situation is pretty good as it is.
And at those old rocker concerts, there are not just old farts like us there, lots of young people.
These kids are mostly brought by their parents at this point. Not to say that don't appreciate the music but 40 bucks for a concert is pretty heavy for a kid stocking shelves at the local grocery store. In my case my parents were big Doo-Wop fans. The closest I would have ever gotten to a Rush concert would be to see the Skyliners at some county fair gig.
True too, I was broke as a kid too, but radio was more interesting then... at least it was to me... doesn't seem like they listen to much radio these days. At least it's not as vital as it was back then
Radio was probably more interesting then but that's one reason I praise the internet; music accessibility. Aside from classic rock I'm a big Krautrock/Berlin School Electronic fan. If it was upto the radio I wouldn't be into it at all. If it was upto my local Sam Goody I'd own about 8 Tangerine Dream CDs. I was lucky enough to get along with the owner of a small music store who was willing to order me in stuff (even though he proclaimed it as trash). With the internet I can simply goto Amazon/iTunes/a bands website. I'm no longer limited to the radio rotation only. God forbid too, nothing against LZ but my local stations just seem to "get the Led" out all too often.
I did turn him on to the Clash too...
Maybe there's hope for the lad yet.
Also, I didn't sell my vinyl (you heretic)
Call it what you will but at the time it seemed like the best move to make. While I appreciate the quality of vinyl it doesn't play well in my cars CD player and if the choice comes down to cassette or CD you know which one I'm going to take.
That and the fact that I would have had to have bought just about every copy of Close To the Edge just to keep a good copy around. Taking care of LPs can only go so far in preserving them. I'm afraid you're involved in a losing battle.
The music they are interested in has no long term value, unlike the Beatles/Stones/et al.
Come on. The 60s and 70s didn't have fodder music? Please.
When's the last time you listened to your Soft Machine albums? When's the last time you listened to Wendy Carlos? Or how about Iron Butterfly?
Every era of music has trash and time washes it away to expose what of value is left. The Beastie Boys are the Rolling Stones of tomorrow. Bands like Iron Butterfly and Canned Heat are only selling on Ryko comps today. In another 20 years we'll be seeing the commercials for comps that have crap on it like "Whoop! There It Is" and "Who Let The Dogs Out" and people who are the same age as you are today are going to buy them and say the same thing about the music of 2027.
It always bothers me that people claim there is no good music "like the stones" because they can't be bothered to give other music a try. I know if I only listened to my classic rock station the newest good music I would be hearing is The Clash too.
Fiddling with MIDI settings all day isn't producing music - it's computer programming.
Really? How about telling that to Tangerine Dream or Kraftwerk or Ash Ra Tempel? This type of thing has been going on for over 30 years, don't act like it's new. And if "fiddling with midi" is all it takes to sell an album you'd be doing it too. Just because a music is made with electronics doesn't make it easy. Granted that doesn't make it good either but there are tons of guys that "just decided to pick up a guitar" too. Some of them did well (like The Ramones and BTO*) and most ended up playing a few gigs for beers. It's really no different.
* Before anyone bitches, let's at least be honest enough to admit that bands like BTO and Grand Funk were simple "good times" music and not really the height of talent.
Because collectors are mostly done converting their Cassettes to CD format
A real collector NEVER buys pre-recorded music on cassette. It was cheaper to buy the LP and a good quality blank cassette and make your own cassette copy while retaining the original quality of wax.
Even when cassettes were half the price of CDs I never bought cassettes because the quality sucked that bad. Making my own cassette was always a much better deal even though the cost was much higher.
For all the CD's unsold and rotting on the shelves... they are assembly-line crap...
I ask you to go look at the charts and see what is selling. While I agree much of it is radio fodder the bottom line is that Justin Timberlake or 50Cent or whomever outsold Pink Floyd last year. Pink Floyd is timeless and will continue to sell long after Timberlake and his ilk are worm food but that still doesn't make it deniable that pop outsells classic rock. The industry had it good when we classic rock fans were busy replacing our wax with CDs, either they don't want to fess upto this truth or they're too stupid to see that the format change was a bubble that was going to bust once guys in their 40s and 50s re-bought their Steely Dan on CD. I know I personally sold a ton of old vinyl to walk out of the local music store with a handful of CDs. Once I replaced most of my LPs my buying went from a floodgate to a trickle. I have over 1300 CDs in my collection, the vast majority of them were bought between 1990 and 1995. Today there are a few new releases that still get me shelling out the dollars but the back catalogs that I don't own I have no intention of buying. And no, I don't download music and play it in heavy rotation. That's not to say I don't sample but the downloads are no replacement from me supporting artists I like.
in fact last night I turned him on to... the Cars!
Please, God, NO!!! (I kid, I kid)
The rockers with walkers are making a killing because the industry today is creatively bankrupt. Bring on Jagger, the Stones and their musical wheelchairs.
No, these guys are making money from people like us who have the expendable cash that a 15 year old can't swing to see Nelly in concert.
I'm not that old, 34. When I was a kid in school it was all I could do to collect my change to buy the new Rush album. I went to very few concerts until I became employed. Even in the early days it was mostly cheap punk concerts (5 bucks for 5 bands is a good price for a kid in an old pair of Chucks with beat up skateboard). Since I landed my first real job in 1996 I've seen Rush 13 times before that? only twice. I now have the cash to see them 2-4 times on tour. I love every minute of it but feeding my Rush addiction has less to do with the music of today than my ability to finally be able to pay out to see it. I would have loved to have seen Rush back in the 80s. I just didn't have the funds.
Is there or can there be a split format player? I don't know a whole hell of a lot about BR vs HD-DVD. I was just wondering if we might see players of this nature in the future like we had seen as we had DVD/LaserDisc players during the transition phase of the formats.
If Apple is the penultimate source of cool, who is the ultimate?
Miles Davis?
For the same reason American GIs were policing Germany and Japan 60 years ago.
/. crowd into this little fact but the Americans are still policing Germany and Japan.
What do you mean "were"?
I hate to have to clue the
Granted, there is no insurgency, there is no Iron Curtain nor any cold war any longer but the fact is that had the US and associated allies abandoned their posts in these nations after the ink on the peace treaties were signed there would have been another war the next day. While this occupation has gone on for far too long don't think for a second that the peace treaties truely put everything at peace. How the hell do you think WWII started in the first place?
It's good to see people keeping an eye out for the big brother factor but I think we're all a bit too quick to think that there is going to be a defined point where everyone is going to drop their weapons and return to their farms and markets the next day. It simply doesn't happen.
There was a pretty interesting article today on MSNBC.com about seeing the problems in Iraq and the rest of the middle east from the eyes of an American Muslim. I recommend people who don't understand the Sunni/Shiite conflicts to go read this. It's not overly involved and it makes it a bit easier to understand what is really wrong not to mention it gives some insight into what is really more a matter of gang warfare as opposed to a real insurgency.
Let's face facts, and not to make light the tragedy of the holocaust, but how long does a society need to live with the sins of it's past?
It's a fairly safe bet that today's German gamer isn't the same guy shoveling the bodies of holocaust victims into mass graves.
When can we get over this image of German = Nazi? How long until I don't have to feel bad about being a white American male because of slave owners who have been worm food for over a century?
We need to stop pinning the past of a society on today's citizens.
I don't know if it's as much a question of if a game of any type is a spectator sport but more of if the type of person interested in a certain of game is a spectator.
From my experience, I'm not a spectator. Not to say I can't appreciate a good play/move in a sporting/gaming event but the idea of actually watching an entire game doesn't do the trick for me.
Beyond video gaming I've also played paintball and skateboarded for several years. I can't stand to watch either of these. I don't think it has to do with the watchability of the game/sport but rather my ability to watch and not do.
Oddly enough these activities have low draws in TV ratings. Maybe the type of person who skates, plays paintball or plays video games just isn't the same type of person to sit down with a sixer of Bud Light and scream at a TV set.
That's a pretty stiff penalty to stick Mac users with.
Any stiffer than Apple forcing PC users to buy Apple hardware to run an Apple OS? I guess, by your own standards, it's just one more reason to never buy Apple.
the news on the University of Rochester site is that playing videogames can actually improve your vision.
Are they making glasses with WallHack(tm) now? I know that helped my game plenty.
It has been 35 years since the last moon landing and, in that time, NASA has done nothing except waste money on the space shuttle and send up a few probes and satellites.
If your outlook on what NASA has done since a handful of moon landings as nothing more than "waste money on the space shuttle and send up a few probes and satellites" it's no wonder you're a cynic.
It seems that if people boots aren't planet firmly on some moon or planet that it's all pointless to you.
In all honesty NASA could get people back to the moon in a few years with the right funding. There's no question of that, really. But tell me this: Why bother to go back to the moon for a few days and come back? Not to say that this wasn't an extraordinary accomplishment in it's time and place but short holidays to the moon right now would be as meaningful to science as having someone fly the original Wright brothers plane again.
In the meantime we're learning TONS about space that those involved in the moon launches could never have guessed.
If you're willing to ignore all of this research than I'm afraid it's going to be one hell of a long time until NASA or any other space exploratory group ever does anything noteworthy in your eyes.
Sadly there are millions of Joe Sixpacks who are on your side. I hope you guys have a blast getting together to shout NASA down while reaping the rewards of their research. Most people who do this shrug their shoulders and shuffle along when you point out what NASA has done for them (nearly single handedly at that). And guess what? Next to none of it has anything to do with the moon landings. The moon landings where nothing but a political gesture for technological achievement. Again, that's not to say it wasn't extraordinary in it's time but in hindsight it took the lion share of some really golden era funding for which the research returns was pathetically small compared to todays "[couple of] probes and satellites".
I'm sure there were a lot of people saying this about the first moon missions too.
If you're going to be a cynic at least give yourself a bit of wiggle room if they prove you wrong.
NASA is just a wasteful old baby-boomer pipe dream.
On the plus side you must recognize that NASA is putting out a lot of research that is free to the public. This is going to be a keystone in the future of private space flight ventures. So while I agree that NASA is riding the edge of usefulness they have contributed a lot and still have room to contribute more in the areas where the private sector would not see enough ROI on some projects. This pure research could still offer a lot in the overall understanding of what it's going to take to get people into space, what it's going to take to keep them there on a functional basis and a reason to go that offers a profit motive to corporations.
Without profit motive the private sector is going to be just as slow, if not slower, than NASA. We'd have to ride the coat tails of philanthropy into the final frontier. That's not exactly a glowing prospect.