That sounds more like the band being lame and using the label as an excuse.
I've had no problems with other Epitaph bands. Have your friend go to a Death By Stereo gig and get a picture with Efrem or Dan. These guys are the friendliest, most down to earth people I've ever met in the music scene. Sounds more like Rancid's success has gone to their heads, or perhaps they've had problems in the past.
You might be right, but my first reaction to your statement that you had only heard of one of the bands listed was, "You don't get out much, do you?" I haven't been a regular radio listener for over ten years now. I go to shows and talk to people. When someone recommends a band I give them a listen. (More often than not, this involves [gasp!] downloading their music.) If I like what I hear, I make it a point to purchase their music and, more importantly, go see them. (this is how I found out about Alkaline Trio and Rise Against) If I'm lucky enough to come across a really great band at a local gig, I buy as much of their merch as I can right there at the gig. (This is how I became a killradio fan.)
Anyway, as I said, you're probably right about the radio, but I think you are doing YOURSELF a dis-service by relying on the radio. At least 9/10ths of what you're going to hear on the radio is going to be crap and/or so old as to not really be relevant.
I don't know if it's really that important that a "dent" be made in big media's market share. What is important is that there are tools like this and that tools like this continue to be developed for those of us that want something different.
The downside of this becoming popular is millions of idiots filling the web with their video clips that are already getting airplay on the major media outlets. In that sense at least, yes, we're going to get plenty of mainstream media.
Maybe the article is referring to an article of jewelry that goes around the neck. I wonder if there will be matching indi-earrings as well. You know, they go "in di ear".
I think you can read between the lines and assume that the events are either Star Trek conventions, monthly meetings of the SCA, or circle jerks (this should provide the answer to your second question about talking heads).
In regards to your last question, the answer could either be no one, or the Department of Homeland Security.
I think it's you that is confused. Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak are really the same guy. When they needed to appear together publicly, Steve hired comedian Andy Kaufman to play the part of Steve Wozniak. Finally, Andy Kaufman was forced to fake his death in order to play Steve Wozniak full time. It's all there in Man in the Moon, Andy's movie biography, directed by George Foreman.
If you can't take the relentless drive for accuracy heat, stay out of the no-spin zone kitchen*, buster! I'm a tough but fair minded independent investigative reporter that has won two Peabodies, and I never lie.
Anyway, thanks for the clarifications. Also, in further support of you anecdote, most of the low budget Production Designers I know are fairly to completely bitter about their careers and life in general due to being asked to produce miracles for insanely low budgets, while the grip and electrical departments usually get all the toys they ask for.
Furthermore, you lack of indepth knowledge of film production is refreshing. I would urge you to transfer to a different institution before you are utterly corrupted and start pitching your idea for a movie series entitled "Sci Hard", "Sci Hard II: Sci Harder", and Sci Hard III: with a Vengeance". Maybe you could get a nice teaching position at Occidental College.
*Well, seeing as how this is slashdot, it's more of a no-spin zone water closet, so maybe I should rephrase that to "If you can't take the relentless drive for accuracy stink . .."
You're still missing the point with your assertion that "[ID] does such a good job of posing as science", and with your belief that ID is in any way worthy of scientifically debate. ID is based on belief, not on empirical evidence.
ID is part of an IDeology (there, a mnemonic to help you keep it straight). As such, it might be debated in a forum for political ideas, in a religious studies class, or in a philosophy class.
I think, however, that the basis of your problem is a misunderstanding of science. I base this on your description: science (as a whole) is about - theories that make useful predictions, that you can build engineering disciplines and technologies around, which is a bit lopsided. I'm not saying that your summation is utterly wrong, just that it is utterly incomplete.
Your comparison is not so far fetched. After all, isn't the religious right basically advocating that we as a nation turn on (to Jesus), tune in (to their fundamentalist beliefs), and drop out (isolationism, unless we are punishing our enemies).
Uh, hello? Why would a PA have anything to do with set design? A PA has as much to do with set design as he or she does with picking screen plays.
Your story rings false, but it could be that you don't understand the various positions required for film production (who does what) and are confusing production designers and art directors with production assistants.
Also, being a scientist, maybe you could quantify "constant stream". One production designer a day? One a week? One a month?
Anyway, while I think you are slightly exaggerating, the part about everyone in the lab having a screenplay to peddle rings all to true, especially for UCLA.
"First of all, that decision should be made to local school districts, but I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught... so people can understand what the debate is about."
This is verbatim. The elipsis represents a pause where the reporter asked a clarifying question (Both sides ought to be properly taught?).
If you don't understand that Bush is implicitly arguing that Intelligent Design should be taught side by side with the Theory of Evolution, you are either ignorant or stupid. As I suspect you are neither of those, I suspect that you are intentionally spinning and trying to minimize Bush's comments, which is just as bad, if not worse. You know full well what he meant and means.
The chief fallacy that Bush is putting forth is that there really is any scientific debate, that ID and the Theory of Evolution have some sort of equal footing as competing ideas. This is patent nonsense. We might as well say that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and the 2nd Commandment of the Old Testament are competing ideas, and there should be some sort of debate. One Law is in the realm of science and empirical reality and the other is in the realm of religion/philosophy and spiritual reality.
And here is the crux of the matter. Bush and the proponents of Creationism and Intelligent Design wish to ignore empirical evidence when it clashes with their dearly held beliefs. Not just to ignore it, but to destroy it, to make it go conveniently away. This is called intellectual dishonesty (or just plain dishonesty, why mince words?), and you are guilty of the same sin when you claim that Bush is not endorsing the teaching of ID as science.
First of all, the writing is less than stellar. Second, all of it is opinion based without any sort of facts to back it up, or in depth explanation of his point.
I think you're being too kind. The writer comes across as a not too bright 12 year old. In other words, I think we may have just witnessed the birth of India's version of Rob Enderle.
It's in the Apple section because Zonk is trying to get a knee jerk response from "Apple Zealots", either for commercial purposes, scientific research, or to settle a bar bet.
The ones and zeros will be of a much higher quality than here in the west. Same bit rates. Same file sizes. But an expert such as yourself will be able to hear the difference.
I heard that the reason Canada got iTMS before Japan was that there was the threat that you all might secede from the union and become an independent country. =)
Slashdot Mirror
Hahahahahaha, you've got me in stitches! A-hem.
That sounds more like the band being lame and using the label as an excuse.
I've had no problems with other Epitaph bands. Have your friend go to a Death By Stereo gig and get a picture with Efrem or Dan. These guys are the friendliest, most down to earth people I've ever met in the music scene. Sounds more like Rancid's success has gone to their heads, or perhaps they've had problems in the past.
You might be right, but my first reaction to your statement that you had only heard of one of the bands listed was, "You don't get out much, do you?" I haven't been a regular radio listener for over ten years now. I go to shows and talk to people. When someone recommends a band I give them a listen. (More often than not, this involves [gasp!] downloading their music.) If I like what I hear, I make it a point to purchase their music and, more importantly, go see them. (this is how I found out about Alkaline Trio and Rise Against) If I'm lucky enough to come across a really great band at a local gig, I buy as much of their merch as I can right there at the gig. (This is how I became a killradio fan.)
Anyway, as I said, you're probably right about the radio, but I think you are doing YOURSELF a dis-service by relying on the radio. At least 9/10ths of what you're going to hear on the radio is going to be crap and/or so old as to not really be relevant.
~~You are only looking at half of iTunes 4.9 then, because that allows you to publish your own podcast, too.
iTunes 4.9 has a built in mechanism for broadcasting video "podcasts"? Seriously? (I haven't upgraded to 4.9. I'm still on 4.7.1)
You're only looking at half the picture, which is the viewer/client. The exciting part is the publishing component, i.e., the "broadcast machine".
RTF . . .uh, yes. They're coming soon, perhaps in a week. Sorry, I forgot where I was.
You sure it wouldn't be 2W-R? Or W^2 - R?
I don't know if it's really that important that a "dent" be made in big media's market share. What is important is that there are tools like this and that tools like this continue to be developed for those of us that want something different.
The downside of this becoming popular is millions of idiots filling the web with their video clips that are already getting airplay on the major media outlets. In that sense at least, yes, we're going to get plenty of mainstream media.
Maybe the article is referring to an article of jewelry that goes around the neck. I wonder if there will be matching indi-earrings as well. You know, they go "in di ear".
I think you can read between the lines and assume that the events are either Star Trek conventions, monthly meetings of the SCA, or circle jerks (this should provide the answer to your second question about talking heads).
In regards to your last question, the answer could either be no one, or the Department of Homeland Security.
I think it's you that is confused. Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak are really the same guy. When they needed to appear together publicly, Steve hired comedian Andy Kaufman to play the part of Steve Wozniak. Finally, Andy Kaufman was forced to fake his death in order to play Steve Wozniak full time. It's all there in Man in the Moon, Andy's movie biography, directed by George Foreman.
Isn't it obvious that having such a line in one's resume is an attempt to filter out pointy headed employers (such as yourself)?
"Oh noes!! ChatHuant won't hier me!!! WTF!!!eleven!lol"
I think I'd rather emigrate to India than work for you. Nothing personal; I'm just saying.
If you can't take the relentless drive for accuracy heat, stay out of the no-spin zone kitchen*, buster! I'm a tough but fair minded independent investigative reporter that has won two Peabodies, and I never lie.
."
Anyway, thanks for the clarifications. Also, in further support of you anecdote, most of the low budget Production Designers I know are fairly to completely bitter about their careers and life in general due to being asked to produce miracles for insanely low budgets, while the grip and electrical departments usually get all the toys they ask for.
Furthermore, you lack of indepth knowledge of film production is refreshing. I would urge you to transfer to a different institution before you are utterly corrupted and start pitching your idea for a movie series entitled "Sci Hard", "Sci Hard II: Sci Harder", and Sci Hard III: with a Vengeance". Maybe you could get a nice teaching position at Occidental College.
*Well, seeing as how this is slashdot, it's more of a no-spin zone water closet, so maybe I should rephrase that to "If you can't take the relentless drive for accuracy stink . .
You're still missing the point with your assertion that "[ID] does such a good job of posing as science", and with your belief that ID is in any way worthy of scientifically debate. ID is based on belief, not on empirical evidence.
ID is part of an IDeology (there, a mnemonic to help you keep it straight). As such, it might be debated in a forum for political ideas, in a religious studies class, or in a philosophy class.
I think, however, that the basis of your problem is a misunderstanding of science. I base this on your description: science (as a whole) is about - theories that make useful predictions, that you can build engineering disciplines and technologies around, which is a bit lopsided. I'm not saying that your summation is utterly wrong, just that it is utterly incomplete.
If you think Blackhhawk Down was bad for enlistment, then you haven't seen Iraq II: Iraq Harder.
Your comparison is not so far fetched. After all, isn't the religious right basically advocating that we as a nation turn on (to Jesus), tune in (to their fundamentalist beliefs), and drop out (isolationism, unless we are punishing our enemies).
Yeah, it really is a shame that th' Woz is penniless and destitute because Jobs mercilessly exploited him.
Uh, hello? Why would a PA have anything to do with set design? A PA has as much to do with set design as he or she does with picking screen plays.
Your story rings false, but it could be that you don't understand the various positions required for film production (who does what) and are confusing production designers and art directors with production assistants.
Also, being a scientist, maybe you could quantify "constant stream". One production designer a day? One a week? One a month?
Anyway, while I think you are slightly exaggerating, the part about everyone in the lab having a screenplay to peddle rings all to true, especially for UCLA.
"First of all, that decision should be made to local school districts, but I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught ... so people can understand what the debate is about."
This is verbatim. The elipsis represents a pause where the reporter asked a clarifying question (Both sides ought to be properly taught?).
If you don't understand that Bush is implicitly arguing that Intelligent Design should be taught side by side with the Theory of Evolution, you are either ignorant or stupid. As I suspect you are neither of those, I suspect that you are intentionally spinning and trying to minimize Bush's comments, which is just as bad, if not worse. You know full well what he meant and means.
The chief fallacy that Bush is putting forth is that there really is any scientific debate, that ID and the Theory of Evolution have some sort of equal footing as competing ideas. This is patent nonsense. We might as well say that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and the 2nd Commandment of the Old Testament are competing ideas, and there should be some sort of debate. One Law is in the realm of science and empirical reality and the other is in the realm of religion/philosophy and spiritual reality.
And here is the crux of the matter. Bush and the proponents of Creationism and Intelligent Design wish to ignore empirical evidence when it clashes with their dearly held beliefs. Not just to ignore it, but to destroy it, to make it go conveniently away. This is called intellectual dishonesty (or just plain dishonesty, why mince words?), and you are guilty of the same sin when you claim that Bush is not endorsing the teaching of ID as science.
I take it that you are one of the lucky few to own one of those prototype/bespoke iPods that have a built in tube amplifier.
First of all, the writing is less than stellar. Second, all of it is opinion based without any sort of facts to back it up, or in depth explanation of his point.
I think you're being too kind. The writer comes across as a not too bright 12 year old. In other words, I think we may have just witnessed the birth of India's version of Rob Enderle.
It's in the Apple section because Zonk is trying to get a knee jerk response from "Apple Zealots", either for commercial purposes, scientific research, or to settle a bar bet.
Are we, Zonk?
Taco have you guys on some kind of a quota system? Or do you get bonuses for generating a certain amount of page hits?
The ones and zeros will be of a much higher quality than here in the west. Same bit rates. Same file sizes. But an expert such as yourself will be able to hear the difference.
I heard that the reason Canada got iTMS before Japan was that there was the threat that you all might secede from the union and become an independent country. =)