Exactly.
Thats why the panic inducing pablum about how we are running out of food, and that we have to use their seeds and their chemicals to have another "green revolution"(even though that has caused our water supplies to be drawn down to dangerous levels, as well as chemical pollutions affecting our entire ecosystem)coming from the mouths of Monsanto and other Chemical-Industrial-Complex nutjobs is absolute bullshit.
End of run on sentence.
A big part of the reason why you don't hear many 10-minute songs on the radio or elsewhere is because it's SIGNIFICANTLY harder to write a piece like that which is satisfying, doesn't get boring, and is also simple enough in structure to remain interesting upon first listening. Similarly you don't hear many songs less the 1-2 minutes long because you don't have enough time to develop anything interesting enough to have a satisfying "narrative journey" for a listener.
There aren't temporary trends -- they're pretty basic to human experience in general which has been consistent for centuries. Has the author of TFA never listened to Broadway songs, let alone historical music? Has he not noticed that the same song lengths and structural patterns tend to occur there, where the constraints of media and radio play are less relevant?
I couldn't agree more about "there aren't temporary trends". Human enjoyment of music is pretty much as you explain it.
However I have to point out that this renewed focus on short songs is strange, being that going back to the beginning of 20th century pop music, songs were regularly 2-3 minutes in length. Take "Michelle" by The Beatles for example. It clocks in at 2:40. Sheer brilliance in less than three minutes. Short songs are nothing new.
On the flip side we have a band like Rush that has consistently created longer songs that "remain interesting" and usually don't adhere to the AABA song structure. For bands like Tool that make this attempt, it usually falls flat.
Donovan had to make a decision when recording "Hurdy Gurdy Man" whether to include all 3 verses he wrote, or 2 verses and a guitar solo, as there wasn't time to have 3 verses plus a solo within 3 minutes. The Byrds had loads of songs where even more verses were cut out to keep them down to a radio-friendly length.
Yes, the radio version and the LP version, may they never meet!
Most on/. don't know that in the 80's there was a movement of making short songs, especially in the punk and hardcore bands.
Short songs are nothing new.
Look at most of the early Beatles catalog. Those were short(and sweet) songs.
The length of a song doesn't dictate it's quality.
Yea,/. had a story about the IRS and SS sites a while back.
Make sure your log in and create an account for the Social Security Administration too.
It really is getting ridiculous how frequent this shit is happening now.
It's almost to the point where people don't even pay attention:
"Oh wow, another big financial institution got hacked... Another fifty million Americans data is in the hands of criminals... What can we do about it?"
The average American is at their wits fucking end trying to keep up with all their accounts, passwords, blah diddy fucking blah shit they have to keep track of. For most of us this isn't an issue, but you can guarantee that for the vast majority of Americans, they are flying blind when it comes to all various requirements for being secure online. Oh, and lest I forget(how could I?) all of these security problems we encounter daily are always for convenience of the user(Trust Us!). Convenient apps/plugins/sites/tools to make your life easier:
"Isn't your life easier with our no security, pro-hacker enabled widget? Why, within a matter of moments of using our widget your personal data, financial data and medical data will be in the hands of our trusty hacker/malware infested servers in DerkaDerkaStan, where our trusty staff of well trained consultants will bleed you dry before you can click the X in the upper right hand corner. Why, to deny such a widget would be an affront to America, to the very meaning of Freedom and Capitalism!"
To be less hyperbolic, think of what it takes to have even a modicum of security online. We've got to have hardened browsers(NoScript, AdBlock, etc), we have to have different id/pw combinations for all important sites(that one really messes with people...), we have to have an account with a credit monitoring/credit agency(Equifax, etc) to monitor our financial accounts, we have to have up to date settings, firmware on our DSL/Cable modems, we have to have our OS security settings correct, AV/AntiMalware, etc, etc, etc
Have fun with all that, average American(it's bad enough for "advanced" users).
A henious enough event can be exploited to the point where you can essentially invalidate an entire constitution and, instead of condemnation, you will hear only cheering.
Moving forward, we all will need to take additional steps to protect ourselves, our identities and our information from a new global wave of cybercrime and cyberespionage.
Second, and most importantly, how long until the US and China "come in from the cold" and enter an actual hot war(with the way events are unfolding in the South China Sea, and this cold war that has been going on for the last 15 years)?
Ever since around 2009-10 my bias has been against those with Gmail accounts.
Like FB, it is another path of least resistance that the tech behemoths have herded Americans into.
My experience in living in places with "bad water"(wells with ultra high mineral content) and visiting people who live in those types of places(Phoenix...) has shown me that people will either buy five gallon plastic jugs of water at the grocery store or get their drinking water delivered somehow from a "reputable source".
Of course there will also be those who invest in high end in-place water filtering systems.
Human behavior dictates that no one with the financial ability will knowingly drink recycled sewage. I see a boom market for water distributors of all flavors.
With that being said I applaud the efforts in So-Cal to be better users of their precious little water.
Let us raise our glass and give a cheer!
Downtown Seattle has prospered over the last couple of decades, and that's partly a side effect of Microsoft and the growth of the dot com era, not a direct result.
Everyone in our modern age of flitting/fleeting/browsing/tweeting knows intuitively how much our attention spans are being ravaged.
This is another one of those "we need empirical data to prove what everyone already knows", like studies on the differences between men and women, how peoples behaviors are affected by wealth, etc;
We can chalk it up in the "no shit sherlock" category.
FTFA:
This is perhaps because there is relatively little research available about the impact of websites like Twitter and Facebook, or games like Candy Crush, that seem to be deliberately aimed at keeping us constantly engaged, to the detriment of work.
What we are creating ladies and gentlemen is a generation of people who will HAVE TO HAVE computers and AI run things for them, because their attention span and critical thinking will be in the toilet.
You are asking the key question.
That is the question that gets ignored, on purpose, the 800 pound gorilla.
Why not just reduce pollution?
Anytime I get into a debate with anyone about "climate change" or how much carbon is getting pumped into the atmosphere, I ALWAYS use the argument of reducing pollution. We know for a fact that air pollution contributes to increased rates of heart disease, of asthma in children, to increasing rates of dementia, the list goes on and on, yet the douchebags continue with this "The Planet is Warming Naturally, Its a Cycle"
Well, with all due respect, there are boatloads of tea party nutjobs on/., so don't feel left out, sir...
He is probably on here for the same reason most of us are, because we assume, people who work in IT have a better grasp of almost any issue, whether it is politics, science, human behavior, etc; A more nuanced and better researched grasp of the issues.
That is why were on/., not because we all want "social justice".
I'm a liberal, yet I detest nothing more than the hardcore politically correct attitudes of many in this country(and on this site). My attitude is more aligned with people like George Carlin(May He Rest In Peace) and Bill Burr.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly.
Thats why the panic inducing pablum about how we are running out of food, and that we have to use their seeds and their chemicals to have another "green revolution"(even though that has caused our water supplies to be drawn down to dangerous levels, as well as chemical pollutions affecting our entire ecosystem)coming from the mouths of Monsanto and other Chemical-Industrial-Complex nutjobs is absolute bullshit.
End of run on sentence.
A big part of the reason why you don't hear many 10-minute songs on the radio or elsewhere is because it's SIGNIFICANTLY harder to write a piece like that which is satisfying, doesn't get boring, and is also simple enough in structure to remain interesting upon first listening. Similarly you don't hear many songs less the 1-2 minutes long because you don't have enough time to develop anything interesting enough to have a satisfying "narrative journey" for a listener.
There aren't temporary trends -- they're pretty basic to human experience in general which has been consistent for centuries. Has the author of TFA never listened to Broadway songs, let alone historical music? Has he not noticed that the same song lengths and structural patterns tend to occur there, where the constraints of media and radio play are less relevant?
I couldn't agree more about "there aren't temporary trends". Human enjoyment of music is pretty much as you explain it.
However I have to point out that this renewed focus on short songs is strange, being that going back to the beginning of 20th century pop music, songs were regularly 2-3 minutes in length. Take "Michelle" by The Beatles for example. It clocks in at 2:40. Sheer brilliance in less than three minutes. Short songs are nothing new.
On the flip side we have a band like Rush that has consistently created longer songs that "remain interesting" and usually don't adhere to the AABA song structure. For bands like Tool that make this attempt, it usually falls flat.
Opeth is pure genius.
They are prog without sounding like they are trying to be prog, which most bands in that genre can't do well.
Donovan had to make a decision when recording "Hurdy Gurdy Man" whether to include all 3 verses he wrote, or 2 verses and a guitar solo, as there wasn't time to have 3 verses plus a solo within 3 minutes. The Byrds had loads of songs where even more verses were cut out to keep them down to a radio-friendly length.
Yes, the radio version and the LP version, may they never meet!
Bingo.
/. don't know that in the 80's there was a movement of making short songs, especially in the punk and hardcore bands.
Most on
Short songs are nothing new.
Look at most of the early Beatles catalog. Those were short(and sweet) songs.
The length of a song doesn't dictate it's quality.
The pedestrian avoidance is a completely separate piece of shit.
FTFY
Yea, /. had a story about the IRS and SS sites a while back.
Make sure your log in and create an account for the Social Security Administration too.
It really is getting ridiculous how frequent this shit is happening now.
It's almost to the point where people don't even pay attention:
"Oh wow, another big financial institution got hacked... Another fifty million Americans data is in the hands of criminals... What can we do about it?"
The average American is at their wits fucking end trying to keep up with all their accounts, passwords, blah diddy fucking blah shit they have to keep track of. For most of us this isn't an issue, but you can guarantee that for the vast majority of Americans, they are flying blind when it comes to all various requirements for being secure online. Oh, and lest I forget(how could I?) all of these security problems we encounter daily are always for convenience of the user(Trust Us!). Convenient apps/plugins/sites/tools to make your life easier:
"Isn't your life easier with our no security, pro-hacker enabled widget? Why, within a matter of moments of using our widget your personal data, financial data and medical data will be in the hands of our trusty hacker/malware infested servers in DerkaDerkaStan, where our trusty staff of well trained consultants will bleed you dry before you can click the X in the upper right hand corner. Why, to deny such a widget would be an affront to America, to the very meaning of Freedom and Capitalism!"
To be less hyperbolic, think of what it takes to have even a modicum of security online. We've got to have hardened browsers(NoScript, AdBlock, etc), we have to have different id/pw combinations for all important sites(that one really messes with people...), we have to have an account with a credit monitoring/credit agency(Equifax, etc) to monitor our financial accounts, we have to have up to date settings, firmware on our DSL/Cable modems, we have to have our OS security settings correct, AV/AntiMalware, etc, etc, etc
Have fun with all that, average American(it's bad enough for "advanced" users).
Recidivism rates for those sentenced to provincial jails is roughly 45% re-offend
Well, we know which group Rickey and Julien fall into.
The penguins have confederate flag bumper stickers on their trucks.
A henious enough event can be exploited to the point where you can essentially invalidate an entire constitution and, instead of condemnation, you will hear only cheering.
9/11 = Patriot Act
Moving forward, we all will need to take additional steps to protect ourselves, our identities and our information from a new global wave of cybercrime and cyberespionage.
Second, and most importantly, how long until the US and China "come in from the cold" and enter an actual hot war(with the way events are unfolding in the South China Sea, and this cold war that has been going on for the last 15 years)?
It truly offends me that a man can't go about his life without being forced to pay for / use foreign commercial service providers.
Hey, I'm American and it disgusts me as much as you.
Ever since around 2009-10 my bias has been against those with Gmail accounts.
Like FB, it is another path of least resistance that the tech behemoths have herded Americans into.
My experience in living in places with "bad water"(wells with ultra high mineral content) and visiting people who live in those types of places(Phoenix...) has shown me that people will either buy five gallon plastic jugs of water at the grocery store or get their drinking water delivered somehow from a "reputable source".
Of course there will also be those who invest in high end in-place water filtering systems.
Human behavior dictates that no one with the financial ability will knowingly drink recycled sewage. I see a boom market for water distributors of all flavors.
With that being said I applaud the efforts in So-Cal to be better users of their precious little water.
Let us raise our glass and give a cheer!
I would like to extend this laurel and hardy handshake
Brilliant!
An iPad, seriosly...?
iPads are media consumption devices, not workplace tools, unless of course FB, NetFlix and YouTube are what you do at work.
I'm planning to retire to Las Vegas long before that happens.
You better hope they drain Lake Powell to fill Mead or you're going to wish you moved to Seattle.
Downtown Seattle has prospered over the last couple of decades, and that's partly a side effect of Microsoft and the growth of the dot com era, not a direct result.
Frasier reruns did the rest.
Sorry, meant subconsciously...
See! It's happening!
This is another one of those "we need empirical data to prove what everyone already knows", like studies on the differences between men and women, how peoples behaviors are affected by wealth, etc;
We can chalk it up in the "no shit sherlock" category.
FTFA:
This is perhaps because there is relatively little research available about the impact of websites like Twitter and Facebook, or games like Candy Crush, that seem to be deliberately aimed at keeping us constantly engaged, to the detriment of work.
I have to don my tinfoil cap now and surmise that in all liklihood, it isn't in the best interest of Google, Facebook, Apple or the rest to point out that yes, using our "products" and living this fast and loose, jittered-stimmed out existence of tweets, posts, statuses, etc isn't in your best interest, even if your best excuse is the usual "but this is how I stay current with my family"
What we are creating ladies and gentlemen is a generation of people who will HAVE TO HAVE computers and AI run things for them, because their attention span and critical thinking will be in the toilet.
Removing my tinfoil cap...
Brilliant!
Mod points!
You are asking the key question.
That is the question that gets ignored, on purpose, the 800 pound gorilla.
Why not just reduce pollution?
Anytime I get into a debate with anyone about "climate change" or how much carbon is getting pumped into the atmosphere, I ALWAYS use the argument of reducing pollution. We know for a fact that air pollution contributes to increased rates of heart disease, of asthma in children, to increasing rates of dementia, the list goes on and on, yet the douchebags continue with this "The Planet is Warming Naturally, Its a Cycle"
F#$k you and your cycle.
San Francisco has a Costco?!?!
Good Lord, how bourgeois...
Well, with all due respect, there are boatloads of tea party nutjobs on /., so don't feel left out, sir...
/., not because we all want "social justice".
He is probably on here for the same reason most of us are, because we assume, people who work in IT have a better grasp of almost any issue, whether it is politics, science, human behavior, etc; A more nuanced and better researched grasp of the issues.
That is why were on
I'm a liberal, yet I detest nothing more than the hardcore politically correct attitudes of many in this country(and on this site).
My attitude is more aligned with people like George Carlin(May He Rest In Peace) and Bill Burr.