While i don't find there is anything wrong with being an athiest, and I'm certainly not compelled to evagilize to you, I do have a problem with athiests who think that everyone who does belive is fooling themselves.
Athiests calling religious people ignorant is no less than bigotry. Your image of Pat Robertson representing fiecly religious people, is no different than a Christian holding bin Laden as the image of Islam.
Pre-conceptions lead to hate regardless of who you're stigmatising.
I went to a Catholic school for 12 years and whenever we talked about major world religions we always grouped them into Abrahamic, and eastern religions. (yes I know African, Native American, and various aboriginal religons don't fit either, but they're generally not considered major world religios)
The point is that there are many similarities between Judiasm, Christianity, and Islam whether we want to admit it or not. Some major similarities are they are fiercly monotheistic, believe in a moral authority, and personal and intervenint God, have a holy book (Bible, Koran, torah,) tied to historical figures, and value the community.
Most eastern religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, Taoism, etc.) tend to be more mystical, tend to either be polythiestic, ornature worshiping, concerned with this world (as opposed to an afterlife,) and tend to be more strongly rooted in oral traditions and either mythical figures (Lao Tse) or so old that the origins are sketchy at best (hinduism). They also tend to not venerate personages.
Now clearly these are sweeping generalizations, and exceptions will abound. However the western religions are much more similar to each other than the eastern religions, and vice versa.
maybe, but so long as you're not gargleing pabst or belching into the breathalyzer your breath would come almost entirely from your lungs.
Now I'm not an expert on this, but i suspect if you actually blow into the breathalyzer any effects from your mouth or stomach would be negligable. Since your esophagas is closed, and given the short resonance time in your mouth, I think its safe to say that not much "noise" would be introduced from GI irregularities.
Thanks but seing how I am not a lawer assigned to the case Im not going to be bothered to do the research. And for the sake of being able to speak about the article I'm going to assume some somet hings based on my world expierience. Would this hold up in a court of law? No. But fortunately I'm not in one...
My point is that the manufacturer can prove not only that it works, but how it works without releasing all of its source code, fabrication plans, research documents, etc.
I partially agree with you, actually it was my impression that if someone blew > legal limit they were required to submit to a blood test.
Since a blood test is the most accurate way to prove BAC I think if these cases in Florida did not have to submit to a blood test then the charges should be droped on that reason. Which should have nothing to do with how a breathalyzer works.
My understanding is that breathalyzers work on the principle that there is an equilibrium between your actual BAC and how much alcohol diffuses through your lungs and is exhaled.
However BAC does not have to do with your bodymass, its a ratio independent of weight. It also does not have to do with how fast you digest alcohol, since after its been digested its no longer alcohol, so your BAC decreases. I don't think a BAC test pretends to tell you how much you've drank. It does tell you how much alcohol is in your blood which is what the legal limit is based on anyway.
If the ratio of alcohol to air in your breath is relatable to the ratio of alchol to blood, (and I presume it is since otherwise this issue would have been brought up along time ago by the ACLU) then a breathalyzer is good for a lot more than proving 'I smell alcohol on your breath'
That I'm aware of, but seing how slash dot isn't a cout of law, and that TFA doesn't give enough information I think that an assumption(s) is the only way we can have a meaningful conversation.
Unless you mean to imply that the article is the only information available on the subject... (which I think is in itself a rather poor assumption)
Ok well the same thing can be said of science in general, that science can't prove anything, it can only test hypotheses. Science can only disprove.
Additionally even if the schemeatics are released how would that help close the loophole. IIRC there are four types of chemistry used to detect EtOH, I don't remember them all, but two of them are fuel cells and IR specrography. All of the kinds of chemisty that can be used are going to have thorough documentation on their validity in peer reviewed journals. The company that manufactures the device probably wants to keep there hardware secret, but its probably impossible to keep the method of detection secret. One trained chemist can break it apart and tell you how it works.
I don't think this breathalyzer is a black box that the police use on faith. (at least I hope not) Assuming that some expert can tell you the method that the devise uses to detect alchol that should be all the pertinent information. Once you knwo the chemesty that should tell if if X wierd drug will set it off.
OK I think we're working under different assumptions, which is fine, so long as we know what they are.
I am assuming that the company who manufactures this has crossed their t's and dotted their i's somewhere. And that the device works, and the validation is avaiable even if the schematics aren't. If thats not true, then I fully agree that if this is not the case then charges should be dropped. You seem to assume that since the detailed specs are not available the company is hiding something.
Either is possible, and we really can't tell which is accurate from TFA.
My point is that you don't need detailed specs to know that the thing works. You need careful studies and verification against a standard. I agree that a DUI prosecution should not succeed on a technicality, but assuming this is a well engineered device, and there are no false negatives then I don't see a problem.
This is probably not a terribly complicated piece of equipment to build once you've figured it out the first time. The company probably doesn't want to open itself up to competition, which in itself is not a bad thing.
If this breathalyzer has been properly evaluated then you don't need internal specs. You can point to the thousands of times this device has (hopefully) been compared to a standard, and say not only has it never been wrong, its been properly valiudated, and recently calibrated. And here is that data.
Infact, there is probably someone on the force who can reverse-engineer it, and at least tell the jury/defendent the principle that it operated on if they really need to know. The defense can then read all the scholarly research on the fuel cell, IR spectrography, or whatever method the manufacturer has choosen to detect EtOH. I guarentee its not something novel.
Either way whoever lobbied thought this was a good contract should probably lose their job for not doing their homework... I can only hope its one of Jeb's cousins
I'm sure the manufacturer of the device would be happy to supply case studies where the BAC measured with its device is in close agreement with a standard blood based BAC test.
You can know that it works if its reproducable and calibrated.
now if the manufacturer doesnt even have case studies, then I'd say yes we have a serious problem and all the cases should be thrown out.
It seems to me you don't have to know how it works, you just have to know that it works. In which case case studies (which the manufacturer would be happy to produce) and calibration logs (which the police should have) should suffice.
Also a DUI is not like a speeding ticket where getting out of it earns you an atta boy. A DUI should not slip on a technicality.
So wait slashdot isn't the place for arm chair engineering? I guess I need to find a different site...
Look point taken I acknowledge that this set up is definitely simpler and probably safer, excuse me for wanting to discuss something.
"calling out my ass?" maybe you ment talking out my ass, which I'm not. I fully acknowledge that I don't know everything there is to know about electric motors, but I do have a working knowledge of mechanics.
Hey I saw that there could be a problem if a motor siezed and hung my hat on it. If I'm off base, I'm not afraid to admit it.
But I still don't have a clear picture of how this revolutionary motor works, and neither do you. I think that there is more to it than the motor that powers your coffee grinder, where as you think all electrical motors are the same.
Hey I have a problem hanging the driving mechanism from the wheel and not having it (more or less) enclosed in an engine compartment.
At least I'm willing to discuss my ideas, defend and explain them, and not resort to ad hominem attacks.
Hey but if the internet isn't anonymous enough already theres always that post as AC button.
So unless you have something to add to the conversation STFU.
Your meaningless post serves no purpose. Everyone knows the internet is full of jackasses, and at no point would I post something if I didn't expect some kind of troll, so you didn't even hurt my feelings.
Doesn't sound anything like a stepper motor to me. And IIRC stepper motors are very bad at speed, the momentum tends to make them skip steps and then seize, and they are jerky at slow speeds. Additionally from your link stepper motors contain permentent magnents whereas from the article
The motor is revolutionary in that it contains no bulky permanent magnets
But hey IAMAEE (electrical engineer) and it is very possible that I am very wrong.
Ok maybe not as bad as having the front U joint fail, but if thats things about to go you can feel it every time you apply any torque (speaking from experience).
Probably worse than a tire blow out, in fact one locked tire at highway speed could quickly come accompanied by a blow out.
Electric clutch could be workable, and probably advisable if these motors have any propensity to seize, but you are still adding another level of complexity to the system. If the clutch decides to let go, say on the rear inside tire during a turn more bad things could happen.
Unrelated, but I wonder how they plan to control the fact that differnt wheels need to move at different speeds during a turn. With 4 directly powered wheels there is no differential.
Some how I doubt that an electric motor conected directly to an auto wheel would be kept clean.
I am also unclear on wheter its one moving seven phased rotor, or 7 phased moving rotors...
Instead it relies on transmitting electric pulses across up to seven rotors, arranged in different phases. These are "fired up" in turn, much like the pistons of an internal combustion engine.
Not sure exactly what that means, it might just be an engineer confusinfusing a journalist, but that journalist passed his confusion along to me. But it sounds complicated.
You might be right, and it might be safer, I just see bad things happening if one of these motors siezes locking one wheel.
Ok i only skimmed TFA, and mussed have missed the direct drive thing, but the fact remains that I would rather have one potential critical failure than 4 potential critical failures. And while the electric motor with a permanent magnet in your shaver may be more reliable than an IC engine I'm not sure the same can be said about this particular engine. 7 phased rotors sounds pretty complicated to me, and I bet you need a pretty acurrate voltage (?) controller at 2500 rpm...
They give you the card openly, but do you know what they collect? I don't, but I know that they keep track of how much milk I buy (every 6th gallon free) and how much I spend around thanksgiving (so I can get the free bird).
The club card is sketchy data collection if I've ever seen it. All your purchases could be cataloged along with your name address and phone number.
I used to give fake numbers out for things like this, but then they got wise and decided they needed to mail the card to my house, and i can conveniently enter my phone number if I've forgotten my card...
I wonder how closely they document my tin foil purchasing habits...
Saying the oil will run out is a bit of a misnomer. Yes it is a finite resource, which means potentially we can exhaust it, but ultimately whats going to happen is that it is going require entirely too much energy to get it out in any kind of way thats economically feasable.
A little semantic yes, but with all the crap flying around the media about oil shortages and what not I think it helps to be as accurate as possible.
Oil works on a supply demand curve just like anything else. The best estimates are that we've used a little more than half the available oil. This means that from now on its only going to get harder to get more oil, while the demand isn't decreaseing.
The consequence of this is that recently (some time in the last 5 yrs) we've moved from a buyers market to a sellers market. And you better believe the oil companies know this. So while its true that they know that they can't make money on oil forever, its not true that they're in immediate danger. They're going to make loads more money before it becomes ecnomically difficult to retrieve and sell oil. Especially with China and India, and your uncles suburban to increase demand even further.
Not to mention that you need 4 engines to rival a farrari, which means 4 transmitions, which means 4 (or is it 16?) times as many things can go wrong. What happens when this thing gets a little rub at 150 mph, or slides on to the road skirt, and one of the 7 phased rotors gets banged out of place and the motor driving the front left wheel siezes, while the other three continue cranking at 150. (hint it wont be pretty) Good think for the kevlar tub though...
It was a joke I don't think Sno was a serious rapper. As for the Beasties, I don't really think they fit in the rap genre, I think their influence extends further in the rock world. As to why this is I don't know, but hey just my opinion...
Alright my rap argument might be a bit off, and extremely simplified, granted. It was off the cuff, and your I'm in my early 20's so I am going with what I recall. I know there were earlier rappers, run DMC not least of all, but the point I was trying to make was that $$$ is bad for art. I think Vanilla Ice and Marky Mark saw the commercial success of earlier rappers and saw a market. Now I dont' think it was as contrived as all that. But I doubt Vanilla would have felt drawn to it if it was still a bunch of under appreciated kids from LA.
Now while I didn't mean to imply a racial link as one poster pointed out, eminem is the first serious white rapper I can think of (unless you count Sno.) Its just so easy to laugh at the goofy white kids (myself not excluded)... And while I think he legitametly is driven to produce for the sake of the music I think the quality has gone down as his bank account has soared.
IMHO, and I'm not that into the genre, rap hit its golden age w/ Tupac, Biggie, Snoop, and Dre. Those guys made some serious cash, now those that came before them might have had some success, but it was orders of magnitude different. Those that saw the success of gansta rap were undoubtably influenced by the money.
It was post gansta rap that we started hearing about benzes, then bentlies, then yahts, planes, and anything that was bigger and better.
Now hopefully this is just part of the ebb and flow of the genre and it really isn't all downhill from here.
The way I see it there are three types of music artists who are affected differently from record sales. Basicaly there are two revnue streams for an artist, concerts and albums.
The first type of artist makes almost no money, plays small clubs, and maybe has an indie record out. This type of band wants his music to be copied and distributed as much as is humanly possible. Since these bands at best break even, and likely take a loss on recording sessions to make CDs they need the word to spread. When enough people have heard of them in your town they make a couple of bucks playing at the bar on the corner.
The second type of band has a major record deal. They are seing revenue from their album sales and they like it. They think that piracy is bad because their label tells them so. They make most of their money from touring, plus they're living the rock and roll lifestyle (or hip-hop, or whatever) so they really don't care about piracy, so long as people pay to see them in concert.
The third type of band is too popular for their own damn good. They make loads of money from albums and sell out stadiums. They might actually stand to make more money if piracry was made impossible. But can you really feel bad for bands like U2 and Metallica who supposedly are doing it because they love the music, but then bitch about not getting whats theirs?
The moral of the story is the only person who piracy is hurting is the label itself. They see declining sales and have to attribute it to something. Of course their ability to recognise, recruit, and foster talent hasn't waned, so it must be the evil internet.
Look at the the state of rap. When it started with Snoop and NWA back in the day it was edgy and said something about the artists culture. I don't know how it got mainstream exactly, but once it was there we got Vanilla Ice and Marky Mark. Well fortunately that died out quickly, but now that rap is fully main stream we have Ludacris rapping about the Number One Spot, Eminem and his Balls and Every rapper and their cousin talking about Krystal, Bentleys, and rims. No one can honesly say that rap has gotten better with increasing comercialism.
The solution? Get clear chanel radio dismantled under some kind of anti trust lawsuit or something. Allow independent radio stations to take back some ground. Get said local radio stations to not play shitty music (*cough* Ashlee Simpson).
So the summary is that corporate radio (MTV included), and bloated record labels are killing music as an artform. And pircay is biting the greedy bastards in the ass. People will always pay to see a concert. People won't always pay for shitty CDs.
Slashdot Mirror
While i don't find there is anything wrong with being an athiest, and I'm certainly not compelled to evagilize to you, I do have a problem with athiests who think that everyone who does belive is fooling themselves.
Athiests calling religious people ignorant is no less than bigotry. Your image of Pat Robertson representing fiecly religious people, is no different than a Christian holding bin Laden as the image of Islam.
Pre-conceptions lead to hate regardless of who you're stigmatising.
I went to a Catholic school for 12 years and whenever we talked about major world religions we always grouped them into Abrahamic, and eastern religions. (yes I know African, Native American, and various aboriginal religons don't fit either, but they're generally not considered major world religios)
The point is that there are many similarities between Judiasm, Christianity, and Islam whether we want to admit it or not. Some major similarities are they are fiercly monotheistic, believe in a moral authority, and personal and intervenint God, have a holy book (Bible, Koran, torah,) tied to historical figures, and value the community.
Most eastern religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, Taoism, etc.) tend to be more mystical, tend to either be polythiestic, ornature worshiping, concerned with this world (as opposed to an afterlife,) and tend to be more strongly rooted in oral traditions and either mythical figures (Lao Tse) or so old that the origins are sketchy at best (hinduism). They also tend to not venerate personages.
Now clearly these are sweeping generalizations, and exceptions will abound. However the western religions are much more similar to each other than the eastern religions, and vice versa.
maybe, but so long as you're not gargleing pabst or belching into the breathalyzer your breath would come almost entirely from your lungs.
Now I'm not an expert on this, but i suspect if you actually blow into the breathalyzer any effects from your mouth or stomach would be negligable. Since your esophagas is closed, and given the short resonance time in your mouth, I think its safe to say that not much "noise" would be introduced from GI irregularities.
Thanks but seing how I am not a lawer assigned to the case Im not going to be bothered to do the research. And for the sake of being able to speak about the article I'm going to assume some somet hings based on my world expierience. Would this hold up in a court of law? No. But fortunately I'm not in one...
My point is that the manufacturer can prove not only that it works, but how it works without releasing all of its source code, fabrication plans, research documents, etc.
I partially agree with you, actually it was my impression that if someone blew > legal limit they were required to submit to a blood test.
Since a blood test is the most accurate way to prove BAC I think if these cases in Florida did not have to submit to a blood test then the charges should be droped on that reason. Which should have nothing to do with how a breathalyzer works.
My understanding is that breathalyzers work on the principle that there is an equilibrium between your actual BAC and how much alcohol diffuses through your lungs and is exhaled.
However BAC does not have to do with your bodymass, its a ratio independent of weight. It also does not have to do with how fast you digest alcohol, since after its been digested its no longer alcohol, so your BAC decreases. I don't think a BAC test pretends to tell you how much you've drank. It does tell you how much alcohol is in your blood which is what the legal limit is based on anyway.
If the ratio of alcohol to air in your breath is relatable to the ratio of alchol to blood, (and I presume it is since otherwise this issue would have been brought up along time ago by the ACLU) then a breathalyzer is good for a lot more than proving 'I smell alcohol on your breath'
That I'm aware of, but seing how slash dot isn't a cout of law, and that TFA doesn't give enough information I think that an assumption(s) is the only way we can have a meaningful conversation.
Unless you mean to imply that the article is the only information available on the subject... (which I think is in itself a rather poor assumption)
Ok well the same thing can be said of science in general, that science can't prove anything, it can only test hypotheses. Science can only disprove.
Additionally even if the schemeatics are released how would that help close the loophole. IIRC there are four types of chemistry used to detect EtOH, I don't remember them all, but two of them are fuel cells and IR specrography. All of the kinds of chemisty that can be used are going to have thorough documentation on their validity in peer reviewed journals. The company that manufactures the device probably wants to keep there hardware secret, but its probably impossible to keep the method of detection secret. One trained chemist can break it apart and tell you how it works.
I don't think this breathalyzer is a black box that the police use on faith. (at least I hope not) Assuming that some expert can tell you the method that the devise uses to detect alchol that should be all the pertinent information. Once you knwo the chemesty that should tell if if X wierd drug will set it off.
OK I think we're working under different assumptions, which is fine, so long as we know what they are.
I am assuming that the company who manufactures this has crossed their t's and dotted their i's somewhere. And that the device works, and the validation is avaiable even if the schematics aren't. If thats not true, then I fully agree that if this is not the case then charges should be dropped. You seem to assume that since the detailed specs are not available the company is hiding something.
Either is possible, and we really can't tell which is accurate from TFA.
My point is that you don't need detailed specs to know that the thing works. You need careful studies and verification against a standard. I agree that a DUI prosecution should not succeed on a technicality, but assuming this is a well engineered device, and there are no false negatives then I don't see a problem.
This is probably not a terribly complicated piece of equipment to build once you've figured it out the first time. The company probably doesn't want to open itself up to competition, which in itself is not a bad thing.
If this breathalyzer has been properly evaluated then you don't need internal specs. You can point to the thousands of times this device has (hopefully) been compared to a standard, and say not only has it never been wrong, its been properly valiudated, and recently calibrated. And here is that data.
Infact, there is probably someone on the force who can reverse-engineer it, and at least tell the jury/defendent the principle that it operated on if they really need to know. The defense can then read all the scholarly research on the fuel cell, IR spectrography, or whatever method the manufacturer has choosen to detect EtOH. I guarentee its not something novel.
Either way whoever lobbied thought this was a good contract should probably lose their job for not doing their homework... I can only hope its one of Jeb's cousins
I'm sure the manufacturer of the device would be happy to supply case studies where the BAC measured with its device is in close agreement with a standard blood based BAC test.
You can know that it works if its reproducable and calibrated.
now if the manufacturer doesnt even have case studies, then I'd say yes we have a serious problem and all the cases should be thrown out.
It seems to me you don't have to know how it works, you just have to know that it works. In which case case studies (which the manufacturer would be happy to produce) and calibration logs (which the police should have) should suffice.
Also a DUI is not like a speeding ticket where getting out of it earns you an atta boy. A DUI should not slip on a technicality.
I'm curious why would they call a part that doesn't rotate a rotor?
not being a smart ass, I genuinly want to know.
So wait slashdot isn't the place for arm chair engineering? I guess I need to find a different site...
Look point taken I acknowledge that this set up is definitely simpler and probably safer, excuse me for wanting to discuss something.
Could it be because in all industries there is either a power line available, or a generator (IC engine) supplying the power?
"calling out my ass?" maybe you ment talking out my ass, which I'm not. I fully acknowledge that I don't know everything there is to know about electric motors, but I do have a working knowledge of mechanics.
Hey I saw that there could be a problem if a motor siezed and hung my hat on it. If I'm off base, I'm not afraid to admit it.
But I still don't have a clear picture of how this revolutionary motor works, and neither do you. I think that there is more to it than the motor that powers your coffee grinder, where as you think all electrical motors are the same.
Hey I have a problem hanging the driving mechanism from the wheel and not having it (more or less) enclosed in an engine compartment.
At least I'm willing to discuss my ideas, defend and explain them, and not resort to ad hominem attacks.
Hey but if the internet isn't anonymous enough already theres always that post as AC button.
So unless you have something to add to the conversation STFU.
Your meaningless post serves no purpose. Everyone knows the internet is full of jackasses, and at no point would I post something if I didn't expect some kind of troll, so you didn't even hurt my feelings.
But hey IAMAEE (electrical engineer) and it is very possible that I am very wrong.
Ok maybe not as bad as having the front U joint fail, but if thats things about to go you can feel it every time you apply any torque (speaking from experience).
Probably worse than a tire blow out, in fact one locked tire at highway speed could quickly come accompanied by a blow out.
Electric clutch could be workable, and probably advisable if these motors have any propensity to seize, but you are still adding another level of complexity to the system. If the clutch decides to let go, say on the rear inside tire during a turn more bad things could happen.
Unrelated, but I wonder how they plan to control the fact that differnt wheels need to move at different speeds during a turn. With 4 directly powered wheels there is no differential.
I am also unclear on wheter its one moving seven phased rotor, or 7 phased moving rotors... Not sure exactly what that means, it might just be an engineer confusinfusing a journalist, but that journalist passed his confusion along to me. But it sounds complicated.
You might be right, and it might be safer, I just see bad things happening if one of these motors siezes locking one wheel.
I dunno, it depends on how it fails, I can see the thing locking, which would then lock one of your tires, which would be very bad...
Ok i only skimmed TFA, and mussed have missed the direct drive thing, but the fact remains that I would rather have one potential critical failure than 4 potential critical failures. And while the electric motor with a permanent magnet in your shaver may be more reliable than an IC engine I'm not sure the same can be said about this particular engine. 7 phased rotors sounds pretty complicated to me, and I bet you need a pretty acurrate voltage (?) controller at 2500 rpm...
They give you the card openly, but do you know what they collect? I don't, but I know that they keep track of how much milk I buy (every 6th gallon free) and how much I spend around thanksgiving (so I can get the free bird).
The club card is sketchy data collection if I've ever seen it. All your purchases could be cataloged along with your name address and phone number.
I used to give fake numbers out for things like this, but then they got wise and decided they needed to mail the card to my house, and i can conveniently enter my phone number if I've forgotten my card...
I wonder how closely they document my tin foil purchasing habits...
Saying the oil will run out is a bit of a misnomer. Yes it is a finite resource, which means potentially we can exhaust it, but ultimately whats going to happen is that it is going require entirely too much energy to get it out in any kind of way thats economically feasable.
A little semantic yes, but with all the crap flying around the media about oil shortages and what not I think it helps to be as accurate as possible.
Oil works on a supply demand curve just like anything else. The best estimates are that we've used a little more than half the available oil. This means that from now on its only going to get harder to get more oil, while the demand isn't decreaseing.
The consequence of this is that recently (some time in the last 5 yrs) we've moved from a buyers market to a sellers market. And you better believe the oil companies know this. So while its true that they know that they can't make money on oil forever, its not true that they're in immediate danger. They're going to make loads more money before it becomes ecnomically difficult to retrieve and sell oil. Especially with China and India, and your uncles suburban to increase demand even further.
Not to mention that you need 4 engines to rival a farrari, which means 4 transmitions, which means 4 (or is it 16?) times as many things can go wrong. What happens when this thing gets a little rub at 150 mph, or slides on to the road skirt, and one of the 7 phased rotors gets banged out of place and the motor driving the front left wheel siezes, while the other three continue cranking at 150. (hint it wont be pretty) Good think for the kevlar tub though...
It was a joke I don't think Sno was a serious rapper. As for the Beasties, I don't really think they fit in the rap genre, I think their influence extends further in the rock world. As to why this is I don't know, but hey just my opinion...
Alright my rap argument might be a bit off, and extremely simplified, granted. It was off the cuff, and your I'm in my early 20's so I am going with what I recall. I know there were earlier rappers, run DMC not least of all, but the point I was trying to make was that $$$ is bad for art. I think Vanilla Ice and Marky Mark saw the commercial success of earlier rappers and saw a market. Now I dont' think it was as contrived as all that. But I doubt Vanilla would have felt drawn to it if it was still a bunch of under appreciated kids from LA.
Now while I didn't mean to imply a racial link as one poster pointed out, eminem is the first serious white rapper I can think of (unless you count Sno.) Its just so easy to laugh at the goofy white kids (myself not excluded)... And while I think he legitametly is driven to produce for the sake of the music I think the quality has gone down as his bank account has soared.
IMHO, and I'm not that into the genre, rap hit its golden age w/ Tupac, Biggie, Snoop, and Dre. Those guys made some serious cash, now those that came before them might have had some success, but it was orders of magnitude different. Those that saw the success of gansta rap were undoubtably influenced by the money.
It was post gansta rap that we started hearing about benzes, then bentlies, then yahts, planes, and anything that was bigger and better.
Now hopefully this is just part of the ebb and flow of the genre and it really isn't all downhill from here.
The way I see it there are three types of music artists who are affected differently from record sales. Basicaly there are two revnue streams for an artist, concerts and albums.
The first type of artist makes almost no money, plays small clubs, and maybe has an indie record out. This type of band wants his music to be copied and distributed as much as is humanly possible. Since these bands at best break even, and likely take a loss on recording sessions to make CDs they need the word to spread. When enough people have heard of them in your town they make a couple of bucks playing at the bar on the corner.
The second type of band has a major record deal. They are seing revenue from their album sales and they like it. They think that piracy is bad because their label tells them so. They make most of their money from touring, plus they're living the rock and roll lifestyle (or hip-hop, or whatever) so they really don't care about piracy, so long as people pay to see them in concert.
The third type of band is too popular for their own damn good. They make loads of money from albums and sell out stadiums. They might actually stand to make more money if piracry was made impossible. But can you really feel bad for bands like U2 and Metallica who supposedly are doing it because they love the music, but then bitch about not getting whats theirs?
The moral of the story is the only person who piracy is hurting is the label itself. They see declining sales and have to attribute it to something. Of course their ability to recognise, recruit, and foster talent hasn't waned, so it must be the evil internet.
Look at the the state of rap. When it started with Snoop and NWA back in the day it was edgy and said something about the artists culture. I don't know how it got mainstream exactly, but once it was there we got Vanilla Ice and Marky Mark. Well fortunately that died out quickly, but now that rap is fully main stream we have Ludacris rapping about the Number One Spot, Eminem and his Balls and Every rapper and their cousin talking about Krystal, Bentleys, and rims. No one can honesly say that rap has gotten better with increasing comercialism.
The solution? Get clear chanel radio dismantled under some kind of anti trust lawsuit or something. Allow independent radio stations to take back some ground. Get said local radio stations to not play shitty music (*cough* Ashlee Simpson).
So the summary is that corporate radio (MTV included), and bloated record labels are killing music as an artform. And pircay is biting the greedy bastards in the ass. People will always pay to see a concert. People won't always pay for shitty CDs.