"'unquantifiable' and 'not definable as opposed to 'has not been quantified' and "to complex for us to define at present" are strong terms, and there's no proof that it is like that."
If you can tell me subjectively why I like one particular song versus anther, please do. You're speculating that there is a reason but it's out of our grasp. That may be true, but it's also impossible to prove. Which makes it worthless.
"But put in hits of the 90s, and it should match."
But why would the system change?! The system would determine that All had no hit potential. The system would determine that 7 Seconds had no hit potential. And the system would have also determined that Nivina would have had no hit potential. You're arguing that the system could change to accomodate new tasts, but those new tastes would have to be hits first, before they were factored into the system. If the music industry relies soley on the system, new tastes in music will never get a chance.
"Anything that helps hasten the complete irrelevance of the mass-market lowest-common denominator music charts must be good."
While the music industry was always "for profit" it wasn't always run like a factory. Back when the labels were independent artists actually got signed because the rep liked the artists. DJs actually played new music they actually liked. Sure there were charts, sure there was payola, but there was also a system where people who loved music helped to create it.
That system is gone. The current system believes that formula and marketing is the sole reason why songs become hits.
The music industry might turn itself around; they go ahead and do something this stupid. Music is art. It is not objective. It is not rational. It is not definable. It is not quantifiable.
This system will destroy popular music. It will define the elements of a "hit" song, then it will only determine that songs with those elements could possibly be hits. That ignores the history of music where what's a hit changes from year to year.
I listened to punk rock for decades. In the 80s songs by the bands All and 7 Seconds would never have been recognized by any system as being hits. But fast-forward a decade and suddenly artists like Blink 182 and Greenday ARE having hits using the same formula.
Basically, this system will stagnate the music industry as it will lock it into a very narrow form of music and it will not be allowed to grow. People will get even more bored which will lead to decreases sales.
When I first signed up for Comcast's services several years ago, before they put up and down restrictions on it, I'd get 512 kilobytes up and down. Now they're giving us 512 up and 48 down. Until I get back what I originally got, I don't see an improvement.
Actually, that's quite common among purebred dogs. My sister is really into purebred basset hounds. She's bought from breeders who have told her that she cannot breed the puppies they sold her. I've always laughed at it because I cannot figure out how they'd ever know about to enforce it.
You don't know your music history. Abba did relatively poorly in the states. Sure, they sold plenty of albums here. But not many compared to how many they sold in the rest of the world.
Regarding the Village People, I tottally agree that we suck when it comes to culture. I'm just curious how Hasselhoff got so big in Europe.
And my question was why only put them in books regarding evolution. Why not stick them on ALL science books? If you can answer that for me, I'd much appreciate it.
And Christians are happy at PRETENDING to answer. But "god did it" is not really an answer.
Let's imagine that you're in charge of a government program to set up a Tsunami detection system. Your chief scientist determines that Tsunamis are caused by Dweos. You ask was Dweos is and he replies, "Dweos is an incorporeal entity which causes Tsunamis."
Question: Do you fire your chief scientist or follow his advice?
Since I've started this asinine discussion, I'll ask this to our European friends: It's generally considered as fact that Americans lack taste when compared to Europeans. If that is true, please explain to an American the musical phenomena known to Europe as David Hasselhoff.
You're missing the point. I have no objection to religion being taught in schools. I've taken plenty of religion classes in college.
My problem (which should apparent) is with the premise that the creationism is a science. Merely saying that "god did it" has absolutely no basis in science because it is utterly un-testable and predictions cannot be made and validated from it.
As I pointed out, every question of science can be easily answered with the simple "god did it." Is that the society you want to live in, where every question has the exact same nonsense answer?
I can't understand why creationists only object to the theory of evolution. There are plenty of other scientific theories which could be helped by their guidance:
Theory of Relatively: Things occur because god says so.
Theory of Gravity: Things fall and do not fall because god says so.
Theory of Continental Drift: The earth's surface moves because god says so.
Heck, I figure with the creationist approach to learning, kids would only have to go to school for about a week before they graduated. How long would it take to teach a kid the following: If you can't explain something, or if you don't like the explanation science offers, just assume that god did it.
Actually, it's a problem with both. When the SSN was first conceived is was specifically NOT supposed to be any sort of ID system. Obviously that changed.
Some states have solved the problem. In Texas, for example, people can "lock" their credit information. With it locked no one can get credit reports which makes it impossible to get credit, even if the person has the SSN, drivers license, birth certificate, etc.
Of course the credit companies are fighting these laws because they like the idea of fast and easy credit.
It's perfectly legal for police to follow citizens as they drive or walk in public. One reason the government doesn't have every citizen followed constantly in public is that it would be cost prohibitive. (That's not the only reason, just one.)
However, with GPS technology, the government COULD track every person and every car in public. In fact Oregon and California are considering putting GPS units in all automobiles for tax purposes.
Pre-GPS, the cost of turning the nation into a police state was quite high. Now, it's relatively cheap. Accordingly, at one time that high cost acted as a check to keep our government from turning into a police state, but that high cost no longer exists. Thus, the ONLY thing keeping our nation from turning into a police state are laws to the contrary. If we don't enact those laws, our nation WILL become a police state as there is no other impediment to keep it from happening.
Assuming you're serious, first, the vast majority of people who sign up for free accounts use fake IDs.
Second, if he had no problem with his name being made public, then why would he pick a pseudonym in the first place?! The only thing keeping him from giving his own name in those emails was himself. Thus, there must have been some reason for it!
Slashdot Mirror
"'unquantifiable' and 'not definable as opposed to 'has not been quantified' and "to complex for us to define at present" are strong terms, and there's no proof that it is like that."
If you can tell me subjectively why I like one particular song versus anther, please do. You're speculating that there is a reason but it's out of our grasp. That may be true, but it's also impossible to prove. Which makes it worthless.
"But put in hits of the 90s, and it should match."
But why would the system change?! The system would determine that All had no hit potential. The system would determine that 7 Seconds had no hit potential. And the system would have also determined that Nivina would have had no hit potential. You're arguing that the system could change to accomodate new tasts, but those new tastes would have to be hits first, before they were factored into the system. If the music industry relies soley on the system, new tastes in music will never get a chance.
"Anything that helps hasten the complete irrelevance of the mass-market lowest-common denominator music charts must be good."
Yeah, I guess I have to agree with you there.
While the music industry was always "for profit" it wasn't always run like a factory. Back when the labels were independent artists actually got signed because the rep liked the artists. DJs actually played new music they actually liked. Sure there were charts, sure there was payola, but there was also a system where people who loved music helped to create it.
That system is gone. The current system believes that formula and marketing is the sole reason why songs become hits.
The music industry might turn itself around; they go ahead and do something this stupid. Music is art. It is not objective. It is not rational. It is not definable. It is not quantifiable.
This system will destroy popular music. It will define the elements of a "hit" song, then it will only determine that songs with those elements could possibly be hits. That ignores the history of music where what's a hit changes from year to year.
I listened to punk rock for decades. In the 80s songs by the bands All and 7 Seconds would never have been recognized by any system as being hits. But fast-forward a decade and suddenly artists like Blink 182 and Greenday ARE having hits using the same formula.
Basically, this system will stagnate the music industry as it will lock it into a very narrow form of music and it will not be allowed to grow. People will get even more bored which will lead to decreases sales.
I for one welcome our new backbone replacing internet overlords!
When I first signed up for Comcast's services several years ago, before they put up and down restrictions on it, I'd get 512 kilobytes up and down. Now they're giving us 512 up and 48 down. Until I get back what I originally got, I don't see an improvement.
W. Bush.
Actually, that's quite common among purebred dogs. My sister is really into purebred basset hounds. She's bought from breeders who have told her that she cannot breed the puppies they sold her. I've always laughed at it because I cannot figure out how they'd ever know about to enforce it.
I'm puzzled by anyone's love of Hasselhoff much as Europeans are puzzled by the US's love of W. Bush. Not that I understand it either.
You don't know your music history. Abba did relatively poorly in the states. Sure, they sold plenty of albums here. But not many compared to how many they sold in the rest of the world.
Regarding the Village People, I tottally agree that we suck when it comes to culture. I'm just curious how Hasselhoff got so big in Europe.
And my question was why only put them in books regarding evolution. Why not stick them on ALL science books? If you can answer that for me, I'd much appreciate it.
And Christians are happy at PRETENDING to answer. But "god did it" is not really an answer.
Let's imagine that you're in charge of a government program to set up a Tsunami detection system. Your chief scientist determines that Tsunamis are caused by Dweos. You ask was Dweos is and he replies, "Dweos is an incorporeal entity which causes Tsunamis."
Question: Do you fire your chief scientist or follow his advice?
Since I've started this asinine discussion, I'll ask this to our European friends: It's generally considered as fact that Americans lack taste when compared to Europeans. If that is true, please explain to an American the musical phenomena known to Europe as David Hasselhoff.
That's hilarious. I thought I'd be considered flamebait for pointing out that America is always behind Europe in almost every other matter.
I guess I'll get it from both sides on this one. But as my grandpa always used to say, don't flame unless you're prepared to get burned.
Are you actually saying America does something BETTER than Europe?!
By comparing DRM to a speed bump, Gates is admitting that DRM doesn't really stop copying, it only slows copying down a bit.
You're missing the point. I have no objection to religion being taught in schools. I've taken plenty of religion classes in college.
My problem (which should apparent) is with the premise that the creationism is a science. Merely saying that "god did it" has absolutely no basis in science because it is utterly un-testable and predictions cannot be made and validated from it.
As I pointed out, every question of science can be easily answered with the simple "god did it." Is that the society you want to live in, where every question has the exact same nonsense answer?
I'll "Get over it" when the radical christian right gets their paws off our schools!
I can't understand why creationists only object to the theory of evolution. There are plenty of other scientific theories which could be helped by their guidance:
Theory of Relatively: Things occur because god says so.
Theory of Gravity: Things fall and do not fall because god says so.
Theory of Continental Drift: The earth's surface moves because god says so.
Heck, I figure with the creationist approach to learning, kids would only have to go to school for about a week before they graduated. How long would it take to teach a kid the following: If you can't explain something, or if you don't like the explanation science offers, just assume that god did it.
... Jordi was THE coolest guy on Next Generation.
Seriously, did he EVER get laid in those 7 years?
... I'd love to defend Hollywood. But I know it's shit, so what's the point.
Ok, that was f-ing funny!
Actually, it's a problem with both. When the SSN was first conceived is was specifically NOT supposed to be any sort of ID system. Obviously that changed.
Some states have solved the problem. In Texas, for example, people can "lock" their credit information. With it locked no one can get credit reports which makes it impossible to get credit, even if the person has the SSN, drivers license, birth certificate, etc.
Of course the credit companies are fighting these laws because they like the idea of fast and easy credit.
With a SSN and a forged birth certificate or forged drivers license you could can credit cards/loans/etc.
It's perfectly legal for police to follow citizens as they drive or walk in public. One reason the government doesn't have every citizen followed constantly in public is that it would be cost prohibitive. (That's not the only reason, just one.)
However, with GPS technology, the government COULD track every person and every car in public. In fact Oregon and California are considering putting GPS units in all automobiles for tax purposes.
Pre-GPS, the cost of turning the nation into a police state was quite high. Now, it's relatively cheap. Accordingly, at one time that high cost acted as a check to keep our government from turning into a police state, but that high cost no longer exists. Thus, the ONLY thing keeping our nation from turning into a police state are laws to the contrary. If we don't enact those laws, our nation WILL become a police state as there is no other impediment to keep it from happening.
I'm my 40 years of life I've NEVER EVER heard about someone giving real information for a free email account. Never. Ever.
Sure there are some morons out there. But considering that recall_carl01 was actively trying to remain anonymous, I doubt he was that stupid.
Assuming you're serious, first, the vast majority of people who sign up for free accounts use fake IDs.
Second, if he had no problem with his name being made public, then why would he pick a pseudonym in the first place?! The only thing keeping him from giving his own name in those emails was himself. Thus, there must have been some reason for it!