Or more likely, when they were young, and didn't know anything about marketing, something which is difficult and generally requires a college education to do. I guess THOSE should be the guys who starve, eh?
Go to youtube and find a sampling of, say, 100 videos with 1.5 million views. Tell me how many of those guys deserve to be able to feed their families based on those videos, and those videos alone.
I know in my heart of hearts that human beings will always poop, making and listening to the sound of poop falling into toilets. When we stop, I'm sure that will be very near the defining moment at which we will no longer be considered human. The only thing is that no-one wants to pay to hear you poop, unless you are REALLY good at it.
I have paid 5-15 times that to drive to another city to see a cellist play. You know, as part of an orchestra. You know, people who make money by performing live shows and maybe sell a few albums every so often for coffee money.
I have also paid $20-30 to see local performances that included musical accompaniment. Lots of people there too.
Why do people seem to think that the word "artist" entitles you to a life of leisure?
That's great, except that the vast majority of bands that ever went anywhere were signed to labels, and as a result got something ridiculous, like a fraction of a penny per album sold. That was NEVER the main income stream of ANY artist. It was and is the merchandise and live shows (NOT in a fucking bar, retards) that made them their money.
They think that streaming services take in hundreds of thousands of dollars per listen, and are paying the poor, starving artists peanuts because they are just big ol' meanies.
I heard a band at a bar, therefore bars are the only place that bands play. The band at the bar didn't have any merchandise for sale, therefore no band has merchandise for sale.
Surely bands that play at bars aren't just tiny part time projects by people who have other jobs. Surely all musicians work full time. Surely my liberal sensibilities should be applied to create a minimum music wage so musicians can "survive".
Note that that is the revenue from the average APP, not the average APP WRITER, which could be more or less, depending on the number of people involved in the writing, and the number they put out.
Uhh, not all musicians are successful. If they have only garnered enough attention to be playing small venues, then A, they probably aren't going to be TOURING so much as playing local gigs, and B. they aren't successful by any metric.
Artists don't stream music for royalties, they stream them for ADVERTISEMENT. Anyone who so much as knew someone in a high school band should know this.
I bet you had to work hard to get to that position. Perhaps you are part owner of the company that put it out? How would you feel if every Tom, Dick, and Harry got the same treatment for their shitty code?
This is the difference between signing to a label, and owning your own label (generally having started it yourself, with all the hard work that entails).
This isn't where artists make their money, any more than painters make money off of ticket sales at museums or art shows. They make money off of live performances. This is the way it has been since forever.
Pretty sure most artists never made anything from albums or radio. Almost all of the album money always went to the labels, and there never was much radio money, as the radio is seen more as an advertisement. The artist made money, then as now, on LIVE SHOWS. What has changed? Well, now it isn't an evil label stealing all their hard earned money with evil contracts, but it is evil streaming services paying them more than they ever got paid in the old system.
They fund themselves by producing goods and raw materials for consumption IN SPACE. After that, it isn't too hard to drop ship (lol) minerals into Earth's gravity well. It's just that they might not want to, because the Earth can provide only fairly limited goods in return due to the cost of fuel.
A better trade network can be supported by thorium power spacecraft or a network of space elevators, but even without that, there would still be at least some trade in precision machine parts and such.
Mining was perfectly profitable in the New World/Australia, but would never have worked without the settlers being able to sustain themselves.
They are more environmentally friendly PER CAPITA. Not per land area or whatever you are thinking. Urbanites use much less energy than those in rural or suburban areas. THey use public transit. They share walls with other people, cutting down on heating and cooling. They have more centralized goods delivery mechanisms (ie they get more goods by rail and sea).
Also, the population is projected to grow to that number because of DEMOGRAPHICS (ie declining birth rates as the world modernizes), not because of some "fundamental carrying capacity".
Malthus was an idiot, and his followers have always been wrong on every single prediction they have ever made. Stop following him.
Eh? NASA shows the Pacific is cooling, while most of the rest of the planet is warming. The only reason there is any effect there is because of rising water levels. Well, that and the planet-destroying ocean acidification that is going on that no-one seems to care much about because they are caught up on the red herring of AGW or not AGW.
I have not heard of a single case where someone took the biosphere of earth in 1960, let it run for 53 years, and arrived at the known biosphere of Earth. Well, other than the one.
Please note that your metaphor is utter rubbish, and you have demonstrated your intent to be disingenuous by posting it.
Gathering data, crunching it down, and comparing with hypotheses is not science. Science requires some measure of control over variables. Now one CAN find opportunities where the universe has set up experiments FOR US, and we can observe the results of those experiments. That IS science, as it is at least in theory repeatable.
You can gather all the numbers in the world, but it won't necessarily tell you anything, especially when you have thousands of variables and none can be controlled for.
Ad hominem. His stance on other subjects is not related to the current argument.
And yes, experimental science IS IN FACT all science. Sorry, but you can't just run around calling whatever you do "science" while not doing any actual experimentation. Climate science is more like economics. Ironic that THAT field has also been subverted to serve the politically connected as well.
But you forget that +4 to +6 degrees turns the vast tundra of Siberia and Canada into the world's most fertile farmland. I wouldn't be surprised if agricultural output would double or triple under such a scenario. Of course, the tropics would be uninhabitable. But hey, it's fun to play pretend.
Slashdot Mirror
Or more likely, when they were young, and didn't know anything about marketing, something which is difficult and generally requires a college education to do. I guess THOSE should be the guys who starve, eh?
Is that like a reverse economy of scale or something?
Go to youtube and find a sampling of, say, 100 videos with 1.5 million views. Tell me how many of those guys deserve to be able to feed their families based on those videos, and those videos alone.
I know in my heart of hearts that human beings will always poop, making and listening to the sound of poop falling into toilets. When we stop, I'm sure that will be very near the defining moment at which we will no longer be considered human. The only thing is that no-one wants to pay to hear you poop, unless you are REALLY good at it.
Yes, and he thinks that is too high. He noted that that it was half a penny in the first sentence of his second paragraph.
Let me guess, you are an unsuccessful musician. Further guess, you have no other skills.
I have paid 5-15 times that to drive to another city to see a cellist play. You know, as part of an orchestra. You know, people who make money by performing live shows and maybe sell a few albums every so often for coffee money.
I have also paid $20-30 to see local performances that included musical accompaniment. Lots of people there too.
Why do people seem to think that the word "artist" entitles you to a life of leisure?
That's great, except that the vast majority of bands that ever went anywhere were signed to labels, and as a result got something ridiculous, like a fraction of a penny per album sold. That was NEVER the main income stream of ANY artist. It was and is the merchandise and live shows (NOT in a fucking bar, retards) that made them their money.
"They'd go to a record store and buy a copy"
And buy merchandise, and go to their shows. You know, the actual income streams for bands that were signed to labels.
They think that streaming services take in hundreds of thousands of dollars per listen, and are paying the poor, starving artists peanuts because they are just big ol' meanies.
I heard a band at a bar, therefore bars are the only place that bands play. The band at the bar didn't have any merchandise for sale, therefore no band has merchandise for sale.
Surely bands that play at bars aren't just tiny part time projects by people who have other jobs. Surely all musicians work full time. Surely my liberal sensibilities should be applied to create a minimum music wage so musicians can "survive".
FFS.
Note that that is the revenue from the average APP, not the average APP WRITER, which could be more or less, depending on the number of people involved in the writing, and the number they put out.
Uhh, not all musicians are successful. If they have only garnered enough attention to be playing small venues, then A, they probably aren't going to be TOURING so much as playing local gigs, and B. they aren't successful by any metric.
Artists don't stream music for royalties, they stream them for ADVERTISEMENT. Anyone who so much as knew someone in a high school band should know this.
I bet you had to work hard to get to that position. Perhaps you are part owner of the company that put it out? How would you feel if every Tom, Dick, and Harry got the same treatment for their shitty code?
This is the difference between signing to a label, and owning your own label (generally having started it yourself, with all the hard work that entails).
This isn't where artists make their money, any more than painters make money off of ticket sales at museums or art shows. They make money off of live performances. This is the way it has been since forever.
Pretty sure most artists never made anything from albums or radio. Almost all of the album money always went to the labels, and there never was much radio money, as the radio is seen more as an advertisement. The artist made money, then as now, on LIVE SHOWS. What has changed? Well, now it isn't an evil label stealing all their hard earned money with evil contracts, but it is evil streaming services paying them more than they ever got paid in the old system.
Look at how many satellites we have in orbit now. There is an extraordinary amount of demand already.
They fund themselves by producing goods and raw materials for consumption IN SPACE. After that, it isn't too hard to drop ship (lol) minerals into Earth's gravity well. It's just that they might not want to, because the Earth can provide only fairly limited goods in return due to the cost of fuel.
A better trade network can be supported by thorium power spacecraft or a network of space elevators, but even without that, there would still be at least some trade in precision machine parts and such.
Mining was perfectly profitable in the New World/Australia, but would never have worked without the settlers being able to sustain themselves.
Man, what CAN'T that guy invent? Awesome vacuum cleaners, crazy fans, terminators, and giant machines powered by stars.
They are more environmentally friendly PER CAPITA. Not per land area or whatever you are thinking. Urbanites use much less energy than those in rural or suburban areas. THey use public transit. They share walls with other people, cutting down on heating and cooling. They have more centralized goods delivery mechanisms (ie they get more goods by rail and sea).
Also, the population is projected to grow to that number because of DEMOGRAPHICS (ie declining birth rates as the world modernizes), not because of some "fundamental carrying capacity".
Malthus was an idiot, and his followers have always been wrong on every single prediction they have ever made. Stop following him.
Eh? NASA shows the Pacific is cooling, while most of the rest of the planet is warming. The only reason there is any effect there is because of rising water levels. Well, that and the planet-destroying ocean acidification that is going on that no-one seems to care much about because they are caught up on the red herring of AGW or not AGW.
I have not heard of a single case where someone took the biosphere of earth in 1960, let it run for 53 years, and arrived at the known biosphere of Earth. Well, other than the one.
Please note that your metaphor is utter rubbish, and you have demonstrated your intent to be disingenuous by posting it.
Gathering data, crunching it down, and comparing with hypotheses is not science. Science requires some measure of control over variables. Now one CAN find opportunities where the universe has set up experiments FOR US, and we can observe the results of those experiments. That IS science, as it is at least in theory repeatable.
You can gather all the numbers in the world, but it won't necessarily tell you anything, especially when you have thousands of variables and none can be controlled for.
Ad hominem. His stance on other subjects is not related to the current argument.
And yes, experimental science IS IN FACT all science. Sorry, but you can't just run around calling whatever you do "science" while not doing any actual experimentation. Climate science is more like economics. Ironic that THAT field has also been subverted to serve the politically connected as well.
But you forget that +4 to +6 degrees turns the vast tundra of Siberia and Canada into the world's most fertile farmland. I wouldn't be surprised if agricultural output would double or triple under such a scenario. Of course, the tropics would be uninhabitable. But hey, it's fun to play pretend.
That's why all my pet gremlins starve to death.