Perhaps GEMA needs to beat these sites at their own game by distributing the content themselves first and making their money by either pay-per-download or by selling advertising on content hosting sites.
I'm convinced there's a better pricing scheme that would significantly reduce piracy, which is coincidently what I would pay for content. I already buy about 3 cds a week, but I base those purchases on both trusted reviewers as well as what I've downloaded and enjoyed; but let's be real, I'm less likely to put down $15 for a cd once I have downloaded it for free (probably from Rapidshare, if it must be known). I'd happily agree to the following scheme. Also, I'm an 'album' person, so I have no scheme for individual songs...
$2 for a trial stream of the entire album.
$6 for a full album download, w/ DRM
$8 for a full album download, no DRM, open-format
$12 for an actual disk. No more of this $18 sh*t. Once they start making more money from downloads, they'll be able to afford to lower physical CD prices.
I think indie-labels would have to be the pioneers on this one. The internet has benefitted them the most by providing a more even playing field.
As opposed to (former) Sen. Al Gore, who's directly paid by the extreme environmental lobby, and who continues to promote the discredited work of the likes of Mann, et. al.
A former senator has every right to 'be used' (he's a puppet, not a scientist) as a spokesman or lobbyist for the KKK, if he so chooses. In his position, you can't oppose him to someone in a policymaking position, whose job is not even to be fair and balanced, but to listen to the opinions of his constituents.
The environmental alarmist establishment and its lapdogs in the National Academy of Sciences...Stop worrying about who is supporting whom
Your evident antagonism towards environmentalists and the NAS doesn't exactly coincide with your 'stop worrying' request. If industry weren't inherently geared against the environment, they wouldn't have to be so agressive. If you can get a board of directors to admit they need to cut into their annual profit to reduce hazardous waste, without a fight, then the problem would be solved. In the meantime, the only way to change policy is to generate public concern through obnoxious scare tactics; hence, the 'alarmist establishment,' which may not always be in the right, but at least can gradually keep environmental policy respectable.
Whether you're talking about the food market or the job market, the same effects apply. In one case you're selling food for a better price, and in the other case, you're buying labor at a better price. Either way it disrupts the traditional economies in such a way as to create poor living conditions. Especially when the companies are unregulated... when the labor market has a surplus and there's no health care expense to the employer, then why not work the laboror to death? You can replace the person in a heartbeat. I'm not saying that's necessarily the case, but it can definitely happen.
As a sidenote, slave labor in the old American south proved more expensive than the employer/employee relationship in Great Britian at the time (pre-1850 or so) for just this reason-- the employer had an investment in the health of the slave. If the slave died you had to buy another. If an employee dies you just go pick another guy off the street. But I'll bet the whites weren't willing to do plantation work because it was 'slave-work' which is why they continued the slave-trade regardless.
Of course you have to consider that with "trickle-down" statement you made, that $25 still makes it into the hands of the population, but it is more than likely $100-$200 now.
I'd love to know where that $75 to $175 of value is being made. Some of it can be accounted for in the extra efficiency (greater 'means of production' in Marxist parlance) provided by a large corporation. I'd bet it's no more than a percentage of the initial investment, so at most around a $20 return on the initial $25. To say that the trickle-down effect produces 700% (something like that) return on investment ($200 out of $25) would be to say that the wealthiest corporations are %800 more efficient than the average enterprise-- bullsh*t, unless you can account for the creation of money coming from elsewhere as well.
BTW, I don't necessarily disagree with supply-side or trickle-down economics, but I think it's been blown out of proportion and allowed a very few rich people to hold on to a few bucks they could probably do without.
Actually, if you want to be pedantic, the $25 per person is only mostly being invested, and the investments go to established companies-- that is, the money comes back into the economy in a 'trickle-down' fashion. If it were redistributed, it would most likely not be reinvested to any large extent and re-enter the economy through spending, benefiting the little companies as well.. not just feeding the corporations.
Thanks, that's the type of statistic I was waiting for in this conversation and probably the one that matters most if you're arguing about income inequality. Considering that that $25 per person is most likely being reinvested to create more jobs and that the mobility between income 'classes' remains high and fair, then I think the United States is doing pretty well.
I've been reading a lot of Marxist works that are completely invalid in todays United States wholly for that reason. The battles between classes have always been about opportunity, not about income inequality. Relevant areas for complaint are in globalization practices (i.e. slave labor) that disrupt pre-capitalist economies and racial discrimination, which is prevalent, if not in the United States, then in Southeast Asia and probably in much of Africa and the Middle East as well.
In the United States, fair targets for criticism include monopolies, including government bureaucracy, which are inefficient because they don't have to be, and white-collar criminals (and even those who exploit loopholes like the RIAA)...
There's no need to persecute the rich just because they did everything right and got lucky a few times!
Do your research... he knows Hebrew and has done studies on languages worldwide including aboriginal languages. And that was only in the 1950's. What were YOU doing in the 1950's?
Her aim was deflected by Oliver Sipple, a gay ex-marine, who never received a thank-you from the president, until Harvey Milk protested that. Mr. Sipple eventually committed suicide.
Oliver Sipple *did* receive a thank you note and was honored nationally as a hero for his deed, although he never was thanked in person:
The police and the Secret Service immediately commended Sipple for his action at the scene, while Ford thanked him in a letter...[and following Sipple's presumed suicide much later in 1989] President Ford and his wife sent a letter of sympathy to his family and friends.
Interestingly, Sipple had suffered emotional trauma from his time served in Vietnam and the press coverage following his deflecting the gunshot to save Ford only increased his anxieties. Much of the problem was due to the press's outing of his homosexuality. Sipple spent a good part of the next decade trying to seek legal recompense against the press for making this public.
Different definition of 'free'. Freedom in society refers to the allowance to follow your instincts, whether it be deterministic behavior or 'free choices,' at least to a certain extent in that it does not interfere with this type of freedom in others. Fate, determinism or teleology do not imply fascism, except at some sort of existential (or religious) level. Fascists seek to block the fullfilment of either 'free will' actions or deterministic behavior. The fate vs. free will debate thus does not carry over into questions of government.
My thoughts on all this is that you can't have free will unless you can actually define what it would mean to exhibit 'free' behavior. Everything you do is seemingly for one reason or another. It doesn't seem possible to eliminate causality.
And for anyone arguing for free will, have you tried quitting smoking after ten years? Free will my ass.:)
he would also be a true capitalist and a true libertarian then too, no?
No, unless you think laborors have no rights under capitalism. Even the creation of a labor union is a free market activity. If people are willing to give up a portion of their earnings to a union, then it's a market like anything else. I think a lot of pro-capitalist, anti-union people ignore this fact. True, they get to be a nuisance when they turn into capitalist organizations themselves.
child labor was an institutionalized part of rural life
But the institution was strictly managed by people who probably loved them. Businesses can work someone to death knowing the person can be replaced in a heartbeat.
But "opposing child labor" overlooks the question of why so many families had been willing to "exploit" their own children.
For the same reason the one-income family is becoming financially unmanageable, I'm just *assuming* it wasn't viable in 1850's London as well not to have your kids earning their own subsistence. Otherwise, why do that to you kid?
Thanks, the rural vs. urban comparison did put some perspective on the whole situation. His explanation of the 'messy' descriptive was silly and superficial, nor did he answer the question of 'let-her-rip' economics or even the child labor problem he acknowledged (I haven't read the actual article yet, but I will). The question of totalitarianism vs. free market is also handled superficially. Exploitation goes hand-in-hand with totalitarianism. If Stalin weren't exploitative, he would've had no need to exert power so forcefully; he would then have been a true communist (yeah, I'm sounding like one myself.. *shudder*) and not a totalitarian dictator. The government's setting of limits on market exploitation is what improved things-- that, and, subsequently, the social consciousness. If the government evens the playing field, then no business can use, say, child labor, to gain a competitive edge. Once one company goes into questionable territory (e.g. Walmart's current foray into 3rd world labor) it forces other companies to do the same and can result in a discomforting situation until the activity is regulated. Free markets can't work on their own without regulation.
Marx's concept of alienation is still totally valid, although if the gp meant what you think he meant, then he was taking it a little far to assume that all alienating technology is bad. A good summary of Marx's concept of alienation can be found in.. ahem.. the Unabomber's Manifesto. Spending all day fitting bolts into drive shafts to get money for food is alienating; the purposefulness is misplaced; moreso if you're working 12 hours a day. Don't forget that Marx lived in a different era where capitalism was completely unchecked. You should be thankful for Marx that you only have to work 8 hrs a day, not calling him a 'wanker.'
I'm not sure it is possible to have a monopoly on something on the internet. There is *no* penalty for using other products.
You have something there, but you could say the same about IE vs. Firefox. There's no penalty for d/ling firefox. The difference is, to use the words of another poster, in leveraging your 'monopoly' to improve your market share in other areas. Most do not need to d/l a web browser or a media player because their computer already comes with one. You're right that it's equally as easy to type in one url as another, but name recognition plays an enormous part on the internet. I don't think what Google is doing is all that bad (it's not suppressing competitors' search results), but in this case Google is leveraging it's market share, based a large part on its name recognition, to gain market share in other areas. I think you're right in that the nature of the monopoly changes on the internet-- youtube, myspace, wikipedia, amazon, imdb, allmusic, etc., have all taken huge chunks of their market spaces, in large part because of the information and community. If they were 'real world' entities, you might call a few of them monopolies, but they seem to have naturally and honestly taken hold over the internet for the reasons I just mentioned.
I guess I haven't been made upset or surprised by google's self-advertising, because it's ON THEIR OWN WEBSITE. In a perfect world, they would probably use unseeded, honest algorithms for searches, but...
Like Microsoft's monopoly, in the case of packaging products along with their operating system, you have to forgive them. It's the Department of Justice that needs to be doing its job to make sure competition is not unfairly stifled, as is obviously the case with IE & Windows Media Player. I can't see a fifty word advertisement alongside its competiters' to be half as bad as what Microsoft has gotten away with. And it doesn't matter whether the products are superior or not, it's wrong either way.
I can't find the links (because I don't have time to look), but employers and college admissions have been known to refuse applicants based on the content of their myspace/facebook pages. It's getting more and more frequent, too.
Whoa... you've extrapolated quite a bit from that remark. 'The Truth' was not what GWB told Americans when explaining why we needed to go to war. You talk about war protestors wanting to live in a totalitarian gov't. Those in protest of the war are thinking the same thing about war proponents. GWB actively trying to break down the balance of powers in our gov't, torturing, spying on americans, without trying to get consent from those he's trying to protect and represent. There's more than a small scent of totalitarianism in that.
And since these arguments have been repeated ad nauseum, I'll just say screw you, go to Iraq and get killed since you believe there's no other option. Meanwhile, those against the war will try to divert our nation's resources back from the government war contracters and into things that make a difference, like education, so boneheads like you can learn to see the difference between propaganda and real national defense.
BTW, have you thought about writing dialogue for action movies?
"Listen up. There are bad mother fuckers out there who want to kill you. Sometimes you have to go kill them first. Bitch and whine about peace and shit like that but it takes two for peace to work and the other guys aren't playing."
Can't you just picture Bruce Willis, the experienced staff seargent in a Vietnam setting, ripping into the good-intentioned, but hot-headed Lieutenant Leonardo DiCaprio when the young recruit starts having existential doubts?
I'm with you. I hesitate to criticize it because many people I like in real life communicate through it. Many geeks meet on IRC or gaming sites.
Here's my case for buying fake friends on MySpace:
Employers are looking at it!! Lie. Make yourself look awesome. You've signed no contract that your myspace page is accurate. If employers look at it to decide who not to hire, then there's an equal chance that if they see something really impressive, it'll work on your side.
Other things you can do:
Put fake friend messages that say things like "thanks for donating so much time and money to my charity. You're really a benefit to the community." or "thanks for taking your whole weekend to fix my company's website for free. Our techies were stumped until you showed them what to do."
Under hobbies, put a list of non-profit charities and church organizations
make an attractive design
find out the interests of your employers. He/she likes Abba and cross-country skiing, then so do you.
Ten reasons there's no such thing as global warming:
The research is biased. A huge majority of the people researching climate change support the theory. If it were 50/50 I might consider it.
All of the equipment used to test the 'evidence' is owned by these biased scientists.
As the parent said, Al Gore and the 'scientists' all make a ton of money scaring people into sacrificing for their cause. It's a war-on-terror, but on a global scale.
The scientist who wants to spread reflective dust into the atmosphere is also spreading BS. If it reflects, then it would reflect light back onto Earth, probably creating a greenhouse effect times ten.
The average temperature rises once every century because of El Nino
The scientists neglected to mention that the salt concentration in the ocean might be rising due to a lack of carbon in the atmosphere to break down potassium chloride and sodium nitrate. This research has been thrown out and suppressed dozens of times because it would actually increase the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere as well. You don't want that when we're trying to sell fear, do we?
Show me one experiment I can verify myself with the tools in my garage.
When the script for An Inconvenient Truth was written by Steven Soderberg as a science-fiction thriller, it was bought and discarded. Exactly four months later, about the time it takes a documentary to be produced and filmed, Al Gore's movie came out. Coincidence?
This is completely true, but as I understand it's customary for people at that level to offer their resignation when things aren't going well, even (especially) if they don't expect to be taken up on it. This was in, among other things, Bob Woodward's latest book, in which he investigated Rumsfeld's persona indepth. The book was well worth the read and I actually have more respect for Rumsfeld after reading it-- at least in the sense that I realize he acts according to some plan, and not just out of pure evil.
An extreme case: what would constitute bias if Jesus Christ were running in an election against Hitler? In our present state of affairs, I think Hitler would probably win.
Really? I saw on a tv survey that 99 out of a 100 people who voted democrat, anywhere at any time in history, had a 'misalignment' problem. I also saw a tv survey where 9999 out of 10000 people gave birth to giraffes, even the men. There was another tv survey were 999999 out of 1000000 people who proved a point by quoting a tv survey were just making it up. Let's see, where did I see these statistics? Was it the Paris Business Review?
First of all, guitar solos and 'riffs' are pretty much considered dead among the 'elitist' listeners. The White Stripes' Jack White and Ryan Adams have been trying to revive some of that 70's stadium rock sound, but while he could probably fill a good-sized venue, I don't think most would consider them to have the staying power legendary stature of Jimmy Page or esp. Hendrix. Much of the efforts in 'indie' music today is concentrated on textures, both in the small scales and large; putting different types of music together or creating albums that stand as a whole, rather than a collection of songs: see Destroyer (their latest album Rubies), Neutral Milk Hotel's 'In the Aeroplane Over the Sea', the Microphones 'Glow Pt 2' for some prime examples, and the last year alone we've had Sunset Rubdown, the Islands, Danielson's 'Ships', Frog Eye's catalog, and a host of others that take up where 'prog' left off with Eno and Bowie in the late 70's (probably not considered prog, but an improvement over the prog boom that ended in '74 or so) in one way or another.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm convinced there's a better pricing scheme that would significantly reduce piracy, which is coincidently what I would pay for content. I already buy about 3 cds a week, but I base those purchases on both trusted reviewers as well as what I've downloaded and enjoyed; but let's be real, I'm less likely to put down $15 for a cd once I have downloaded it for free (probably from Rapidshare, if it must be known). I'd happily agree to the following scheme. Also, I'm an 'album' person, so I have no scheme for individual songs...
I think indie-labels would have to be the pioneers on this one. The internet has benefitted them the most by providing a more even playing field.
A former senator has every right to 'be used' (he's a puppet, not a scientist) as a spokesman or lobbyist for the KKK, if he so chooses. In his position, you can't oppose him to someone in a policymaking position, whose job is not even to be fair and balanced, but to listen to the opinions of his constituents.
Your evident antagonism towards environmentalists and the NAS doesn't exactly coincide with your 'stop worrying' request. If industry weren't inherently geared against the environment, they wouldn't have to be so agressive. If you can get a board of directors to admit they need to cut into their annual profit to reduce hazardous waste, without a fight, then the problem would be solved. In the meantime, the only way to change policy is to generate public concern through obnoxious scare tactics; hence, the 'alarmist establishment,' which may not always be in the right, but at least can gradually keep environmental policy respectable.
Whether you're talking about the food market or the job market, the same effects apply. In one case you're selling food for a better price, and in the other case, you're buying labor at a better price. Either way it disrupts the traditional economies in such a way as to create poor living conditions. Especially when the companies are unregulated... when the labor market has a surplus and there's no health care expense to the employer, then why not work the laboror to death? You can replace the person in a heartbeat. I'm not saying that's necessarily the case, but it can definitely happen.
As a sidenote, slave labor in the old American south proved more expensive than the employer/employee relationship in Great Britian at the time (pre-1850 or so) for just this reason-- the employer had an investment in the health of the slave. If the slave died you had to buy another. If an employee dies you just go pick another guy off the street. But I'll bet the whites weren't willing to do plantation work because it was 'slave-work' which is why they continued the slave-trade regardless.
I'd love to know where that $75 to $175 of value is being made. Some of it can be accounted for in the extra efficiency (greater 'means of production' in Marxist parlance) provided by a large corporation. I'd bet it's no more than a percentage of the initial investment, so at most around a $20 return on the initial $25. To say that the trickle-down effect produces 700% (something like that) return on investment ($200 out of $25) would be to say that the wealthiest corporations are %800 more efficient than the average enterprise-- bullsh*t, unless you can account for the creation of money coming from elsewhere as well.
BTW, I don't necessarily disagree with supply-side or trickle-down economics, but I think it's been blown out of proportion and allowed a very few rich people to hold on to a few bucks they could probably do without.
Actually, if you want to be pedantic, the $25 per person is only mostly being invested, and the investments go to established companies-- that is, the money comes back into the economy in a 'trickle-down' fashion. If it were redistributed, it would most likely not be reinvested to any large extent and re-enter the economy through spending, benefiting the little companies as well.. not just feeding the corporations.
Thanks, that's the type of statistic I was waiting for in this conversation and probably the one that matters most if you're arguing about income inequality. Considering that that $25 per person is most likely being reinvested to create more jobs and that the mobility between income 'classes' remains high and fair, then I think the United States is doing pretty well.
I've been reading a lot of Marxist works that are completely invalid in todays United States wholly for that reason. The battles between classes have always been about opportunity, not about income inequality. Relevant areas for complaint are in globalization practices (i.e. slave labor) that disrupt pre-capitalist economies and racial discrimination, which is prevalent, if not in the United States, then in Southeast Asia and probably in much of Africa and the Middle East as well.
In the United States, fair targets for criticism include monopolies, including government bureaucracy, which are inefficient because they don't have to be, and white-collar criminals (and even those who exploit loopholes like the RIAA)...
There's no need to persecute the rich just because they did everything right and got lucky a few times!
Haven't heard this acronym before...
Do your research... he knows Hebrew and has done studies on languages worldwide including aboriginal languages. And that was only in the 1950's. What were YOU doing in the 1950's?
Different definition of 'free'. Freedom in society refers to the allowance to follow your instincts, whether it be deterministic behavior or 'free choices,' at least to a certain extent in that it does not interfere with this type of freedom in others. Fate, determinism or teleology do not imply fascism, except at some sort of existential (or religious) level. Fascists seek to block the fullfilment of either 'free will' actions or deterministic behavior. The fate vs. free will debate thus does not carry over into questions of government. My thoughts on all this is that you can't have free will unless you can actually define what it would mean to exhibit 'free' behavior. Everything you do is seemingly for one reason or another. It doesn't seem possible to eliminate causality. And for anyone arguing for free will, have you tried quitting smoking after ten years? Free will my ass. :)
Thanks, the rural vs. urban comparison did put some perspective on the whole situation. His explanation of the 'messy' descriptive was silly and superficial, nor did he answer the question of 'let-her-rip' economics or even the child labor problem he acknowledged (I haven't read the actual article yet, but I will). The question of totalitarianism vs. free market is also handled superficially. Exploitation goes hand-in-hand with totalitarianism. If Stalin weren't exploitative, he would've had no need to exert power so forcefully; he would then have been a true communist (yeah, I'm sounding like one myself.. *shudder*) and not a totalitarian dictator. The government's setting of limits on market exploitation is what improved things-- that, and, subsequently, the social consciousness. If the government evens the playing field, then no business can use, say, child labor, to gain a competitive edge. Once one company goes into questionable territory (e.g. Walmart's current foray into 3rd world labor) it forces other companies to do the same and can result in a discomforting situation until the activity is regulated. Free markets can't work on their own without regulation.
Read about the history of labor in Great Britian in the 19th century or later on in the United States. It's been tried and it was a nightmare.
Marx's concept of alienation is still totally valid, although if the gp meant what you think he meant, then he was taking it a little far to assume that all alienating technology is bad. A good summary of Marx's concept of alienation can be found in.. ahem.. the Unabomber's Manifesto. Spending all day fitting bolts into drive shafts to get money for food is alienating; the purposefulness is misplaced; moreso if you're working 12 hours a day. Don't forget that Marx lived in a different era where capitalism was completely unchecked. You should be thankful for Marx that you only have to work 8 hrs a day, not calling him a 'wanker.'
Apparently it's not written on the internet (assuming 'pice'=='piece'): http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&client=fire fox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=aDQ&q= %22google+has+to+index+every+piece+of+crap+on+the+ internet%22&btnG=Search
I guess I haven't been made upset or surprised by google's self-advertising, because it's ON THEIR OWN WEBSITE. In a perfect world, they would probably use unseeded, honest algorithms for searches, but...
Like Microsoft's monopoly, in the case of packaging products along with their operating system, you have to forgive them. It's the Department of Justice that needs to be doing its job to make sure competition is not unfairly stifled, as is obviously the case with IE & Windows Media Player. I can't see a fifty word advertisement alongside its competiters' to be half as bad as what Microsoft has gotten away with. And it doesn't matter whether the products are superior or not, it's wrong either way.
I can't find the links (because I don't have time to look), but employers and college admissions have been known to refuse applicants based on the content of their myspace/facebook pages. It's getting more and more frequent, too.
Whoa... you've extrapolated quite a bit from that remark. 'The Truth' was not what GWB told Americans when explaining why we needed to go to war. You talk about war protestors wanting to live in a totalitarian gov't. Those in protest of the war are thinking the same thing about war proponents. GWB actively trying to break down the balance of powers in our gov't, torturing, spying on americans, without trying to get consent from those he's trying to protect and represent. There's more than a small scent of totalitarianism in that.
And since these arguments have been repeated ad nauseum, I'll just say screw you, go to Iraq and get killed since you believe there's no other option. Meanwhile, those against the war will try to divert our nation's resources back from the government war contracters and into things that make a difference, like education, so boneheads like you can learn to see the difference between propaganda and real national defense.
BTW, have you thought about writing dialogue for action movies?
Can't you just picture Bruce Willis, the experienced staff seargent in a Vietnam setting, ripping into the good-intentioned, but hot-headed Lieutenant Leonardo DiCaprio when the young recruit starts having existential doubts?I'm with you. I hesitate to criticize it because many people I like in real life communicate through it. Many geeks meet on IRC or gaming sites.
Here's my case for buying fake friends on MySpace:
Employers are looking at it!! Lie. Make yourself look awesome. You've signed no contract that your myspace page is accurate. If employers look at it to decide who not to hire, then there's an equal chance that if they see something really impressive, it'll work on your side.
Other things you can do:
Ten reasons there's no such thing as global warming:
This is completely true, but as I understand it's customary for people at that level to offer their resignation when things aren't going well, even (especially) if they don't expect to be taken up on it. This was in, among other things, Bob Woodward's latest book, in which he investigated Rumsfeld's persona indepth. The book was well worth the read and I actually have more respect for Rumsfeld after reading it-- at least in the sense that I realize he acts according to some plan, and not just out of pure evil.
An extreme case: what would constitute bias if Jesus Christ were running in an election against Hitler? In our present state of affairs, I think Hitler would probably win.
Really? I saw on a tv survey that 99 out of a 100 people who voted democrat, anywhere at any time in history, had a 'misalignment' problem. I also saw a tv survey where 9999 out of 10000 people gave birth to giraffes, even the men. There was another tv survey were 999999 out of 1000000 people who proved a point by quoting a tv survey were just making it up. Let's see, where did I see these statistics? Was it the Paris Business Review?
First of all, guitar solos and 'riffs' are pretty much considered dead among the 'elitist' listeners. The White Stripes' Jack White and Ryan Adams have been trying to revive some of that 70's stadium rock sound, but while he could probably fill a good-sized venue, I don't think most would consider them to have the staying power legendary stature of Jimmy Page or esp. Hendrix. Much of the efforts in 'indie' music today is concentrated on textures, both in the small scales and large; putting different types of music together or creating albums that stand as a whole, rather than a collection of songs: see Destroyer (their latest album Rubies), Neutral Milk Hotel's 'In the Aeroplane Over the Sea', the Microphones 'Glow Pt 2' for some prime examples, and the last year alone we've had Sunset Rubdown, the Islands, Danielson's 'Ships', Frog Eye's catalog, and a host of others that take up where 'prog' left off with Eno and Bowie in the late 70's (probably not considered prog, but an improvement over the prog boom that ended in '74 or so) in one way or another.