I saw The Expendables, and boy am I glad I saw a pirated copy and didn't waste a dime for that piece of garbage. As said in previous comments, the movie didn't even seem like it was supposed to be any good, and it was marketed that way too - like come see these old has been actors be has beens in a new mindless flic.
I say the best way to make money is to produce something that people actually want to pay for. The movie industry in general doesn't follow this idea though, they just look at things they may have worked in the past and try to copy them exactly.
The Grateful Dead can't just be talked about as a band - they were an American Revolution. The Grateful Dead represented an entire social movement in America at a time when all the supposedly great artists were all into the British scene.
Their concerts weren't unique just because they played their songs differently every time making new jams during each set - the fans and the environment they created was the actual highlight of the concerts and the band knew that and developed it.
Its quite evident in "The Grateful Dead Movie," the concert movie produced by Jerry recorded from about 3 different concerts. Watching the film is great because you don't just get the experience of watching the band play on stage, because they had camera men all over the venue, just talking to fans, watching them dance, and doing all the things a fan would do at the concert - like sitting outside in line for tickets and going to the concession stand.
All that was the beauty of the dead - they didn't just play music, they created an entire social environment based on following them around the country, making their dedicated fans feel like they're part of a movement.
I love the genre of music and am probably one of the few avid readers of this site who knows the band and their fanbase pretty well. The fact is these artists and many similar bands who they collaborate with have been struggling with the whole CWF RtB for a while.
The best thing they've had going for them is really amazing live performances, lots of tour dates around the country, and fans who are really obsessively dedicated to their music.
They are borderline in the genre of electronic jam bands, and they often record every live performance, and each show is very unique because they improvise a lot. This makes it desirable for their fans to purchase/download every one of their performances. Its a great model that generates a whole lot of interest for their concerts when they come around.
Paypal donations. Or sell something scarce that isn't infinitely copyable for free.
As some1 else mentioned in the comments, who would pay for the book after you already got it for free? Why as me to buy what I already have?
And yes its free because thats what the price of online text is.
Maybe he is a good writer, maybe he is a good programmer/engineer, maybe he writes good applications (which have more profitability than books). Maybe in these subjects he's pretty smart.
But it is clear throughout all of this that in business, he's stupid.
Now he may not write another book again, but its not because don't value his text, its because he failed to monetize his endeavor into writing.
And if people steal his book and then profit from it, that means they figured out a way to monetize the information that he was unable to.
There's a million ways he could have been smart and made money as an author and programmer/engineer, but he chose to tell people to pay him for something they already have - thats just straight bad business and a huge waste of resources.
So maybe I'll look this guy up if I need to write some programs, and i'll probably "steal" his book. What he should do is check the internet for a book he can steal on how to make money in his profession.
George Clinton's music has more official remakes and samples by other artists than any other musical artist in history. And now he's mad at the Black Eyed Peas? Reading this article was a big surprise to me, especially since the song in question hardly even reminds me of p-funk, but when you look at some of Snoop Dogg's old albums its hard to say if there's much original work not taken from the funk master George Clinton.
I think the truth is most people realize that if you want to be a politician, you probably have a lot of psychological issues such as being an egomaniac and power hungry. It doesn't matter what party, or non-party you belong to, if you really believe that you're the one who should be running things than you're probably not the most savory character.
Its a real problem - anyone who's normal and sane wouldn't want really want the position to begin with, so we end up with some real winners in office.
One of the features in GTA san andreas is character personalization. To say that his likeness is used in the main character is pure nonsense because the game is made so that you can change many aspects of his appearance. So does every custom character made in the game actually appear to be his likeness? Impossible
I mean... who cares how much more money they think they'll make from going digital. The fact is, if its priced more expensive than people think its worth, they will download it illegally for free, foregoing any profits the industry believes they deserve.
I generally use the rule, download illegally first, and if the game/movie/show is really good enough to want to spend money on for some higher quality, I consider buying it. Truth is normally I don't get to that point as most of these things aren't worth the hard drive space they take up.
I was wondering why my school recently changed their network security to no longer allow p2p or bit-torrent. They claimed it was to speed up the network, but I've never heard of any complaints of a slow connection.
Why the school didn't just write in their e-mail that they're doing this in order to abide by the law is still a little confusing. I was actually surprised when I got here that downloading torrents was allowed, because I had been used to being blocked at my undergrad campus. Now I can get used to being less entertained by my computer on campus just like I used to.
Sorry, I remembered it wrong. It was some German study and the cows orient themselves in the north-south direction, likely due to the Earth's magnetic field.
I'm not saying its the most reliable research ever, but just an interesting possibility.
Some1 do her over and register ownership of the Known Universe
Yeah I remember years back when some guy claimed ownership of the moon. Then he started making a map of it and selling sections. People bought sections from him which further assured his claim on it. I never heard a follow up on that story tho.
Sure that is a problem, the pace may be too fast for some, but slowing it down means less content to learn, and really our high school math is not nearly advanced enough to compete globally.
Our real problem is bad teachers, and not being able to fire them. Studies have shown that good teachers can teach 2 years worth of material in 1 year, while bad teachers usually teach half a years material in 1 year. Thats a year and a half loss in education each year you get a bad teacher.
Our hiring standards are also way too high. The truth is you don't need to be very smart to be a good teacher - you shouldn't need a masters. Good teachers are people persons, they teach well because they make a connection with their students. I don't care how smart you are or how much education you have, if you can't connect with your students you ought not be a teacher.
The best way to ensure good teachers is to increase the pool from which we hire, and increase the rate at which we get rid of new teachers who are bad. Malcolm Gladwell has a great article on this idea comparing it to scouting quarterbacks for the NFL. The fact is you don't know how a quarterback (or a teacher) will do in their profession until you put them in.
Please read Nassim Nicholas Taleb "The Black Swan". He gives the perfect explanation of why this is total illogical garbage.
Just as you say Mike, the TSA and government officials think they need to protect us against each individual threat after they happen - and thats called haphazard security. Protecting yourself against one potential threat is unimaginative, and criminals are not short on imagination.
The book was written shortly after 9/11 and he uses great examples of bad logic being used to increase plane security. The basic idea is this: You cannot predict the future by using past data because there is not enough data and the future is too chaotic.
People who are smart enough know that a single observation can overturn infinite past data. The book is called the Black Swan because of predictions made by scientists in the 17th century when they were trying to classify many species of animals. European scientists came into contact only with regular white swans, and thus made a rule for classifying swans that they must be white. All the data throughout Europe supported this claim as hundreds of scientists observing swans had not come across a swan of any other color. They ran into problems though once a single black swan from Australia was observed completely ruining their rules.
Sorry for such a long paragraph but here's where it ties back into the TSA.
The TSA is like the scientists classifying security threats. They make some kind of rule based on the past data such as "planes are safe if the cockpits are locked." That was the bill that ran through the senate after 9/11 because the hijackers got in the cockpit. Don't they see that by believing this is how most threats take place, they open themselves up for threats in many other areas.
Its kinda like the idea of buying insurance - often there's some sort of natural disaster, flooding for instance, that ruins a lot of people homes. People start spending lots of money specifically on flood insurance, instead of realizing that their regular home owners insurance probably covers floods, as well as many other potential threats.
People who are smart think about this all the time. They realize that our instincts want us to be very short sighted, we love anecdotes (the worst evidence possible that should never sway our beliefs in any way).
I'm surprised the article is written that way. I figured it would say something more like "they're going to get the books through unauthorized means, providing no direct income to the publishers.
It just goes with the idea, that has been stated many times on this blog, that consuming infinite goods provides many indirect benefits to the producers of those goods, by increasing interest and spreading the goods.
First off - come on guys, if you don't like the Beatles you might as well say "I don't like music." And you can't say you don't like the Beatles and then list of bunch of "better" bands that were all highly influenced by the Beatles sound.
That being said, they just remastered pretty much the entire Beatles collection last September, does anybody remember the price for the box set? It sold for $260 in stores. How ridiculous is that for a bunch of pop music that everybody has already. Its hard not to feel in the right when downloading their library illegally.
So whats the remastered library gonna be available on iTunes at the new sales price of $200?
Lets just think about what John Lennon would have said about all of this.
There are many advertising based businesses that just don't get it. More people watching = more revenue. Thats the equation they should be thinking about.
The basic idea of owning a TV station is that your customers aren't the people watching, they're the people paying by buying advertising. It should be the job of the TV execs to make their station the most desirable to their advertisers by capturing the most viewers.
That should mean each station delivering their content in every conceivable way that people would want to watch, maximizing traffic to your advertisers.
But everything they do makes it seem like they want less people to watch ads. Removing content essentially only removes your ability to deliver advertising because if its not easy to watch legally on the internet it will be easy to download illegally which does limit the TV station's' revenue.
Now I don't know the case or the law... and I do pretty much agree from what I've read here that this is a case of privacy violation, the way this argument was made seems like a pretty dangerous way to establish law. It should be based on the facts of what happened, not what the violated party believed happened.
What if there was no video at all but he was led to believe there was a video broadcast? Whats the difference if there was a broadcast nobody saw that he believed many saw, of if there was no video and he was convinced there was?
So personally I don't think "What matters is what Clementi believed"