I know that basic human curiosity hasn't changed in the last 1 or 2 hundred years and that leads me to believe it's not likely to change in the next 1 or 2 hundered years. As for NASA taking it seriosly RTFA. The debate is called "Science Fiction Meets Science Fact", who is in a better position to represent science fact??
The first settlements were buisness ventures, the religiously motivated settlements came later; besides, it's irrelevent. The comparison to settling N.A. was in terms of mindset; no matter how hard it is there will allways be people willing to try. I never said there would be a mass exodus, I'm saying they aren't going to have a hard time finding people willing to help the cause. And how could settling another planet not be a major unprecidented obsticle?? That doesn't change the fact that people will want to try, with some it will encourage it.
They're happy to take anything in times of crisis. You think if the US's house was on fire we would care who brought over the hose?? Humanity is (or at least should be) a step or two above darwinian politics.
Well, any effort at colonization would definitly have to deal with those problems. But I don't doubt that any society capable of terraforming a planet can deal with those comparitively small dillemas.
Because there is no rational reason in existance to abandon the immense amount of support structures we've built over the years. Roads, buildings, planes, trains, automobiles, you get the point. If we have the ability to terraform an entire planet then chances are we've got the ability to fix whatever's wrong with this one. Add to that our species is not migratory by nature, we are sentimental creatures, and I disagree with you in that I think having an uncaring or arrogant attitude toward such large scale decisions is certainly wrong.
Those are the reasons. I think firewrought's "just because" responce came out because the reasons in support of his argument are so numerous and glaringly obvious that it's frustrating to try and articulate them.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." -Aristotle
Obviosly this isn't going to be feasable any time soon, but it's never too early to dream.
The desire to go to mars isn't going to be based on comfort of earth vs. barren wasteland of mars. It's going to be about exploration and adventure. The first settlers of america had a horrible fucking time, granted alot of them had been kidnapped and forced to go, but alot more went purely because they could. Any attempt at settlement is allways going to be hard at the begining, but there will allways be people willing to go through that cause they believe it's for the better and they know that over time, as things become more established, it'll get better.
What worldview do you think is problematic? If your speaking of the 'well we messed up earth so lets move on to mars' view then I agree, that's retarded at best. But the human race is growing, earth will allways be our home but eventually the kids gotta move out.
Name the groups more successfull then one of those two, there's probably not more then a handful. Now figure in how many other popular groups are on the radio, how many local bands there are, how many kids making music there are accross the entire world. I agree I put in quite a few zero's without doing any number crunching in my head, but I don't think it's entirely unrealistic.
Well, yes and no. I agree that I think the record industries have something of a cooperative monopoly and that they only serve to benefit themselves and not the artist. But I don't think the only option is to change the system, I think some people are just abandoning it. That's what all this talk of internet distrobution really is. Ditching the record companies. Also, the reason Jackson or Madonna have not dumped their record companies is because they are unbelievably successfull. They are literally in the top 0.000000000001% of successfull. The record company system does actually benefit artists sometimes, but only when that artist is raking in an ungodly amount of profit to the point where a greedy record company can take as much as it wants and there will still be a crapload left over for the artist. It's the other 99.999999999999% of musicians who get dicked over by the record companies.
If the labels have no incentive to put out records due to rampant piracy then how the hell are artists going to afford to tour?
The labels don't pay for the artists to tour, they never have. What they do is sign a contract with the artist stating that they will front the money for the tour. But the record companies expect to payed back for what they consider to be, essentially, a loan. Artists are better off just getting a loan from a bank. That way they can make the decisions about the tour instead of the record company. You might respond that it's too big a financial risk for the artist to take and that's the reason they go through the record companies. But through the record companies it's still a financial risk. This is the exact reason why behind the music has so many stories about bands that went bankrupt at the height of their popularity. The record company decides to spend a huge amount on the tour, more then ticket sales could reasonably account for, because a huge tour drums up better CD sales. But the artist is still expected to pay back that sum so they end up giving back what they got from mechandise sales and the remainders from the CD sales, all of which were supposed to be paying for the artists rent/food/etc. The money still needs to be payed back, you just get to decide do you want a bank coming after you or do you want the company that owns the right to your music coming after you? The latter has some dangerous leverage, personally I would choose the former.
they're obviously not a national touring act or even a REGIONAL touring act
Yet they're still making their living off of music, which makes your claim that most bands couldn't survive without a label false. Add to that I listen largely to electronic music. Electronic music rarely gets major label support. Some electronic acts are on indie label, some just put their music out themselves, they do just fine. And CD sales aren't the only thing that draws people to live shows, a band doesn't just come into the studio I work at as soon as it's been formed. They get some momentum first, play gigs, a couple fans, and then when they think there's a responce for it they come to us for a CD. I've never worked with anyone on a label, but I've worked with plenty of people who subsist solely off of their music.
BTW, a steady well paying job is a must for everyone who doesn't live in their parents house, whether that job is music or and IT job or something else. Is it hard to turn music into your steady well paying job?? Fuck yeah, and I wouldn't want it any other way, it keeps the people who have no real passion or drive from crowding out the people that deserve to be on the stage. It's hard, but it's possible, and I've seen plenty of people do it without the help of a label.
That's false. I work at a recording studio. We have several steady customers that come to us for recording their cd's. They distribute their cd's over the internet which brings them some profit but mainly serves to drum up intrest in their live shows which provide for the majority of their income. These aren't even locally large names, very smalltime. But the formula holds true for larger artists. Record sales pay the record company, artist profit from touring. Only the most wildly successfull albums make enough money for the artist to see a sizeable return after the record company takes it's cut.
Cover bands are legally allowed and don't represent an endorsement by the original author. Your Neo-Nazi argument is an extreem even without the Nazi refferences. The title "Frank Zappa would agree: blah blah blah" is obviosly an unauthorized endorsement. But a Frank Zappa cover band that states "[so and so] performing the music of Frank Zappa", is perfectly fine in both a legal and moral sense. This is all really irrelevent anyway, the yahoo article was about a zappa song used in an advertisement, not about cover bands.
Federal laws should never be legeslated with the purpose of protecting states from political peer pressure. If there is such an outcry to legalize this then maybe it should just be legalized. Otherwise it's the states responcibility to stand up to that pressure.
That is a fact everyone is aware of. The internet has been around for too long for anyone to ligitimately claim ignorance of its risks. If people choose to accept those risks then that is their decision. The government certainly shouldn't be in the buisness of protecting yourself from your own bad judgement.
That's a valid point. But would keeping the laws in place really control the addiction rates? The law as it stands now prohibits gambling, yet people still gamble. I think it's a very similar situation to drugs. While their currently outlawed in america people still do them every day. When drugs were legalized in the netherlands addiction rates dropped because of the increase in awareness programs and such.
I have no problem with you getting piss drunk, gambling away all your money, and killing your unborn child. But some of those actions have effects on others.
Yes, they do. But should everything with a negative extreem be outlawed? There are plenty of stories about the drunk driver or the guy who lost everything gambling. But for every one of those stories there's 50 about the guy who only gambles what he can afford to lose, or the guy who makes sure he has a ride home (or is already home) before he starts drinking. Knowone can argue with you that those actions, when taken to an extreem, are destructive and have impacts on those other then the person commiting the act. But I don't think that's a valid reason for outlawing them all together.
I don't agree with you that abortion is murder. But I do agree that the argument is not neccisarily based on religion and it's not a black and white issue.
That being said, what other laws against vices that he mentioned can arguably be not of religious descent? Certainly not blue laws...
And keep in mind that when we talk about gambling we are talking about online gambling. Area crime is not an issue.
Slashdot Mirror
I know that basic human curiosity hasn't changed in the last 1 or 2 hundred years and that leads me to believe it's not likely to change in the next 1 or 2 hundered years. As for NASA taking it seriosly RTFA. The debate is called "Science Fiction Meets Science Fact", who is in a better position to represent science fact??
Oh, my bad. Well as long as we stick to the surface it should be fine.....
The first settlements were buisness ventures, the religiously motivated settlements came later; besides, it's irrelevent. The comparison to settling N.A. was in terms of mindset; no matter how hard it is there will allways be people willing to try. I never said there would be a mass exodus, I'm saying they aren't going to have a hard time finding people willing to help the cause. And how could settling another planet not be a major unprecidented obsticle?? That doesn't change the fact that people will want to try, with some it will encourage it.
Rock the fuck on. :)
They're happy to take anything in times of crisis. You think if the US's house was on fire we would care who brought over the hose?? Humanity is (or at least should be) a step or two above darwinian politics.
How much underground could it have? I imagine it has just about enough to fill up the area underneath the surface... is there something I'm missing??
Well, any effort at colonization would definitly have to deal with those problems. But I don't doubt that any society capable of terraforming a planet can deal with those comparitively small dillemas.
Those are the reasons. I think firewrought's "just because" responce came out because the reasons in support of his argument are so numerous and glaringly obvious that it's frustrating to try and articulate them.
Obviosly this isn't going to be feasable any time soon, but it's never too early to dream.
The desire to go to mars isn't going to be based on comfort of earth vs. barren wasteland of mars. It's going to be about exploration and adventure. The first settlers of america had a horrible fucking time, granted alot of them had been kidnapped and forced to go, but alot more went purely because they could. Any attempt at settlement is allways going to be hard at the begining, but there will allways be people willing to go through that cause they believe it's for the better and they know that over time, as things become more established, it'll get better.
p.s. I would go.
What worldview do you think is problematic? If your speaking of the 'well we messed up earth so lets move on to mars' view then I agree, that's retarded at best. But the human race is growing, earth will allways be our home but eventually the kids gotta move out.
Name the groups more successfull then one of those two, there's probably not more then a handful. Now figure in how many other popular groups are on the radio, how many local bands there are, how many kids making music there are accross the entire world. I agree I put in quite a few zero's without doing any number crunching in my head, but I don't think it's entirely unrealistic.
Well, yes and no. I agree that I think the record industries have something of a cooperative monopoly and that they only serve to benefit themselves and not the artist. But I don't think the only option is to change the system, I think some people are just abandoning it. That's what all this talk of internet distrobution really is. Ditching the record companies. Also, the reason Jackson or Madonna have not dumped their record companies is because they are unbelievably successfull. They are literally in the top 0.000000000001% of successfull. The record company system does actually benefit artists sometimes, but only when that artist is raking in an ungodly amount of profit to the point where a greedy record company can take as much as it wants and there will still be a crapload left over for the artist. It's the other 99.999999999999% of musicians who get dicked over by the record companies.
This argument is about record labels and CD distrobution. Not getting the venue to fufill is rider.
If the labels have no incentive to put out records due to rampant piracy then how the hell are artists going to afford to tour?
The labels don't pay for the artists to tour, they never have. What they do is sign a contract with the artist stating that they will front the money for the tour. But the record companies expect to payed back for what they consider to be, essentially, a loan. Artists are better off just getting a loan from a bank. That way they can make the decisions about the tour instead of the record company. You might respond that it's too big a financial risk for the artist to take and that's the reason they go through the record companies. But through the record companies it's still a financial risk. This is the exact reason why behind the music has so many stories about bands that went bankrupt at the height of their popularity. The record company decides to spend a huge amount on the tour, more then ticket sales could reasonably account for, because a huge tour drums up better CD sales. But the artist is still expected to pay back that sum so they end up giving back what they got from mechandise sales and the remainders from the CD sales, all of which were supposed to be paying for the artists rent/food/etc. The money still needs to be payed back, you just get to decide do you want a bank coming after you or do you want the company that owns the right to your music coming after you? The latter has some dangerous leverage, personally I would choose the former.
Yet they're still making their living off of music, which makes your claim that most bands couldn't survive without a label false. Add to that I listen largely to electronic music. Electronic music rarely gets major label support. Some electronic acts are on indie label, some just put their music out themselves, they do just fine. And CD sales aren't the only thing that draws people to live shows, a band doesn't just come into the studio I work at as soon as it's been formed. They get some momentum first, play gigs, a couple fans, and then when they think there's a responce for it they come to us for a CD. I've never worked with anyone on a label, but I've worked with plenty of people who subsist solely off of their music.
BTW, a steady well paying job is a must for everyone who doesn't live in their parents house, whether that job is music or and IT job or something else. Is it hard to turn music into your steady well paying job?? Fuck yeah, and I wouldn't want it any other way, it keeps the people who have no real passion or drive from crowding out the people that deserve to be on the stage. It's hard, but it's possible, and I've seen plenty of people do it without the help of a label.
That's false. I work at a recording studio. We have several steady customers that come to us for recording their cd's. They distribute their cd's over the internet which brings them some profit but mainly serves to drum up intrest in their live shows which provide for the majority of their income. These aren't even locally large names, very smalltime. But the formula holds true for larger artists. Record sales pay the record company, artist profit from touring. Only the most wildly successfull albums make enough money for the artist to see a sizeable return after the record company takes it's cut.
If you distribute your music via the internet then money ceases to be an issue.
Cover bands are legally allowed and don't represent an endorsement by the original author. Your Neo-Nazi argument is an extreem even without the Nazi refferences. The title "Frank Zappa would agree: blah blah blah" is obviosly an unauthorized endorsement. But a Frank Zappa cover band that states "[so and so] performing the music of Frank Zappa", is perfectly fine in both a legal and moral sense. This is all really irrelevent anyway, the yahoo article was about a zappa song used in an advertisement, not about cover bands.
Federal laws should never be legeslated with the purpose of protecting states from political peer pressure. If there is such an outcry to legalize this then maybe it should just be legalized. Otherwise it's the states responcibility to stand up to that pressure.
That is a fact everyone is aware of. The internet has been around for too long for anyone to ligitimately claim ignorance of its risks. If people choose to accept those risks then that is their decision. The government certainly shouldn't be in the buisness of protecting yourself from your own bad judgement.
Addiction rates and their asociated health care costs dropped signifigantly in the netherlands when certain drugs were legalized.
That's a valid point. But would keeping the laws in place really control the addiction rates? The law as it stands now prohibits gambling, yet people still gamble. I think it's a very similar situation to drugs. While their currently outlawed in america people still do them every day. When drugs were legalized in the netherlands addiction rates dropped because of the increase in awareness programs and such.
Yes, they do. But should everything with a negative extreem be outlawed? There are plenty of stories about the drunk driver or the guy who lost everything gambling. But for every one of those stories there's 50 about the guy who only gambles what he can afford to lose, or the guy who makes sure he has a ride home (or is already home) before he starts drinking. Knowone can argue with you that those actions, when taken to an extreem, are destructive and have impacts on those other then the person commiting the act. But I don't think that's a valid reason for outlawing them all together.
That being said, what other laws against vices that he mentioned can arguably be not of religious descent? Certainly not blue laws...
And keep in mind that when we talk about gambling we are talking about online gambling. Area crime is not an issue.
Muslims don't claim free trade.