Not to burst your bubble or anything, but I think you are speaking in ignorance about Gandalf, and about Tolkein in general. The obligatory counter example is that Gandalf beheads the Goblin King in The Hobbit, but there are others. I have read Tolkein fairly extensively, though, and there is no "Neutral Good" in Tolkein's works. There is Good - the things of Illuvatar (God) and the Aindule - which is kinda like the fate- it is harmony and the song of existence, if you will. Then there is evil- it is chaotic, and a shadow and twisting of Good. There is no neutral anywhere.
It is good to know that I am not the only one into Power/Progressive metal. You get too used to listening to really good stuff, and you really come to expect more from music. I am going to go see Blind Guardian, Edguy, Gamma Ray, and Angra this fall in Atlanta (as well as 6 other bands I really don't care for).
That is what I have been saying all along. The story of the Matrix: Some guy figures out the God mode cheat to life. Maybe in 2 and 3, the Matrix will patch around his little exploit.
BG...don't hear too many people who know who they are. I am going to see them in their first ever US show this year. 100 bucks...9 other bands are playing too (including Gamma Ray, Edguy, and Angra), so I guess that averages $10 (US) per band.
Can't think of a good way to fix the constant left turning problem, but if they could find a way to get a crew or machine to throw in a variety of hills and jumps at the bottom, then take them back off again at the top for reuse, it would make for a heck of a lot more interesting skiing. Then you wouldn't be stuck repeating a neverending loop of the same thing.
Hey, there are tons of Geeks in Atlanta, most of them amassed on the Georgia Tech campus. I am working on my third year there (although I am actually on co-op in Raleigh, right now rooming with another geek and looking for a third and maybe fourth roommate up here- email alipham@hotmail.com if interested). Anyway, I found a whole posse of Geek friends down at GA Tech, and one of the frats there is full of geeks and freaks-- the only one I can stand- it is called Psi Upsilon. I am not into the whole idea of a frat, but I hang out with them some. It is the last Frat on the right if you are heading north on Techwood Dr.
I would strong disagree with you. Being popular does not make art bad, but the best art will rarely ever be popular, because by nature, to be "popular", you must be taylored primarily to the ignorant. Keep in mind, very few classical composers were very popular in their day. I am not an elitist in the sense that I do not want the best things to be for the "in" class, but you could call me an elitist in that I think most people are very ignorant in general (I did tech support for too long to believe otherwise). As much as I work hard to teach people how things work, and try and make people understand things around them, most people are intellectually lazy, and just don't care to know why things are the way they are, even if it would make their lives better and easier. I would challenge you to think about what you are saying about music, though.
"I hate to break the news to you, but musical talent is not somethiung that can be measured. It's a tase. You don't like what's out now, so it's garbage and you are a "real artist" who will never get anywhere because people don't like what you are putting out."
I would question how much you know about music. I am not a musician, although I have been studying musical theory for a long time, and by any measures have a very good understanding of the fundamentals of music. What you are implying by your statements though, is that music (and art at large) has no intrinsic value. Don't worry, it is a very popular view- I would argue it is popular because "the populace" is extremely uneducated in music- not really their fault- look at what they are exposed to (radio, MTV). Fact is, art has (at least) 2 levels of value- one is the value it gets from the enjoyment the observer recieves from it, the other, is its inherant value for being a good product. Music is not merely a quantity of sounds that sound "good", but it is mathematical in nature, and there are reasons, rules, and principles that it abides by, and that is what sounds good to the human mind. If you completely disregard those principles, then what you have no longer resembles music. If you compose your music in alignment with them, you create much better music than what you can come up with getting a theme and playing it out until it "sounds good" with your buddies in a garage. Making it into the current realm of popular music does not mean that you are bad. It most likely means that you have a very good image and that the music is very simplistic. It is no different than with an operating system. People on/. do not say that Windows is a low quality operating system because it is popular- well, some of them do, but they are for the most part ignorant in many respects, but regardless, it is labeled as being that way, not because it is "bad", but because it is poorly designed, inefficient, unstable, and insecure, and leaves much to be desired for those who want powerful tools- to sum it up, it is looked down on because it is a cheap product. The point is, it is popular because anyone can use it, "understand" it per se- it is taylored for the masses. It is very poor though, if you want a well designed program. Pop music is the same way, and it always has been. If you think it is good or bad really just depends on what you want. If all you want is something that you can listen to and maybe that will drive your emotions in one direction or another, then stick with pop and enjoy. However, if you want to find music that is deeper, heavier, and more substantial- if you want quality ("good") music, then you really have to go outside of it. Like many things, it actually takes an education of some form or another (not necessarily in the traditional sense) to really develop the understanding to make really high qaulity music- music that has value in and of itself. If you are intersted in hearing quality music, I would recommend classical,or if you want something more contemporary and "new" sounding, neo-classical progressive metal. Some of the best and most well educated (2 seperate qualities) composers and instrumentalists are currently in this genre- (e-mail me if you would like information on how to sample some of this music).
You are all forgetting some important things. First off, at its release, Marathon was capable of being run in 24 bit color, had mouse freelook aiming, actually required reload sequences for every weapon, had secondary fire options on most weapons, and had a very impressive physics engine. Anyone who has really played with it much should know that- your character fell at 32ft/s^2, you fire the grenades from your assualt rifle, and they dropped as they went. It was really apparent when you went to other levels, and discovered that using the flame thrower (a weapon which I have yet to see an effective implementation of anywhere to this day, aside from in Marathon) at your feet would propel you around the room. Also had fairly impressive lighting physics- it was kinda cool when you could see your enemy only because of the brightness of the muzzle. There was even a physics model on how rapidly contrails flew from your rocket launcher. Another significant advantage is it had a real plot that actually kept you interested throughout. Finally if you have ever played network Marathon, you would know that it was lightyears ahead of Doom. Because of the way the weapons balncing worked (and weapon reload time played heavily in there) no game before half life came close. SO, i don't want to hear ppl dissing that game as a Doom takeoff.
How long will it be before the corporations decide that they want full control? Will this be in my lifetime or my childrens'? How long before they start acquiring open standing armies to rule their sheep? They are already taking control of the government, who is the sole entity with the express purpose of defending us from things like that. I concede that I am both a freak and a radical, and you can moderate me down for that, but please think about the implications of large corporate bodies whose sole moral is money and who are slowly but surely purchasing the government and brainwashing each successive generation? Is this so different than the Medieval Catholic Church whose officials ran armies and were capable of persecuting those who didn't work to their goal of maintaining control and status quo at the time of the Protestant Reformation? Perhaps there will be a time where people will look back and say "I remember when all they wanted to control was the content, and we were afraid to go against it for fear of being sued- now look at things, we can't say the wrong word or our lives are at stake!" We can hope that things don't go that way, and work against them, but the sickening thing about it, is that it is mostly in the hands of the masses or ignorant sheep that constitute mainstream culture, and we can try to show them the light, but I don't feel that our chances their are good. Other than that, all we can do is stark personal resistance.
I thought that was very well put. My opinion (if you want something a little more developed, run a search on my last couple of posts) is that the record companies' days are numbered. Music has been around much longer than contracts, and it won't be long before the contracts die, so people will quit going into it for the illusory goal of "making it big" and artists will once again be supported for being good. I think if you are good enough at what you do, then society should allow you to do it full time. You don't have a right to make a lot of money doing it, or be rich, but that SHOULDN'T be why you do it to begin with. Money is there to enable you to do what you love full time, without having to worry about food. Work shouldn't be there to make money. SO....hopefully we will see things go that way again, where artists are paid for their performances and donations from the (rightfully) adoring fans...until then, it might get bloody, but we will fight it out.
I will try to make this quick, in vain hope that someone will read it. I posted something similar on the Dr Dre article a couple days back, but by the time I posted I was on the bottom of a very long list of posts. I think we need to completely decriminalize piracy. Piracy is not stealing, as it does not make a person who had something not have it. It is argued to be stealing, because it allows someone to have something which they didn't pay for. If you believe in the Bible, which a lot of people do (and even those who don't usually acknowege it as a competant moral guideline), then you will find that the Biblical morals around theft are always punished with restitution (ie, reparations for the damage done to the individual from whom goods were taken). In the case of piracy, you are not doing anything to someone else's goods, you are simply creating more. So, I say we decriminalize piracy, and then leave the industry to fend for itself. If it stops becomming illegal, people's "moral issues" with it will go away. Why? because it is a legal issue, not a moral one, and it doesn't have a moral leg to stand on. The only moral authority you could site as to why it is "bad" to copy someone elses music is the culture you grew up in, in which copyright is such a fundamental principle. That doesn't make it morally correct though. If you quit making it illegal, then people will pirate MASSIVELY, which is IMHO a very good idea. Why? Because it will let the artists starve. Don't get me wrong, I am not advocating not supporting art, if someone's art is good enough that you think it is worth money, then by all means, send the artist some money. Find a way to email them, or write them or whatever. Somehow mail that is headed with "I want to give you money" has an amazing way of getting past all the filters. What will happen though, is the music industry will die. Artists will get promoted by dedicated fans informing others of them word of mouth. The stuff that is popular now will die before long. Why? Because most ppl wouldn't feel bad about not supporting it. They can say it is great music, like society has taught them, but when it comes down, they aren't going to feel bad if they don't send them money. Then, slowly, those who are mega rich now from their shoddy products will go bankrupt, because their popularity only lasts until there "hit single" gets so overplayed people get sick of it. The bands that truly produce well written, well played meaningful music will last. How will they get a regular pay check? I don't know, to be honest, I would like to think donations, although, maybe that won't work and something else will be necessary. Fact is, though, most musicians are going to starve. That is, ok though, right now, there are too many "musicians", most of whom suck, and there isn't anything that entitles them to making a living with music. What will most likely happen though, is people will not go into the "industry" aspiring to "make it big". The industry will no longer exist, and there will be an absence of these super rich mega stars. Instead, the only people who will do it are the ones that think they really have somehting to say, and they will say it. If they are good enough then they will make a living. Music isn't going to disappear. I guarantee you, if it even comes close to being in short supply, the money to allow artists to make music full time will come from SOMEWHERE. Music has been around for a long time, and people aren't going to live without it. It is like sports- take automotive racing, for example. It is large corporations that sponser that, as it is an extremely expensive event, that isn't profitable enough for its "performers" to handle the maintenance of their vehicles on there own. The only reason it exists, is because people want it badly enough, that for a corporation to support it is worthwhile, purely in the weight of the PR it brings them in being known to support it. Maybe that is what will happen, it would make sense. Music won't go away though- that is for sure. Although, music culture would definitely purge itself, and the quality of music that exists, I think, would go dramatically up. I used to say I would never pay for music again, once I could freely pirate, but through the piracy, I found music that is good enough, that even though I don't have to, I will pay its creators. Well, I must away to work, I guess I didn't make it short, guess the moderators will bite me.
I agree with you in principle in some ways. I am mostly writing to request that you not blast things that don't merit a blasting.
"I get tired of holier than thou (Metallica reference) people coming down from Jesus to spread His word and damn us to hell for copying music of people we've made millionaires. Boo-fucking-hoo. (Minor Threat reference)"
Ok, I understand if you have had a bad experience with the proponents of religiosity (the term I apply to those who think that the point of religion is to do and not do certain thing, and to find a more perfect list of things to do and not do, not because those things are right, but because that is what they were taught). No one who isn't a religicist likes it. Truth is Jesus was pretty radical in his throws against established religion. Try reading something he says, rather than listen to people who think they know what he says, because they are the same people who think they know what D&D is about, and we all know how right-on they are about that. You might find it interesting that the Bible is actually quite on the side of piracy- all the laws regarding stealing are enforced with restitution- i.e.- you pay someone back for the damage you have done to them. Piracy is not stealing, because it doens't make one entity not have something that they had before, therefore, there is nothing to "restitute".
I am not suggesting that quit supporting artists. I am suggesting that you revoke legal ramifications for piracy. Then, the only support the artists will recieve, is support that the fans think they deserve. It is only through piracy that I have been able to find music that is truly valuable- listen to some progressive metal- it is not very popular in the mainstream field, but people who truly understand music, even those who don't have a taste for it, will give it credit for being truly excellent music. People don't support no-name bands for that reason- they have no name, and it isn't worth investing time and money to hear them something you don't know that probably won't be good. So, people go with the safe bet that they hear on the radio and which sounds pretty good and, granted, they don't get much, but at least they know what they are getting. Of course, the industry determines what is on the radio, and therefore, they determine what you are exposed to. If piracy were legal, then the music would be freely passed around, the industry would die, and people would support the musicians they thought were good. The groups that are mainstream now would die off really quickly though, because no one would listen to their stuff and say "Hey, that was really good, so good in fact, I think I am going to send them a check". The stuff that is most popular right now just isn't good enough to warrant that. If you "open source" the music, then people will get a reputation for truly being good, and they won't starve. Initially, it might hurt everyone some, but eventually, people will realize that if you don't pay them, then the best art won't be made, and the market demand for music and performance will increase, and therefore, it will be worth more money. As it stands, the market is so saturated with bad product, that people really don't feel bad about not paying for it. The majority of mainstream music could just as well be replaced by completely different music and it wouldn't really affect anything- actually, in about 2 years time, it will be totally replaced. An evidence of good music is that it lasts beyond the time of the specific audience it was written for. People will be willing to pay for music like this, even if the law doesn't make them- why? Because they will want it to be around. roamer
Here is my proposal. Maybe we should let the artists starve a little. This may sound horrible, but read the rest of my comment before moderating me down as a flaming, ignorant troll. Right now, primarily the RIAA dictates who is popular. Becomming popular is an extremely competitive industry that has absolutely nothing to do with producing good music, and everything to do with kissing the middle man's ass, being attractive and all the other "networking" bull shit that you have to do. Good art has never been about "knowing the right people". Look at the best artists in history- Beethoven, Mozart, most of the other great composers- funny, similar to some of the best geeks I know, they were a bunch of freaks, socially inept outcasts, and weird people. If you look at the industry today, if you can't develop good image (aka, bigger breasts than brains etc) then you don't stand a chance. Well, the truth is, if your music isn't worth millions of dollars to people, then you aren't entitled to millions of dollars, and if you image is worth that to people, then go model, and quit polluting the music industry (because modelling is, and always has been about networking and sleeping with the right people) I don't want to hear the "well, they are making millions now, so they must be worth it" comments. They are making millions because pop culture and the dictators of it (RIAA and their ilk) currently rule people access- I say we see what happens when there control is totally gone. I know this sounds harsh, but how about we let the market purge itself of the shit. I listen to fairly obscure music performed by some of the best (from a technical standpoint) musicians in the world. They aren't in it for the money, although they make a decent living, not because they are so popular, but because they are among the best. They are in it to output music, because that is what they want to do./.ers- listen to me- no matter how much you "steal" it, the market guarantees that music will not go away. So, here is my proposal- deregulate what you can do with the "intellectual property"- let people give it away. Tons of artists will no longer be able to support themselves with art, because people won't pay for it if they don't have to. I know for a fact though, that I will still be willing to pay for my music (directly to the artists) because I think they have a valuable product. If people suddenly think they can't make a living off music then maybe they won't do it for the money- is that such a bad thing? If that makes music more scarce, then people will be far more willing to pay for it, and only truly valuable musicians will be able to survive- that is how the market works, but music isn't going to go away. So, push the market through the strainer- I know my musicians are good enough to survive downsizing- are yours?
First off, I never said that they were the first, I merely said what they are. Secondly, Led Zeppelin doens't write most of there music based on Tolkien's stories and themes, as Blind Guardian does. As I recall, they use a little bit of Tolkienesque imagery in a couple of songs. Blind Guardian's music is much more in light of the ancient idea of "the bard". For more information about this, check "The Bard's song: In the Forest" (also check it s acoompanying song "The Bard's Song: The Hobbit") off of their "Somewhere Far Beyond" album.
Slightly off topic, but fitting in the same thread, any of you Tolkien fans might want to try out Blind Guardian. They are very deep, hard-hitting band that writes 90% of there music around Tolkien's stories and themes. Definitely not for the faint of heart or wannabe fans- it is pretty heavy stuff, and most of the songs relate more to the Silmarillion than the Lord of the Rings (ex. "Curse of Feanor", "Mordred's Song", "Noldor (Dead Winder Reigns)"etc). Some of their stuff does pertain to the Lord of the Rings- for instance "The Lord of the Rings" song is just a rendition of the opening verse on the books- the Orchestral version of it is excellent! (for the record, these guys have been doing symphonic metal for years, way longer than Metallica S&M, and unlike Metallica, Hansi from Blind Guardian actually rights all the music for all the instruments you here in all their songs). Anyway, just a quick promo for an excellent Tolkien based band...moderate me down if you think I need it, I don't really care. Whatever you do though, check out their album "Nightfall in Middle Earth". Oh, and just a warning, Yahoo lists them as a death metal band, but don't let that worry you, because death metal they are not (I loathe death metal), they are pretty different though. For more information, go to http://www.ba-stuttgart.de/~bziller/blind_guardian / or feel free to contact me. Icq#:25834656
Ok, looked at your cd collection, and yes, I would say that is a lot of mass feed. Some good, some bad (the masses aren't always fed bad music- they are never fed the best though). Ministry, Butthole Surfers, Beastie Boys, Blondie, Chemical Brothers, Blondie, Dead Kennedy's, Jane's Addiction, G'n'R, Iggy Pop, Motley Crew, Public Enemy, Ramones, Sex Pistols, Sonic Youth, Beatles, Breeders, Violent Femmes.....hmmm...looks like a lot of mass feed to me. Granted, I haven't heard of all the bands in your list, most of them (while it is true they may not be the most main stream at the moment) are simply the standard mass feed of yesteryear. I don't mean this to insult your taste at all. Butthole Surfers are quite original, as are Breeders. Jefferson Airplane and Doors are actually decent as musicians. But nothing on that list is, aside from those 2, from a basic musical understanding, very developed music. It is just culture shit. Like I said, try listening to some of the bands I listed, and you will know what I mean. No, I do not buy albums anymore. I bootleg them, and when I think they are valuable, then I send their makers money. Blind Guardian's "Nightfall in Middle Earth" is worth $100 to me, and their "Tales from a Twilight World" is worth $50. As soon as I am able to support myself (I am paying my way through school as it is, and don't have any disposable income), then I will send them the money, and encourage them to distribute the music themselves. On the other hand, you think you are paying the musicians so well for their music? Are you aware that the current (as 1 year ago) standard that an artist makes per album sale is??! 7.5 cents per album. That is next to nothing! Even if they sell a lot of albums, it barely covers their studio cost. So, is it the CD's and Booklets we are paying the high cost for? I think not, it is the RIAA getting fat. That is why I say boycotte the industry, and support the artists. I believe that once the industry goes away, and people are paying musicians to make good music, the quality of music will go back up (instead of making ultra rich, low talent stars). Also, if you think there has been no good music made this past decade, then you are not looking in the right places. Again, try any of the bands I mentioned- you may not have a taste for it, but you cannot deny that it is absolute top notch music, and it puts Guns 'n' Roses to shame (and I really like Guns 'n' Roses), and there are hundreds of other bands as well.
No, I am afraid it is not a useless proposition. When I first got to school and saw how easily I could get any music that I wanted, I said "Great! I will never have to pay for this shit again". Since then, I haven't payed for that shit. What has happened though, as I have begun listening more intelligently (throwing off mainstream music), is, all of a sudden, I realized that there is music good enough to be worth money. The mainstream stuff, is just that- shit. It is not really worth very much, and therefore, most people have no problem bootlegging it. I have decided, that I will never pay the RIAA another dime. I will however pay direct to the musicions.
"In the best case scenario, an artist sells a downloads and has to go to the bank to deposit one million checks?!? It's going to take them a couple of years just to sign and bundle all those checks. They'll probably have to hire a staff of workers to do it in a reasonable time. Guess what? Those'll cost them money... They'll probably lose 75% of their cash just to the overhead of employees sitting there stamping checks all day long."
This is an ignorant statement. First off, most internet payments are not done snail mail with checks. Second, the thought of purchasing an album at a time is not dated. Most of (IMHO) the best music should not be contained in a 5 minute bit. A REAL album should have album flow, and be made to be listened to as a complete work-- but then again, you seem to (again, IMHO) be quite content with the little 5 minute bits of mass feed that mainstream culture throws at you. Aside from that, even if they do get lots of checks, as my grandfather would say, "That is a happy problem". I don't think people are going to complain because they are recieving too many checks. To reiterate my point though, if you listen to real (talented, professional) musicians, who actually understand how music works and how to compose it, then suddenly the music gains real value. Of course people aren't going to volunteer to pay for the mainstream stuff that they here- it isn't worth much anyway. Try some real music like Symphony X, Blind Guardian, Dream Theater, Savatage, Sonata Arctica, Vision Divine, Nightwish, Rhapsody, or Stratovarious, and maybe you will realize that real music is worth real money, and people are willing to pay for it.
Re:How should one go about his education then?
on
The IT Labor Shortage
·
· Score: 1
Ahh, something I actually know about. I am in the middle of my second year at GA Tech, as a Computer Engineering major. I will say, Tech, like any school, will get you the education you take from it, but it does so in a much more intense and self conscious way than most. I will say, that we have a great CS program (most of my friends are in Comp-E or CS), but if you take the route of the frat boys or SGA management types, you can slide by, off of other peoples work. I have found that one of the biggest advantages to going to such a large hardcore engineering school is that it is very easy for me to surround myself with Geeks. Certainly not everyone here is a Geek, but they are pretty pervasive here. In my opinion, if you are up to the challenge, it is an excellent school, one of the best. On the other hand, don't go into it with any illusions of a wonderful program full of happy helpful professors. One of the reasons our school has so much industry respect is that is really prepares you for dealing with the industry. Our profs aren't very good, but the expectation is very high- that is what makes the program good- they say- you do X by date Y, now go do it. There is very little hand holding, and it is up to you to utilize your available resources and get it done, and if you can't, then don't expect much pity. That is very much how the industry works- expectation is put forth, and you just have to figure out how to meet it. Don't forget, our mascot may be the yellow jacket, but our campus symbol/central location of campus is a painfully fallic 83 foot tall, twisting, spiraling, tri-pointed shaft, known as The Shaft. It is there for a reason. If you have any questions about the school though, or getting plugged in, my icq # is 25834656. At Tech we have all the technological resources available, and a lot of industry respect, but utilizing it is up to you. Also we do have one of the best co-op programs in the world- so far I have finished 3 periods of school, and I am working now on my third period co-oping (I work for the IT dept of a major telecomm company in Raleigh)
The purpose of grammer is to hold a standard in which to effectively communicate. In a sense, grammar can be compared to government. The main problem with the government(s) is that they do not and will not ever realize their true and only purpose for existence- defense- they are to defend society from outside force, and defend it from those inside doing harm. The purpose of grammer is to effectively communicate. I (and I believe almost all other english speaking readers of/. will agree with me) had absolutely no problem understanding the intent of his comment, and therefore his communication was effective and the purpose behind his grammer was fulfilled, so, his grammer was correct. Sorry, a bit off topic, but it is a pet peeve of mine. Language exists so that we can effectively communicate, not so that we will have more rules to follow.
OK, true enough, the word that we derive the word Christian from (Greek word). It has been about 6 years since I took a Greek class and I don't recall what the word exactly was, but I do remember that is what it meant, and is in fact, how the word came to use.
The word Christian means litterally "little christ" and was first used in Antioch around 40AD. The Greeks used it derisively, shouting it as they put the followers of Christ to death. It did not take long though, that it became adopted, and has been used ever since. It happened the same time they adopted the Chi Rho symbol.
I am a student at Georgia Tech, and, like most tech schools, we are a good step ahead of "generic home user" as far as the technology available to us. What I have found is that the more wired I am to the web, the better I learn how to use it, and the more productive I can become in a shorter amount of time. There is no more spending a day at the library to research a topic- I can find more valuable information in an hour on the web. What I do find though, is that I have more time available to socialize with real people, because it takes me less time to do the things I have to do. Also, I am much more able to work productively for longer periods of time when I really have to, because I use "personal" forms of communication (aka ICQ), so that I can talk to my friends while I work, with far less inconvenience and at far higher percentage of my productivity than if they were sitting there. It is true that it does lower how much work I can get done per minute, but it is amazing how much easier it is to stay motivated. Frankly, I think this guy was ignorant in how to actually use the internet, and trying to perform tasks that the internet is (currently) not made to do. My opinion, though, is that if the web was enhanced to do your grocery shopping for you so that you could spend 15 minutes to simply whip up your shopping list and paste it into grocery_pricewatch.com instead of a 4 hour trip to Kroger, you would be able to have that much more time to do other things (like socializing with your friends). Of course this would require a different delivery system than is currently used, so that competitive market would make it more convenient, but things like this would save a hell of a lot of time. Besides, imagine how much cheaper it would be if your groceries were not having to be shipped to a retail location, and you weren't having to pay for all the nice facilities and friendly service? Frankly, I am finding it quite a bit more convenient and savings from doing my hardware shopping online. I know that I for one will never shut myself off from the rest of the world- I am a total geek, but I have a life.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to burst your bubble or anything, but I think you are speaking in ignorance about Gandalf, and about Tolkein in general. The obligatory counter example is that Gandalf beheads the Goblin King in The Hobbit, but there are others. I have read Tolkein fairly extensively, though, and there is no "Neutral Good" in Tolkein's works. There is Good - the things of Illuvatar (God) and the Aindule - which is kinda like the fate- it is harmony and the song of existence, if you will. Then there is evil- it is chaotic, and a shadow and twisting of Good. There is no neutral anywhere.
It is good to know that I am not the only one into Power/Progressive metal. You get too used to listening to really good stuff, and you really come to expect more from music. I am going to go see Blind Guardian, Edguy, Gamma Ray, and Angra this fall in Atlanta (as well as 6 other bands I really don't care for).
That is what I have been saying all along. The story of the Matrix: Some guy figures out the God mode cheat to life.
Maybe in 2 and 3, the Matrix will patch around his little exploit.
BG...don't hear too many people who know who they are. I am going to see them in their first ever US show this year. 100 bucks...9 other bands are playing too (including Gamma Ray, Edguy, and Angra), so I guess that averages $10 (US) per band.
Can't think of a good way to fix the constant left turning problem, but if they could find a way to get a crew or machine to throw in a variety of hills and jumps at the bottom, then take them back off again at the top for reuse, it would make for a heck of a lot more interesting skiing. Then you wouldn't be stuck repeating a neverending loop of the same thing.
Hey, there are tons of Geeks in Atlanta, most of them amassed on the Georgia Tech campus. I am working on my third year there (although I am actually on co-op in Raleigh, right now rooming with another geek and looking for a third and maybe fourth roommate up here- email alipham@hotmail.com if interested). Anyway, I found a whole posse of Geek friends down at GA Tech, and one of the frats there is full of geeks and freaks-- the only one I can stand- it is called Psi Upsilon. I am not into the whole idea of a frat, but I hang out with them some. It is the last Frat on the right if you are heading north on Techwood Dr.
I would strong disagree with you. Being popular does not make art bad, but the best art will rarely ever be popular, because by nature, to be "popular", you must be taylored primarily to the ignorant. Keep in mind, very few classical composers were very popular in their day. I am not an elitist in the sense that I do not want the best things to be for the "in" class, but you could call me an elitist in that I think most people are very ignorant in general (I did tech support for too long to believe otherwise). As much as I work hard to teach people how things work, and try and make people understand things around them, most people are intellectually lazy, and just don't care to know why things are the way they are, even if it would make their lives better and easier. I would challenge you to think about what you are saying about music, though.
/. do not say that Windows is a low quality operating system because it is popular- well, some of them do, but they are for the most part ignorant in many respects, but regardless, it is labeled as being that way, not because it is "bad", but because it is poorly designed, inefficient, unstable, and insecure, and leaves much to be desired for those who want powerful tools- to sum it up, it is looked down on because it is a cheap product. The point is, it is popular because anyone can use it, "understand" it per se- it is taylored for the masses. It is very poor though, if you want a well designed program.
"I hate to break the news to you, but musical talent is not somethiung that can be measured. It's a tase. You don't like what's out now, so it's garbage and you are a "real artist" who will never get anywhere because people don't like what you are putting out."
I would question how much you know about music. I am not a musician, although I have been studying musical theory for a long time, and by any measures have a very good understanding of the fundamentals of music. What you are implying by your statements though, is that music (and art at large) has no intrinsic value. Don't worry, it is a very popular view- I would argue it is popular because "the populace" is extremely uneducated in music- not really their fault- look at what they are exposed to (radio, MTV). Fact is, art has (at least) 2 levels of value- one is the value it gets from the enjoyment the observer recieves from it, the other, is its inherant value for being a good product. Music is not merely a quantity of sounds that sound "good", but it is mathematical in nature, and there are reasons, rules, and principles that it abides by, and that is what sounds good to the human mind. If you completely disregard those principles, then what you have no longer resembles music. If you compose your music in alignment with them, you create much better music than what you can come up with getting a theme and playing it out until it "sounds good" with your buddies in a garage.
Making it into the current realm of popular music does not mean that you are bad. It most likely means that you have a very good image and that the music is very simplistic. It is no different than with an operating system. People on
Pop music is the same way, and it always has been. If you think it is good or bad really just depends on what you want. If all you want is something that you can listen to and maybe that will drive your emotions in one direction or another, then stick with pop and enjoy. However, if you want to find music that is deeper, heavier, and more substantial- if you want quality ("good") music, then you really have to go outside of it. Like many things, it actually takes an education of some form or another (not necessarily in the traditional sense) to really develop the understanding to make really high qaulity music- music that has value in and of itself. If you are intersted in hearing quality music, I would recommend classical,or if you want something more contemporary and "new" sounding, neo-classical progressive metal. Some of the best and most well educated (2 seperate qualities) composers and instrumentalists are currently in this genre- (e-mail me if you would like information on how to sample some of this music).
You are all forgetting some important things. First off, at its release, Marathon was capable of being run in 24 bit color, had mouse freelook aiming, actually required reload sequences for every weapon, had secondary fire options on most weapons, and had a very impressive physics engine. Anyone who has really played with it much should know that- your character fell at 32ft/s^2, you fire the grenades from your assualt rifle, and they dropped as they went. It was really apparent when you went to other levels, and discovered that using the flame thrower (a weapon which I have yet to see an effective implementation of anywhere to this day, aside from in Marathon) at your feet would propel you around the room. Also had fairly impressive lighting physics- it was kinda cool when you could see your enemy only because of the brightness of the muzzle. There was even a physics model on how rapidly contrails flew from your rocket launcher. Another significant advantage is it had a real plot that actually kept you interested throughout. Finally if you have ever played network Marathon, you would know that it was lightyears ahead of Doom. Because of the way the weapons balncing worked (and weapon reload time played heavily in there) no game before half life came close. SO, i don't want to hear ppl dissing that game as a Doom takeoff.
How long will it be before the corporations decide that they want full control? Will this be in my lifetime or my childrens'? How long before they start acquiring open standing armies to rule their sheep? They are already taking control of the government, who is the sole entity with the express purpose of defending us from things like that. I concede that I am both a freak and a radical, and you can moderate me down for that, but please think about the implications of large corporate bodies whose sole moral is money and who are slowly but surely purchasing the government and brainwashing each successive generation? Is this so different than the Medieval Catholic Church whose officials ran armies and were capable of persecuting those who didn't work to their goal of maintaining control and status quo at the time of the Protestant Reformation? Perhaps there will be a time where people will look back and say "I remember when all they wanted to control was the content, and we were afraid to go against it for fear of being sued- now look at things, we can't say the wrong word or our lives are at stake!"
We can hope that things don't go that way, and work against them, but the sickening thing about it, is that it is mostly in the hands of the masses or ignorant sheep that constitute mainstream culture, and we can try to show them the light, but I don't feel that our chances their are good. Other than that, all we can do is stark personal resistance.
roamer
I thought that was very well put. My opinion (if you want something a little more developed, run a search on my last couple of posts) is that the record companies' days are numbered. Music has been around much longer than contracts, and it won't be long before the contracts die, so people will quit going into it for the illusory goal of "making it big" and artists will once again be supported for being good. I think if you are good enough at what you do, then society should allow you to do it full time. You don't have a right to make a lot of money doing it, or be rich, but that SHOULDN'T be why you do it to begin with. Money is there to enable you to do what you love full time, without having to worry about food. Work shouldn't be there to make money.
SO....hopefully we will see things go that way again, where artists are paid for their performances and donations from the (rightfully) adoring fans...until then, it might get bloody, but we will fight it out.
roamer
I will try to make this quick, in vain hope that someone will read it. I posted something similar on the Dr Dre article a couple days back, but by the time I posted I was on the bottom of a very long list of posts.
I think we need to completely decriminalize piracy. Piracy is not stealing, as it does not make a person who had something not have it. It is argued to be stealing, because it allows someone to have something which they didn't pay for. If you believe in the Bible, which a lot of people do (and even those who don't usually acknowege it as a competant moral guideline), then you will find that the Biblical morals around theft are always punished with restitution (ie, reparations for the damage done to the individual from whom goods were taken). In the case of piracy, you are not doing anything to someone else's goods, you are simply creating more.
So, I say we decriminalize piracy, and then leave the industry to fend for itself. If it stops becomming illegal, people's "moral issues" with it will go away. Why? because it is a legal issue, not a moral one, and it doesn't have a moral leg to stand on. The only moral authority you could site as to why it is "bad" to copy someone elses music is the culture you grew up in, in which copyright is such a fundamental principle. That doesn't make it morally correct though.
If you quit making it illegal, then people will pirate MASSIVELY, which is IMHO a very good idea. Why? Because it will let the artists starve. Don't get me wrong, I am not advocating not supporting art, if someone's art is good enough that you think it is worth money, then by all means, send the artist some money. Find a way to email them, or write them or whatever. Somehow mail that is headed with "I want to give you money" has an amazing way of getting past all the filters.
What will happen though, is the music industry will die. Artists will get promoted by dedicated fans informing others of them word of mouth. The stuff that is popular now will die before long. Why? Because most ppl wouldn't feel bad about not supporting it. They can say it is great music, like society has taught them, but when it comes down, they aren't going to feel bad if they don't send them money. Then, slowly, those who are mega rich now from their shoddy products will go bankrupt, because their popularity only lasts until there "hit single" gets so overplayed people get sick of it. The bands that truly produce well written, well played meaningful music will last. How will they get a regular pay check? I don't know, to be honest, I would like to think donations, although, maybe that won't work and something else will be necessary. Fact is, though, most musicians are going to starve. That is, ok though, right now, there are too many "musicians", most of whom suck, and there isn't anything that entitles them to making a living with music. What will most likely happen though, is people will not go into the "industry" aspiring to "make it big". The industry will no longer exist, and there will be an absence of these super rich mega stars. Instead, the only people who will do it are the ones that think they really have somehting to say, and they will say it. If they are good enough then they will make a living. Music isn't going to disappear. I guarantee you, if it even comes close to being in short supply, the money to allow artists to make music full time will come from SOMEWHERE. Music has been around for a long time, and people aren't going to live without it. It is like sports- take automotive racing, for example. It is large corporations that sponser that, as it is an extremely expensive event, that isn't profitable enough for its "performers" to handle the maintenance of their vehicles on there own. The only reason it exists, is because people want it badly enough, that for a corporation to support it is worthwhile, purely in the weight of the PR it brings them in being known to support it. Maybe that is what will happen, it would make sense. Music won't go away though- that is for sure. Although, music culture would definitely purge itself, and the quality of music that exists, I think, would go dramatically up. I used to say I would never pay for music again, once I could freely pirate, but through the piracy, I found music that is good enough, that even though I don't have to, I will pay its creators. Well, I must away to work, I guess I didn't make it short, guess the moderators will bite me.
roamer
I agree with you in principle in some ways. I am mostly writing to request that you not blast things that don't merit a blasting.
"I get tired of holier than thou (Metallica reference) people coming down from Jesus to spread His word and damn us to hell for copying music of people we've made millionaires. Boo-fucking-hoo. (Minor Threat reference)"
Ok, I understand if you have had a bad experience with the proponents of religiosity (the term I apply to those who think that the point of religion is to do and not do certain thing, and to find a more perfect list of things to do and not do, not because those things are right, but because that is what they were taught). No one who isn't a religicist likes it. Truth is Jesus was pretty radical in his throws against established religion. Try reading something he says, rather than listen to people who think they know what he says, because they are the same people who think they know what D&D is about, and we all know how right-on they are about that. You might find it interesting that the Bible is actually quite on the side of piracy- all the laws regarding stealing are enforced with restitution- i.e.- you pay someone back for the damage you have done to them. Piracy is not stealing, because it doens't make one entity not have something that they had before, therefore, there is nothing to "restitute".
I am not suggesting that quit supporting artists. I am suggesting that you revoke legal ramifications for piracy. Then, the only support the artists will recieve, is support that the fans think they deserve. It is only through piracy that I have been able to find music that is truly valuable- listen to some progressive metal- it is not very popular in the mainstream field, but people who truly understand music, even those who don't have a taste for it, will give it credit for being truly excellent music. People don't support no-name bands for that reason- they have no name, and it isn't worth investing time and money to hear them something you don't know that probably won't be good. So, people go with the safe bet that they hear on the radio and which sounds pretty good and, granted, they don't get much, but at least they know what they are getting.
Of course, the industry determines what is on the radio, and therefore, they determine what you are exposed to. If piracy were legal, then the music would be freely passed around, the industry would die, and people would support the musicians they thought were good. The groups that are mainstream now would die off really quickly though, because no one would listen to their stuff and say "Hey, that was really good, so good in fact, I think I am going to send them a check". The stuff that is most popular right now just isn't good enough to warrant that. If you "open source" the music, then people will get a reputation for truly being good, and they won't starve. Initially, it might hurt everyone some, but eventually, people will realize that if you don't pay them, then the best art won't be made, and the market demand for music and performance will increase, and therefore, it will be worth more money. As it stands, the market is so saturated with bad product, that people really don't feel bad about not paying for it. The majority of mainstream music could just as well be replaced by completely different music and it wouldn't really affect anything- actually, in about 2 years time, it will be totally replaced. An evidence of good music is that it lasts beyond the time of the specific audience it was written for. People will be willing to pay for music like this, even if the law doesn't make them- why? Because they will want it to be around.
roamer
Here is my proposal. Maybe we should let the artists starve a little. This may sound horrible, but read the rest of my comment before moderating me down as a flaming, ignorant troll. Right now, primarily the RIAA dictates who is popular. Becomming popular is an extremely competitive industry that has absolutely nothing to do with producing good music, and everything to do with kissing the middle man's ass, being attractive and all the other "networking" bull shit that you have to do. Good art has never been about "knowing the right people". Look at the best artists in history- Beethoven, Mozart, most of the other great composers- funny, similar to some of the best geeks I know, they were a bunch of freaks, socially inept outcasts, and weird people. If you look at the industry today, if you can't develop good image (aka, bigger breasts than brains etc) then you don't stand a chance. Well, the truth is, if your music isn't worth millions of dollars to people, then you aren't entitled to millions of dollars, and if you image is worth that to people, then go model, and quit polluting the music industry (because modelling is, and always has been about networking and sleeping with the right people) I don't want to hear the "well, they are making millions now, so they must be worth it" comments. They are making millions because pop culture and the dictators of it (RIAA and their ilk) currently rule people access- I say we see what happens when there control is totally gone. I know this sounds harsh, but how about we let the market purge itself of the shit. I listen to fairly obscure music performed by some of the best (from a technical standpoint) musicians in the world. They aren't in it for the money, although they make a decent living, not because they are so popular, but because they are among the best. They are in it to output music, because that is what they want to do. /.ers- listen to me- no matter how much you "steal" it, the market guarantees that music will not go away. So, here is my proposal- deregulate what you can do with the "intellectual property"- let people give it away. Tons of artists will no longer be able to support themselves with art, because people won't pay for it if they don't have to. I know for a fact though, that I will still be willing to pay for my music (directly to the artists) because I think they have a valuable product. If people suddenly think they can't make a living off music then maybe they won't do it for the money- is that such a bad thing? If that makes music more scarce, then people will be far more willing to pay for it, and only truly valuable musicians will be able to survive- that is how the market works, but music isn't going to go away. So, push the market through the strainer- I know my musicians are good enough to survive downsizing- are yours?
First off, I never said that they were the first, I merely said what they are. Secondly, Led Zeppelin doens't write most of there music based on Tolkien's stories and themes, as Blind Guardian does. As I recall, they use a little bit of Tolkienesque imagery in a couple of songs. Blind Guardian's music is much more in light of the ancient idea of "the bard". For more information about this, check "The Bard's song: In the Forest" (also check it s acoompanying song "The Bard's Song: The Hobbit") off of their "Somewhere Far Beyond" album.
Slightly off topic, but fitting in the same thread, any of you Tolkien fans might want to try out Blind Guardian. They are very deep, hard-hitting band that writes 90% of there music around Tolkien's stories and themes. Definitely not for the faint of heart or wannabe fans- it is pretty heavy stuff, and most of the songs relate more to the Silmarillion than the Lord of the Rings (ex. "Curse of Feanor", "Mordred's Song", "Noldor (Dead Winder Reigns)"etc). Some of their stuff does pertain to the Lord of the Rings- for instance "The Lord of the Rings" song is just a rendition of the opening verse on the books- the Orchestral version of it is excellent! (for the record, these guys have been doing symphonic metal for years, way longer than Metallica S&M, and unlike Metallica, Hansi from Blind Guardian actually rights all the music for all the instruments you here in all their songs). Anyway, just a quick promo for an excellent Tolkien based band...moderate me down if you think I need it, I don't really care. Whatever you do though, check out their album "Nightfall in Middle Earth". Oh, and just a warning, Yahoo lists them as a death metal band, but don't let that worry you, because death metal they are not (I loathe death metal), they are pretty different though. For more information, go to http://www.ba-stuttgart.de/~bziller/blind_guardian /
or feel free to contact me.
Icq#:25834656
"***JUMP PAD ACTIVATION INITIATION START***
***TRANSPORT WHEN READY***
May Marathon live forever 8^)
Ok, looked at your cd collection, and yes, I would say that is a lot of mass feed. Some good, some bad (the masses aren't always fed bad music- they are never fed the best though). Ministry, Butthole Surfers, Beastie Boys, Blondie, Chemical Brothers, Blondie, Dead Kennedy's, Jane's Addiction, G'n'R, Iggy Pop, Motley Crew, Public Enemy, Ramones, Sex Pistols, Sonic Youth, Beatles, Breeders, Violent Femmes.....hmmm...looks like a lot of mass feed to me. Granted, I haven't heard of all the bands in your list, most of them (while it is true they may not be the most main stream at the moment) are simply the standard mass feed of yesteryear. I don't mean this to insult your taste at all. Butthole Surfers are quite original, as are Breeders. Jefferson Airplane and Doors are actually decent as musicians. But nothing on that list is, aside from those 2, from a basic musical understanding, very developed music. It is just culture shit. Like I said, try listening to some of the bands I listed, and you will know what I mean.
No, I do not buy albums anymore. I bootleg them, and when I think they are valuable, then I send their makers money. Blind Guardian's "Nightfall in Middle Earth" is worth $100 to me, and their "Tales from a Twilight World" is worth $50. As soon as I am able to support myself (I am paying my way through school as it is, and don't have any disposable income), then I will send them the money, and encourage them to distribute the music themselves. On the other hand, you think you are paying the musicians so well for their music? Are you aware that the current (as 1 year ago) standard that an artist makes per album sale is??! 7.5 cents per album. That is next to nothing! Even if they sell a lot of albums, it barely covers their studio cost. So, is it the CD's and Booklets we are paying the high cost for? I think not, it is the RIAA getting fat. That is why I say boycotte the industry, and support the artists. I believe that once the industry goes away, and people are paying musicians to make good music, the quality of music will go back up (instead of making ultra rich, low talent stars).
Also, if you think there has been no good music made this past decade, then you are not looking in the right places. Again, try any of the bands I mentioned- you may not have a taste for it, but you cannot deny that it is absolute top notch music, and it puts Guns 'n' Roses to shame (and I really like Guns 'n' Roses), and there are hundreds of other bands as well.
No, I am afraid it is not a useless proposition. When I first got to school and saw how easily I could get any music that I wanted, I said "Great! I will never have to pay for this shit again". Since then, I haven't payed for that shit. What has happened though, as I have begun listening more intelligently (throwing off mainstream music), is, all of a sudden, I realized that there is music good enough to be worth money. The mainstream stuff, is just that- shit. It is not really worth very much, and therefore, most people have no problem bootlegging it. I have decided, that I will never pay the RIAA another dime. I will however pay direct to the musicions.
"In the best case scenario, an artist sells a downloads and has to go to the bank to deposit one million checks?!? It's going to take them a couple of years just to sign and bundle all those checks. They'll probably have to hire a staff of workers to do it in a reasonable time. Guess what? Those'll cost them money... They'll probably lose 75% of their cash just to the overhead of employees sitting there stamping checks all day long."
This is an ignorant statement. First off, most internet payments are not done snail mail with checks. Second, the thought of purchasing an album at a time is not dated. Most of (IMHO) the best music should not be contained in a 5 minute bit. A REAL album should have album flow, and be made to be listened to as a complete work-- but then again, you seem to (again, IMHO) be quite content with the little 5 minute bits of mass feed that mainstream culture throws at you. Aside from that, even if they do get lots of checks, as my grandfather would say, "That is a happy problem". I don't think people are going to complain because they are recieving too many checks.
To reiterate my point though, if you listen to real (talented, professional) musicians, who actually understand how music works and how to compose it, then suddenly the music gains real value. Of course people aren't going to volunteer to pay for the mainstream stuff that they here- it isn't worth much anyway. Try some real music like Symphony X, Blind Guardian, Dream Theater, Savatage, Sonata Arctica, Vision Divine, Nightwish, Rhapsody, or Stratovarious, and maybe you will realize that real music is worth real money, and people are willing to pay for it.
Ahh, something I actually know about. I am in the middle of my second year at GA Tech, as a Computer Engineering major. I will say, Tech, like any school, will get you the education you take from it, but it does so in a much more intense and self conscious way than most. I will say, that we have a great CS program (most of my friends are in Comp-E or CS), but if you take the route of the frat boys or SGA management types, you can slide by, off of other peoples work. I have found that one of the biggest advantages to going to such a large hardcore engineering school is that it is very easy for me to surround myself with Geeks. Certainly not everyone here is a Geek, but they are pretty pervasive here. In my opinion, if you are up to the challenge, it is an excellent school, one of the best.
On the other hand, don't go into it with any illusions of a wonderful program full of happy helpful professors. One of the reasons our school has so much industry respect is that is really prepares you for dealing with the industry. Our profs aren't very good, but the expectation is very high- that is what makes the program good- they say- you do X by date Y, now go do it. There is very little hand holding, and it is up to you to utilize your available resources and get it done, and if you can't, then don't expect much pity. That is very much how the industry works- expectation is put forth, and you just have to figure out how to meet it. Don't forget, our mascot may be the yellow jacket, but our campus symbol/central location of campus is a painfully fallic 83 foot tall, twisting, spiraling, tri-pointed shaft, known as The Shaft. It is there for a reason.
If you have any questions about the school though, or getting plugged in, my icq # is 25834656.
At Tech we have all the technological resources available, and a lot of industry respect, but utilizing it is up to you. Also we do have one of the best co-op programs in the world- so far I have finished 3 periods of school, and I am working now on my third period co-oping (I work for the IT dept of a major telecomm company in Raleigh)
The point isn't to have 1000 times as many processors, but 1000 times more processing being done in a single cycle.
The purpose of grammer is to hold a standard in which to effectively communicate. In a sense, grammar can be compared to government. The main problem with the government(s) is that they do not and will not ever realize their true and only purpose for existence- defense- they are to defend society from outside force, and defend it from those inside doing harm. The purpose of grammer is to effectively communicate. I (and I believe almost all other english speaking readers of /. will agree with me) had absolutely no problem understanding the intent of his comment, and therefore his communication was effective and the purpose behind his grammer was fulfilled, so, his grammer was correct. Sorry, a bit off topic, but it is a pet peeve of mine.
Language exists so that we can effectively communicate, not so that we will have more rules to follow.
OK, true enough, the word that we derive the word Christian from (Greek word). It has been about 6 years since I took a Greek class and I don't recall what the word exactly was, but I do remember that is what it meant, and is in fact, how the word came to use.
The word Christian means litterally "little christ" and was first used in Antioch around 40AD.
The Greeks used it derisively, shouting it as they put the followers of Christ to death. It did not take long though, that it became adopted, and has been used ever since. It happened the same time they adopted the Chi Rho symbol.
I am a student at Georgia Tech, and, like most tech schools, we are a good step ahead of "generic home user" as far as the technology available to us. What I have found is that the more wired I am to the web, the better I learn how to use it, and the more productive I can become in a shorter amount of time. There is no more spending a day at the library to research a topic- I can find more valuable information in an hour on the web. What I do find though, is that I have more time available to socialize with real people, because it takes me less time to do the things I have to do.
Also, I am much more able to work productively for longer periods of time when I really have to, because I use "personal" forms of communication (aka ICQ), so that I can talk to my friends while I work, with far less inconvenience and at far higher percentage of my productivity than if they were sitting there. It is true that it does lower how much work I can get done per minute, but it is amazing how much easier it is to stay motivated. Frankly, I think this guy was ignorant in how to actually use the internet, and trying to perform tasks that the internet is (currently) not made to do. My opinion, though, is that if the web was enhanced to do your grocery shopping for you so that you could spend 15 minutes to simply whip up your shopping list and paste it into grocery_pricewatch.com instead of a 4 hour trip to Kroger, you would be able to have that much more time to do other things (like socializing with your friends). Of course this would require a different delivery system than is currently used, so that competitive market would make it more convenient, but things like this would save a hell of a lot of time. Besides, imagine how much cheaper it would be if your groceries were not having to be shipped to a retail location, and you weren't having to pay for all the nice facilities and friendly service? Frankly, I am finding it quite a bit more convenient and savings from doing my hardware shopping online. I know that I for one will never shut myself off from the rest of the world- I am a total geek, but I have a life.