Point taken. There's no better way to know that you don't have to worry about driving under the influence than not drinking at all.
I don't drink at all, never have. Can't stand the taste of any alcohol, period. Nor have I ever had or felt the desire to try. I just can't comprehend why someone would want to screw themselves up in ways that could be so easily avoided. I live near New Orleans, I see it all the time. Families broken up because of drinking problems, people losing family members because of drunk driving (either themselves or someone else), all the drama caused by "oh, I was drunk, I didn't know what I was doing" bullshit excuses (as if that's a valid excuse anyway), on and on and on...
I've been called a wuss so many times because I don't and/or won't drink. The irony is that it's always from someone who is so weak that they themselves can't get through a night on the town without a few drinks because they can't have fun without it, need it to relax, don't know what to do with their hands otherwise, or just want to fit in. And I'm the wuss...
Here's a novel idea: don't go out to New Orleans and get so fucked up you can't drive safely. That was a hard one. But I guess the potential of killing someone while driving under the influence is justified because "ya gotta get home somehow"?
Isn't "2" the value of 2? Sounds like defining what "is" is. We shall call this.... Clinton arithmetic: where your answers are always correct because you can define the numbers to represent whatever value you want. That's a class I'd like to take!:D
The artists are the ones who get screwed in this- they deserve just compensation for their work and should be given such. When you can't pay the bills with your craft, you change to another craft. How many decent artists does that deny us the pleasure of seeing or hearing?
Cue the whiney bastards who complain that artists should work for the art not the money because being a musician isn't a "real" profession and because they think they know better than you do how you should spend your own time and what you should do with your own creative work.
Once *you* go to the theater, you've paid.... for the theater experience. This does NOT entitle you to be able to watch the movie anytime you want to, only that you have paid for the right to view said movie in a theater at a given time. Try walking back into the theater to see the movie a second time and tell them you've already paid once, why should you pay a second time? They'll kick your ass right out. They won't lose any sleep over it either.
Is it possible that this has more to do with lack of reference experience than physical or mental capacity? We can't imagine what it would look like because we lack the experience of seeing something like that to imagine it effectively. The same way that no one can really visualize what a 4 or more dimension universe would look like because we simply don't have the prior experience of seeing something in 4 dimensions to know what it might look like.
As an interesting new way of distributing music that people will still pay for is http://www.weedshare.com/.
You get to listen to the file a couple times. If you like it, you can pay a small fee for the song to be permanently unlocked and put it onto whatever medium you want it on, burn it to a CD, throw it on your iPod, whatever.
The best part of it is that it encourages people to share the music. Send the weeded file to your friends, they can preview it just like you did. If they like it, they can unlock it by paying a small fee. The catcher is that part of that small fee goes towards the artist directly and another part goes back to the person who referred the weed file to the friend.
This solves a number of issues, such as how to generate marketing for your songs, and lowers the cost in buying your music since by actually purchasing it, you have the potential to make a little bit yourself as well. Seems like win-win pretty much all around.
EQ magazine ran a little column in their current issue that bascially outlines all of this. They included the following links to check out:
It's your right to let the company know that, buy not purchasing or using their product, maybe even to let that company know it in writing.
It is not your right to still use that product without paying for it because it's your opinion that it's not worth it.
IMHO, if it isn't worth it for you to buy it, then you're a giant hypocrite for illegally getting said product and using it anyway. If it's worth it for you to get it and use it, it should be worth it for you to pay for it. That line of reasoning is why I don't agree with the people that say that the *AAs aren't losing sales because they never would have paid for it in the first place. It may be true that some people might not have bought it regardless of the price, but it only takes one case where someone would have bought it if it weren't available for free to render their arguement true.
The cost that goes into making a CD is much farther reaching than the "few cents" it costs to make the CD. You also have to factor in paying the band, buying the instruments, studio time, mixing and engineering, mastering, CD duplication (which isn't as cheap as you'd think, depending on where and how you get it done, check out the prices of www.discmakers.com and other CD dupe houses, and even there, differences in prices are usually indications of different levels of quality of your duplicated CDs, how they are done, different liscensing agreements, etc...), not to mention marketing and PR for the artists on those CDs, artwork for the CD itself and accompanying inserts, etc...
For most record labels and distributers, their business are big because they have to be; it simply costs a lot of money to put out the kind of CDs the way they do it and they way most people expect them.
The alternative (from the musicians' point of view) is to do everything yourself, which is a hell of a lot more than most people want to or have the ability to handle. As technology gets cheaper and easier for people to use, this "project studio" or "bedroom musician" paradigm will get more prevalent, and it is. But they still lack a lot of the "extras" that those big companies are able to throw in, like the really nice CD cases/artwork, Enhanced CD features, putting a band on tour, etc...
The kind of music you listen to may also have something to do with your point of view. I get a vast majority of my music from http://www.progrockrecords.com/, and I'm happy to pay whatever they are asking for their CDs because the music they put out is always great quality, IMHO. You may not be into Prog Rock of course. Electronic music can be similar: a lot of it can be done with nothing more than your PC, maybe a few keyboards and/or softsynths.
My point is that $5 for any given CD may not generate as healthy a profit as you might want to believe, possibly even a huge loss in some cases. In the parent post, he seems to be forgetting that the "everyone else who contributed to that CD" can drive the cost of that CD right up really quickly.
Please excuse any spelling errors because I'm here at work and don't have access to a program with spellcheck, nor do I have time to proof read with dictionary.com. Thanks for taking the time to listen!
You don't 10 seconds to proofread, but you have time to type out this totally unneccesary sentence? o.O
Now we can have houses with glitter finishes to go along with our bass boats. I can hear Foxworthy and the rest of the rednecks drooling at the thought...
"Eight-oh-what?! Who cares man! Look at the finish on that bad boy!"
Heh, I'm not an anything major (before, I was a Comp. Sci and then later a music major in college), but I'm a physics geek. At least in the sense that I enjoy reading Stephen Hawkings, Brian Greene (got the DVD of his NOVA series, really interesting animation examples of concepts like Brane Theory), etc...
Right now I'm reading "Hyperspace" by Michio Kaku. Very interesting in that it talks about some of the non-physics implications of the mastering of space-time such as direction of technology and impact on the future of civilizations. Check it out if you haven't yet.
Since I doubt the GP is going to be going to the moon anytime soon, traveling close to the speed of light, or otherwise warping the curvature of spacetime in a manner sufficient to alter the gravitational attraction between him and the Earth, the only way to lose weight would be to decrease your mass.
So no, it wouldn't be more helpful to lose mass instead of weight because to do one implies you are also doing the other.;)
Slashdot Mirror
Next time, skip WoW in favor of Dance Dance Revolution and you'll solve both your problems.
Am I the only one who thought of Maniac Mansion when reading this?
I don't drink at all, never have. Can't stand the taste of any alcohol, period. Nor have I ever had or felt the desire to try. I just can't comprehend why someone would want to screw themselves up in ways that could be so easily avoided. I live near New Orleans, I see it all the time. Families broken up because of drinking problems, people losing family members because of drunk driving (either themselves or someone else), all the drama caused by "oh, I was drunk, I didn't know what I was doing" bullshit excuses (as if that's a valid excuse anyway), on and on and on...
I've been called a wuss so many times because I don't and/or won't drink. The irony is that it's always from someone who is so weak that they themselves can't get through a night on the town without a few drinks because they can't have fun without it, need it to relax, don't know what to do with their hands otherwise, or just want to fit in. And I'm the wuss...
Here's a novel idea: don't go out to New Orleans and get so fucked up you can't drive safely. That was a hard one. But I guess the potential of killing someone while driving under the influence is justified because "ya gotta get home somehow"?
All this drone-speak is wearing me out, can we all touch base on this next week?
You always get your ass kicked in Starcraft, and you just can't handle that, can you?
And ESPECIALLY pr0n!
Have they ever really been much during the course of human history?
Isn't "2" the value of 2? Sounds like defining what "is" is. We shall call this.... Clinton arithmetic: where your answers are always correct because you can define the numbers to represent whatever value you want. That's a class I'd like to take! :D
In other news, Bill & Co. quietly propose the purchase of all the world's tinfoil manufacturing plants...
Cue the whiney bastards who complain that artists should work for the art not the money because being a musician isn't a "real" profession and because they think they know better than you do how you should spend your own time and what you should do with your own creative work.
Once *you* go to the theater, you've paid.... for the theater experience. This does NOT entitle you to be able to watch the movie anytime you want to, only that you have paid for the right to view said movie in a theater at a given time. Try walking back into the theater to see the movie a second time and tell them you've already paid once, why should you pay a second time? They'll kick your ass right out. They won't lose any sleep over it either.
You could always just delete the bad stuff. ;)
Is it possible that this has more to do with lack of reference experience than physical or mental capacity? We can't imagine what it would look like because we lack the experience of seeing something like that to imagine it effectively. The same way that no one can really visualize what a 4 or more dimension universe would look like because we simply don't have the prior experience of seeing something in 4 dimensions to know what it might look like.
You get to listen to the file a couple times. If you like it, you can pay a small fee for the song to be permanently unlocked and put it onto whatever medium you want it on, burn it to a CD, throw it on your iPod, whatever.
The best part of it is that it encourages people to share the music. Send the weeded file to your friends, they can preview it just like you did. If they like it, they can unlock it by paying a small fee. The catcher is that part of that small fee goes towards the artist directly and another part goes back to the person who referred the weed file to the friend.
This solves a number of issues, such as how to generate marketing for your songs, and lowers the cost in buying your music since by actually purchasing it, you have the potential to make a little bit yourself as well. Seems like win-win pretty much all around.
EQ magazine ran a little column in their current issue that bascially outlines all of this. They included the following links to check out:
Personally, I find the idea intriguing, will be watching to see where it goes, and hope the best for it.
It is not your right to still use that product without paying for it because it's your opinion that it's not worth it.
IMHO, if it isn't worth it for you to buy it, then you're a giant hypocrite for illegally getting said product and using it anyway. If it's worth it for you to get it and use it, it should be worth it for you to pay for it. That line of reasoning is why I don't agree with the people that say that the *AAs aren't losing sales because they never would have paid for it in the first place. It may be true that some people might not have bought it regardless of the price, but it only takes one case where someone would have bought it if it weren't available for free to render their arguement true.
All IMHO of course. YMMV.
For most record labels and distributers, their business are big because they have to be; it simply costs a lot of money to put out the kind of CDs the way they do it and they way most people expect them.
The alternative (from the musicians' point of view) is to do everything yourself, which is a hell of a lot more than most people want to or have the ability to handle. As technology gets cheaper and easier for people to use, this "project studio" or "bedroom musician" paradigm will get more prevalent, and it is. But they still lack a lot of the "extras" that those big companies are able to throw in, like the really nice CD cases/artwork, Enhanced CD features, putting a band on tour, etc...
The kind of music you listen to may also have something to do with your point of view. I get a vast majority of my music from http://www.progrockrecords.com/, and I'm happy to pay whatever they are asking for their CDs because the music they put out is always great quality, IMHO. You may not be into Prog Rock of course. Electronic music can be similar: a lot of it can be done with nothing more than your PC, maybe a few keyboards and/or softsynths.
My point is that $5 for any given CD may not generate as healthy a profit as you might want to believe, possibly even a huge loss in some cases. In the parent post, he seems to be forgetting that the "everyone else who contributed to that CD" can drive the cost of that CD right up really quickly.
By the way, your URL there has an unintended space in it. It didn't work at first. It should be:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=134480&cid=112 31983
And the whole time you're busy fighting those worms, a grue sneaks up behind you and renders it all for naught.
Why would anyone want to build their system's operation around a known vulnerability in the first place? Isn't that just asking for trouble?
You don't 10 seconds to proofread, but you have time to type out this totally unneccesary sentence? o.O
No, but they'll still be able to smell it...
"Eight-oh-what?! Who cares man! Look at the finish on that bad boy!"
Right now I'm reading "Hyperspace" by Michio Kaku. Very interesting in that it talks about some of the non-physics implications of the mastering of space-time such as direction of technology and impact on the future of civilizations. Check it out if you haven't yet.
Email me for more discussion.
So no, it wouldn't be more helpful to lose mass instead of weight because to do one implies you are also doing the other. ;)