This has to be the stupidest theory ever. It makes no difference to the commercial interests of the industry if the music sold is old or new, as long as the profit margin in selling it is acceptable.
Old music is cheap. There are practically no production costs because it already exists. If the recording industry could sell old music until the end of time they most certainly would, and they'd do it in preference to making new music every time. If enough people want the old music, then they will stack the shelves happily for them to buy it. Deliberately removing that option in order to force them into buying new music, that the industry has a higher cost of producing, makes absolutely no economic sense.
It would probably have been The Daily Mail if it weren't for the face The Daily Mail are a bunch of bootlickers and tend in the opposite direction on this topic.
So it would never have been the Daily Mail, ever, in a million years. Your mention of them is an irrelevant addition for effect, and just another globule of crap in your smear.
For starters, anyone who saw Star Wars once in 1977, and never watched it again until now, is clearly not a big fan of the sci-fi genre in the first place.
Star Wars is hardly genre-defining. It's space-opera. You could be the biggest sci-fi fan in the world and have only see Star Wars once. It really doesn't have the depth that requires multiple viewings.
Yeah. Seriously, if mocking other people's religion is so important to you that you're basing your own wedding on it, then you've really got your priorities screwed up somewhere.
You don't want any religion in your life/wedding/marriage? Then don't have it. It's that easy.
When you say someone has "changed their mind" you are suggesting some sort of thought has gone on to form the basis of an opinion, and then something has happened to alter the situation, and after further thought, their opinion has changed.
Trump just opens his mouth and lets loose with what half baked notion he's just thought of, that he thinks people want to hear. And then the next day he does the same. There is no guarantee of, or even effort towards, consistency.
His only constant is how brilliant and rich you need to know he is.
Gradual changes over several decades don't tend to cause modern economies to collapse.
What's a "modern" economy? One of the present day? If so, how do you know what several decades may do unless you hang around for them to happen?
The trend for the last couple hundred years has been that technology becomes cheaper and available to more people.
And what has this got to do with anything? The price of sneakers are coming down too! So.. um.. what were we talking about again? Oh yes. Something along the lines of "a stitch in time saves nine", which you'd think would be kind of obvious..
it doesn't answer the original question of why the Kiribati resident is owed his chosen lifestyle ahead of an African or Indian or Chinese person who needs energy.
I'm cold. What do you say if I come around and burn your house down? Got a car? I'm sure that would burn nicely. Why are you owed your chosen lifestyle over my need for energy?
What's that you say? There are other ways of me getting energy than burning down your house? Really? It's like you're saying I'm presenting a false dichotomy to make it seem like I have no other option to burning down your house. But it sure seems like the cheapest option to me. What gives you the right to cost me money when your house is right there waiting to burn? Come on, you've had a good run in it and no-one is expecting you to stand there while it burns down around you. You can go live somewhere else and I'm sure future technology will make it easy to build. Quit whining.
Amazing. It's like you imagine the scam tech support criminals would draw the line at ransomware, and the ransomware criminals would find tech support scamming morally beyond the pale. And never the two shall meet!
They're criminals. Is it really such a surprise they will employ any method available to steal money from their victims?
Some of the Gov officials did test it, and I seem to recall that McCormick's excuse for any bad results was always along the lines of operator error, inadequate training and, get this, the operator had to believe the device would work, otherwise it would not work.
It was standard pseudo-science bullshit. If it doesn't work, it's not the fault of the pseudo-science, it's because of those involved giving off bad vibes.
So the detector could detect drugs if they were placed directly in its line of sight where they could be seen. This is not the usual place drugs are hidden.
Far better to detect the drugs' aura , which is an evil kind of muddy purple and extends through solid objects. This is done through some kind of magic that you wouldn't understand if you're not in touch with your inner spirit, wooo, woooo, wooo,
Funding was announced by the Government as part of its national Strategic Defence and Security Review. It wasn't announced by the BBC as part of their Christmas schedule along side Celebrity Bake-Off. So I think it safe to assume that this is not being funded out of the BBC's licence money.
I'm with you on this. Star Wars was always just cowboys in space, making it up as they went along. The fact that its creator felt compelled to keep going back to previous films to try and make it into something deeper and cohesive, and increasingly just made it more of a mess, demonstrated this.
The films are (mostly) fun, but nothing to get over excited about. I'm sure the new one will be fun too, but I'm not expecting it to turn the general train wreck of a plot around.
This article uses way too many exclamation points (I counted 12). Putting exclamation points at the end of every other paragraph doesn't automatically make something interesting and exciting. It just looks like the writer has no confidence in capturing the reader's attention without them!
The restrictions are there for pretty much the same reason you can't drive your 4x4 SUV where you like in national parks. Because there would always be idiots making a mess, racket and annoyance to ruin the whole point of it being a national park.
Had he said that this was an attack on western civilization/values/activities/way-of-life I would agree with him.
Yeah. That kind of observation would have made for a really insightful and original quote. Thanks Bono, you've just said what absolutely everyone else has already said.
Where was he when Charlie Hebdo was attacked?
I've no idea. Maybe no-one was looking for a comment off him at the time, because, as we've already all agreed, it wasn't about him.
What is about him is that he was scheduled to have a gig in Paris directly after a similar gig had ended tragically and violently. So people wanted to know whether he intended going ahead, and what he had to say about it. So he obliged and naturally he's going to address things within a personal context that he has any qualification to speak on. Otherwise he's just repeating what hundreds have said before him.
One wonders what you'd have had to say if he'd said "Don't ask me. I couldn't possibly comment, this has nothing to do with me, or the music industry, and personally, I just can't relate to that."
Except Bono never said that music was being "targeted" or implied it was anything about him.
"This is the first direct hit on music that we've had in this so-called War on Terror or whatever it's called,"
Which can just as easily mean music is just collateral damage.
Your comment is the perfect example of someone being outraged at someone being upset based on something they didn't say. Which is exactly what one of TFAs is complaining about.
At which point we don't have to worry about employment at all. Machines will do everything and I'll be spending my time doing fun stuff that no-one would ever pay me to do.
15 million people are free to do the more interesting, or entirely new, jobs that don't get done currently! This is no different from any change through history. For example, because we don't need an army of agricultural workers harvesting the crops, people can earn a living doing things undreamed of 150 years ago.
Undoubtedly, as with all change, there will be a period while things readjust. It's just up to us to ensure the adjustment is for the better. If we go into this fixed on the negatives, with no idea where to find the positives, then of course it's not going to go well.
I think you vastly over-estimate what was available on VHS in the 1980s.
The point of this as a streamed service is the convenience and immediate access it provides. If you believe these advantages are outweighed by other considerations then you can still buy much of this on DVDs, if you so desire. No one is stopping you.
Slashdot Mirror
So the big idea is to crowd source detection, where people will volunteer to spend their time rooting out videos of a dubious nature?
This sounds like ;
A) an excellent way of getting yourself on a watch list as a consumer of videos of the kind that gets you noticed by the authorities.
B) an excellent excuse if you are a consumer of videos of the kind that gets you noticed by the authorities.
This has to be the stupidest theory ever. It makes no difference to the commercial interests of the industry if the music sold is old or new, as long as the profit margin in selling it is acceptable.
Old music is cheap. There are practically no production costs because it already exists. If the recording industry could sell old music until the end of time they most certainly would, and they'd do it in preference to making new music every time. If enough people want the old music, then they will stack the shelves happily for them to buy it. Deliberately removing that option in order to force them into buying new music, that the industry has a higher cost of producing, makes absolutely no economic sense.
It would probably have been The Daily Mail if it weren't for the face The Daily Mail are a bunch of bootlickers and tend in the opposite direction on this topic.
So it would never have been the Daily Mail, ever, in a million years. Your mention of them is an irrelevant addition for effect, and just another globule of crap in your smear.
For starters, anyone who saw Star Wars once in 1977, and never watched it again until now, is clearly not a big fan of the sci-fi genre in the first place.
Star Wars is hardly genre-defining. It's space-opera. You could be the biggest sci-fi fan in the world and have only see Star Wars once. It really doesn't have the depth that requires multiple viewings.
Yeah. Seriously, if mocking other people's religion is so important to you that you're basing your own wedding on it, then you've really got your priorities screwed up somewhere.
You don't want any religion in your life/wedding/marriage? Then don't have it. It's that easy.
When you say someone has "changed their mind" you are suggesting some sort of thought has gone on to form the basis of an opinion, and then something has happened to alter the situation, and after further thought, their opinion has changed.
Trump just opens his mouth and lets loose with what half baked notion he's just thought of, that he thinks people want to hear. And then the next day he does the same. There is no guarantee of, or even effort towards, consistency.
His only constant is how brilliant and rich you need to know he is.
Gradual changes over several decades don't tend to cause modern economies to collapse.
What's a "modern" economy? One of the present day? If so, how do you know what several decades may do unless you hang around for them to happen?
The trend for the last couple hundred years has been that technology becomes cheaper and available to more people.
And what has this got to do with anything? The price of sneakers are coming down too! So.. um.. what were we talking about again? Oh yes. Something along the lines of "a stitch in time saves nine", which you'd think would be kind of obvious..
it doesn't answer the original question of why the Kiribati resident is owed his chosen lifestyle ahead of an African or Indian or Chinese person who needs energy.
I'm cold. What do you say if I come around and burn your house down? Got a car? I'm sure that would burn nicely. Why are you owed your chosen lifestyle over my need for energy?
What's that you say? There are other ways of me getting energy than burning down your house? Really? It's like you're saying I'm presenting a false dichotomy to make it seem like I have no other option to burning down your house. But it sure seems like the cheapest option to me. What gives you the right to cost me money when your house is right there waiting to burn? Come on, you've had a good run in it and no-one is expecting you to stand there while it burns down around you. You can go live somewhere else and I'm sure future technology will make it easy to build. Quit whining.
Amazing. It's like you imagine the scam tech support criminals would draw the line at ransomware, and the ransomware criminals would find tech support scamming morally beyond the pale. And never the two shall meet!
They're criminals. Is it really such a surprise they will employ any method available to steal money from their victims?
Some of the Gov officials did test it, and I seem to recall that McCormick's excuse for any bad results was always along the lines of operator error, inadequate training and, get this, the operator had to believe the device would work, otherwise it would not work.
It was standard pseudo-science bullshit. If it doesn't work, it's not the fault of the pseudo-science, it's because of those involved giving off bad vibes.
So the detector could detect drugs if they were placed directly in its line of sight where they could be seen. This is not the usual place drugs are hidden.
Far better to detect the drugs' aura , which is an evil kind of muddy purple and extends through solid objects. This is done through some kind of magic that you wouldn't understand if you're not in touch with your inner spirit, wooo, woooo, wooo,
Funding was announced by the Government as part of its national Strategic Defence and Security Review. It wasn't announced by the BBC as part of their Christmas schedule along side Celebrity Bake-Off. So I think it safe to assume that this is not being funded out of the BBC's licence money.
I'm with you on this. Star Wars was always just cowboys in space, making it up as they went along. The fact that its creator felt compelled to keep going back to previous films to try and make it into something deeper and cohesive, and increasingly just made it more of a mess, demonstrated this.
The films are (mostly) fun, but nothing to get over excited about. I'm sure the new one will be fun too, but I'm not expecting it to turn the general train wreck of a plot around.
This article uses way too many exclamation points (I counted 12). Putting exclamation points at the end of every other paragraph doesn't automatically make something interesting and exciting. It just looks like the writer has no confidence in capturing the reader's attention without them!
If only TFA specifically mentioned this and explained why not.
Oh wait, it does. You could indeed have missed something; in this case Reading TFA.
jpg's what?
Who is this jpg, and what do they possess?
Nice to see the "real programmers don't use [insert language here]" troll still has some life in it.
Must be pushing at least 40 by now, and still pulling in the responses.
The restrictions are there for pretty much the same reason you can't drive your 4x4 SUV where you like in national parks. Because there would always be idiots making a mess, racket and annoyance to ruin the whole point of it being a national park.
Had he said that this was an attack on western civilization/values/activities/way-of-life I would agree with him.
Yeah. That kind of observation would have made for a really insightful and original quote. Thanks Bono, you've just said what absolutely everyone else has already said.
Where was he when Charlie Hebdo was attacked?
I've no idea. Maybe no-one was looking for a comment off him at the time, because, as we've already all agreed, it wasn't about him.
What is about him is that he was scheduled to have a gig in Paris directly after a similar gig had ended tragically and violently. So people wanted to know whether he intended going ahead, and what he had to say about it. So he obliged and naturally he's going to address things within a personal context that he has any qualification to speak on. Otherwise he's just repeating what hundreds have said before him.
One wonders what you'd have had to say if he'd said "Don't ask me. I couldn't possibly comment, this has nothing to do with me, or the music industry, and personally, I just can't relate to that."
Except Bono never said that music was being "targeted" or implied it was anything about him.
"This is the first direct hit on music that we've had in this so-called War on Terror or whatever it's called,"
Which can just as easily mean music is just collateral damage.
Your comment is the perfect example of someone being outraged at someone being upset based on something they didn't say. Which is exactly what one of TFAs is complaining about.
At which point we don't have to worry about employment at all. Machines will do everything and I'll be spending my time doing fun stuff that no-one would ever pay me to do.
15 million people are free to do the more interesting, or entirely new, jobs that don't get done currently! This is no different from any change through history. For example, because we don't need an army of agricultural workers harvesting the crops, people can earn a living doing things undreamed of 150 years ago.
Undoubtedly, as with all change, there will be a period while things readjust. It's just up to us to ensure the adjustment is for the better. If we go into this fixed on the negatives, with no idea where to find the positives, then of course it's not going to go well.
What kind of world has it become that "Bond-esque" gets a capital letter, but English and Sino-Russian don't?
What the hell is wrong with people like you?
Because on the internet, everyone is a tough guy and everything is just words.
My motorbike consumes 1 liter of gas per 1 km. My 18 wheeler 40 tonne truck also consumes 1 liter of gas per 1 km.
They therefore produce the same amount of CO2 per km.
Are they equally fuel efficient? Or, bearing in mind that it is a tiny fraction of the weight, is my motorbike not ridiculously inefficient?
I think you vastly over-estimate what was available on VHS in the 1980s.
The point of this as a streamed service is the convenience and immediate access it provides. If you believe these advantages are outweighed by other considerations then you can still buy much of this on DVDs, if you so desire. No one is stopping you.