That comment is a reflection on what I hear on a daily basis.
Perhaps my wordage is off, but the stuff coming at us 24-7 is created by studios, not musicians. So much of what I hear is produced by guys sitting at mixer boards and computers.
My comment isn't aimed at every person out there making music, in fact I know there are lots of musicians out there with talent and skill..., but we never get to hear them over all the crap being dealt out by the industry which is breeding Egos as musicians. (I'd choose Beck over Beyonce any day of the week.)

Sure, I know, it may seem like I'm digging a hole and jumping in but the system is broken and the good music is being squelched. Maybe not 100% of the time, but listen to the music. The electronic age is filtering everything out of the music, no more drummer, no guitar, auto tune, synthetic voice. where is all the character? Where are all the happy accidents that real music serves us. How many of today's artistes (on the charts) can serve us music without a guy mixing it to make them sound good, double tracking, and keeping their voices in tune? I know these tricks have been used for years but never to the extent they are being used today.

I remember a quote by Niel Young, way back when he was recording. The guys at the board keep telling him he wasn't hitting the note, and his answer was "Hey, that's my style man!" So they had to leave it in, and the result was great. Pure Niel Young.

So, I guess it's not so much the musicians out there, so much as it is the recording studios, and the system of pump out the next clone hit...

It was Tony James that initiated this era, back when he created Sigue Sigue Sputnik. He had a dream, a vision of what the band looked and sounded like. He hired people that looked like what he wanted, none could play music, he taught them three chords and they they became the number one, unrecorded, unsigned band in history, and EMI finally Won (relative term) by offering them the most money. From that point all the music was produces electronically in the studio. It sounded like crap, but I loved it. It was new and sounded different. And people ate it up. The studios caught on, and realized they didn't need musicians any more, they always wanted money. It made more sense to hire nobodies, they were a dime a dozon and they could be made to sound any way they wanted them too. Just like the Boy Bands and Girl Bands (Spice girls, Pussy Cat Dolls)

Okay... so I'm rambling now..., it's been a long day...
The industry feeds us synthetic garbage because it's cheep, makes money and is easily replaced by the next song/artist.

Meanwhile the real artists are doing everything they can to get recognized and struggle to make a living giving us their soul served in a song and doing everything they can to be heard over the sounds of the industry.

No. Aspartame is not bad for you. Sugar, however is absolutely bad for you. The purpose of this video is to show people how much aspartame is in Coke Zero vs the amount of sugar in Coke. Sugar, the number one cause of obesity, heart disease and other health issues, is far less sweet so you need a much larger amount to get the same level of sweetness as aspartame. The tiny amount of black stuff left over at the end of the Coke Zero pan is the aspartame. You need milligrams of aspartame compared to 30 grams of sugar.

All of the studies that have "shown" damaging effects of aspartame have given RATS not milligrams of aspartame, but GRAMS. This would be equivalent to a human being shoveling a pile of aspartame powder into their mouth, something that no one could even do because it would be too sweet to ingest.

Aspartame is a very simple chemical that when it enters the human body breaks down into three things, phenylalanine, methanol and aspartic acid. Once again, the amounts that these things break down into is smaller than you would get from eating comparable "natural products." You would get more methanol eating a few grapes or an apple. Aspartic acid is an amino acid that is good for you and you would once again find more of it in an oyster than in Coke Zero. And finally phenylalanine is the only thing that is of any danger to anyone. And even then, it is only dangerous to those who have phenylketonuria, a sensitivity to phenyl-groups that you would know if you have. Otherwise it is a hormone that only affects infants and is present in breast milk, one of the healthiest substances on earth for a human.

Sure, aspartame is one of the most complained about items by consumers at the FDA. But does that mean the science is wrong? No. It simply means that someone gets a headache and they blame it on the diet soda they just drank instead of the fact that they are dehydrated. Or someone has a dizzy spell because they got up too fast and they blame it on the diet soda they just drank. Aspartame has been investigated by every Federal Consumer Product group around the world and none of them have found a sufficient link to any health danger in order to take it off of the shelves. If you believe that this is a conspiracy, you are wrong. The bigger conspiracy is the rampant disregard for the danger of sugar in processed foods.

If you are curious about the dangers of sugar that are backed by solid nutritional and molecular biology, you should watch "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" on Youtube, or the movie Fed Up.

this needs to be number ONE!
it is just so deliciously awesome.
sifty..make it so!
*quality

Some imprecise, false and misleading statements and baseless assertions in the video that are cogent to the argument:

0:20 "Scientists have come to the realization that these numbers have been dialed to an astonishingly precise value, a value that falls within an exceedingly narrow life-permitting range."

Imprecise. The highlighted bit implies that scientists have discovered an agent who did the "dialing", which is not the case. Rather, scientists have come to the realization that these numbers have values that fall within extremely narrow life-permitting ranges."

2:24 "... these and other numbers have been exquisitely balanced ...

Imprecise. Again, you cannot claim that they "have been balanced" without tautologically claiming a designer.

3:55 "The probabilities involved are so ridiculously remote as to put the fine tuning well beyond the reach of chance."

Assertion. For this statement to be true, someone would have to define when a probability becomes "too remote". We're talking about something that we don't understand, so it's not possible to determine that it is "too remote".

4:03 "So, in an effort to keep this option alive, some have gone beyond empirical science..."

Imprecise. Nobody decided the Multiverse was a good way to explain the appearance of fine tuning. The Multiverse arises unbidden out of other theories of mathematics, with the effect of making chance quite a viable possibility.

4:35 "... and this universe generator itself would require an enormous amount of fine tuning"

False. A machine making massive numbers of universes only has to create one with our balance of numbers one time. If I can shoot a billion arrows at a target, I can afford for the sights on my bow to be much less finely tuned than if I only have one arrow, and if I have an infinite number of arrows, I don't need any fine tuning at all. I can shoot in random directions and be assured that I will hit the target by pure chance.

The chart about high and low order universes

False. A small universe with a single observer may be more likely, and may also exist in addition to our own. The fact that our universe is vast (relative to what, exactly?) doesn't mean others don't also exist.

AND Imprecise. You cannot measure the creation of universes on a time line. Time is created within our universe.

4:55: "... a vast, spectacularly complex, highly ordered universe ...

Assertion. Vase, complex and ordered in comparison to what? We don't know if ours is very complex compared to how complex a universe could be.

5:05: "So, even if the Multiverse existed ... it wouldn't do anything to explain the fine tuning."

False. That's exactly what it would do, or at least it would easily explain away the appearance of fine tuning as random chance.

AND Misleading. It should be phrased, "... to explain the appearance of fine tuning," which is what we're trying to explain.

*quality Oh please. This needs to be number one...

Actually you said it's no where near time to panic. You also said the people of Kiribati are going to be washed away by a tsunami (but it never happened before in all the times they've been hit by tsunami) and not overwhelmed by sea rise (which IS what's happened to them).


You are just wrong about Texas producing more than California, we're number two in cattle production and ....
Food Facts
California has been the number one food and agricultural producer in the United States for more than 50 consecutive years.
More than half the nation's fruit, nuts, and vegetables come from here.
California is the nation's number one dairy state.
California's leading commodity is milk and cream. Grapes are second.
California's leading export crop is almonds.
Nationally, products exclusively grown (99% or more) in California include almonds, artichokes, dates, figs, kiwifruit, olives, persimmons, pistachios, prunes, raisins, clovers, and walnuts.
From 70 to 80% of all ripe olives are grown in California.
California is the nation's leading producer of strawberries, averaging 1.4 billion pounds of strawberries or 83% of the country's total fresh and frozen strawberry production. Approximately 12% of the crop is exported to Canada, Mexico, United Kingdom, Hong Kong and Japan primarily. The value of the California strawberry crop is approximately $700 million with related employment of more than 48,000 people.
California produces 25% of the nation's onions and 43% of the nation's green onions.
and if that's not enough to convince you ...
http://www.lavidalocavore.org/diary/2182/what-percent-of-food-comes-from-california

It is never 1 to 1 guns VS farmers in the situations you are talking about. The food gets stolen, sold, and eaten. It is not stolen and allowed to rot. If production were simple, ie not requiring extra water and fertilizer, everyone who's hungry would farm, and there would be 'bush taca' (wild food) to gather and eat. You can't make a living stealing from subsistence farmers, you go hungry between farms that way.

I call BS, the tech to replace oil and coal and gas exist today. You mentioned one. They are universally agreed on (by energy companies) who have made solar farms, nuclear, wind, etc.

Ahhhh. So now you see why it's time to panic...adaptation of the tech takes time, time that we don't have to waste. If it takes 50 years to stop adding greenhouse gasses, we need to see where that leaves your children's children. Adaptation of new tech is going to happen while we are restricting consumption...it's been that way for decades (see 'car mileage requirements') so it HAS happened in the past, and is happening today...without wars.

If no one panics and no one acts, that's where we'll be if we're lucky. Those figures you linked assume we will stop rising the level of CO2 we add daily and/or keep it below a certain level...an assumption I think is wrong and ignores reality.

Um, well, yeah, 78% less glacier doesn't mean 78% less runoff, it means far more than 78% less, because of glacial dams, evaporation, and upstream use it means probably NO runoff downstream. 22% of the already scarce water won't feed India. Period.
I think those numbers are small, and it's likely that there will be less than 22% of glaciers left in 100 years, but even those numbers leave billions without water or food. That's far worse than any group ever starved by 'men with guns'.

I found it inconvenient to go both number one and number two, often not even at the same time, so I had a cloaca installed and now I just go number three!

ha ha..thanks man.
i lived closer to the coast.
off oakland and andrews.worked at yesterdays on the intracoastal and marks in los olas,i also dj'd (and bounced) at the crazy horse off A1A.met motley crue there a couple of times.

the concentrated wealth was a tad further north from where i lived, boca and west palm.

you may have been a bit west in places like davie...fairly rural and yes..conservative..but money talks and davie does not have that kind of clout.
i saw the same practices when i lived on miami beach.though the criminalizing is a new thing,before they just shuttled the homeless and undesirables away.

icky homeless people are bad for tourism

i think we pretty much agree across the board.when a hard line conservative talks about "pulling yourself up by your boot straps" we know that is bullshit speak for 'fuck you poor person,i got mine" but i have a problem with a supposed "liberal" who talks the language of compassion and humanity but dont actually practice it in a hands on way.

the hardliner shows disdain for the poor,and while repugnant,at least it is honest.
but when a liberal,who wrings their hands over the plight of the homeless,yet pushes through ordinances that criminalize the very thing they are saying that is heart-wrenching for them..i find hypocritical.

i remember i was an event co-ordinator for the hilton fountain blue and did a bee-gees (yes..you read that right) birthday party on their west palm home.i dorve a beat up toyota tercel( i have always lived simply,like a hippy) and i was asked to park it 4 blocks away at a u-store it facility.

no valet for me!

do you know what its like to walk 4 blocks in august?in florida? in 300% humidity?
i was a wet rag by the time i got to their mansion.
i literally had to sneak a shower while my clothes were drying!

but..i did get 10% of everything,and that party cost a cool 250.000.

soooooooooo

WORTH IT!

i live just north of tampa now.new port richey.the number ONE place for painkiller/xanax deaths in the country!

we are so proud.

Lesson number one in Monster trucking. They're expensive and the they break often.

Off to number one with you! Go now!

THIS is the number one video when I check back in on Videosift?!?
Do we not have standards guys? Oh well...

Genius video. As for topic, it's all for the best I believe. Less use for humans means less humans right? Overpopulation is number one problem in the world, so that helps. Worst case though is never adjusting our economy and ways of thinking, which leads to massive poverty and all the useless people slowly dying out and rioting all the way - which is going to happen most likely.

First #1 video! Congrats! Bet that feels good

-edit-
I see you've had a number one before. Although it was before badges.

The number one, and still champeen!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtW5upD5oW4

How did this not instantly rocket to number one? Madness.

*promote