yokomoc comments

Posted in: Looking good See in context

Gackt looks like he's been photoshopped into the pic. And there's a website for Mr Hilfiger - can't paste the name for reasons you'll discover but google "red trouser blog" :)

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Posted in: Conservative U.S. blogger Andrew Breitbart dies at 43 See in context

Breitbart's fame was built on destroying others, he was an ugly sore on the world without any redeeming features. I only hope that he was able to forgive himself at the last.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Posted in: Have you ever bought, copied or downloaded unauthorized music, TV shows or movies? See in context

yokomoc. Again are you a musician or a producer? If you are not, then you don't understand the costs associated with producing quality music.

I've recorded my own music, have friends who do and am well aware of the costs involved though this is missing the point anyway. The new business model gives you the opportunity to know your budget up front - if you take an average of say 2,500yen per pledge. For arguments sake let's say recording, manufacturing and distribution costs of 1.5M yen though this can vary a lot - that's 600 pledges to cover the costs of production. Add in some high value extra options and you can bring that number down. If your band has a decent following and you use the internet well to spread interest then that should be attainable.

But you need to understand that you are still rationalizing theft of what should be a marketable commodity.

In what way? Having fan-funding is preempting illegal downloads before they can occur and in no way encourages it. You can be sure there a lot of people who would buy your records simply download it because it's there, possibly convince themselves they'll buy it in time but never do. Get them onboard early and give them something extra that a simple song download cannot. Everyone wins. Except the record companies.

Your plan suggests that we should be reduced to begging fans to support us through such sites rather than being able to rightly charge for our music. This is absurd.

This is only your perspective and doesn't tally with what I've seen. And how is asking fans for support 'reduced to begging'? Work with them, get them involved.

Example: my favourite artist of all time is a guy called Ginger, singer/songwriter/guitarist of the Wildhearts. After having their chance in the 90s and blowing it on drugs, he's been constantly touring making music pretty much under the radar for the last 10-15 years, and doing about well enough to get by and not much more. Unlike a lot of 'rock stars' he's quite happy to spend time every day communicating to his fanbase via Twitter. He's answered 20,000 questions on Formspring in last year alone on any subject you can think of, including counselling people for depression and other mental health issues.

Having tried and failed to get record company funding for a number of projects he was set to give up recording because he couldn't support his family. His pledge triple album project was the last throw of the dice. Recording costs would be about 30,000GBP. They thought they wouldn't make the target. It hit 100% in 6 hours.

You oppose downloading on a moral basis and that's fine (and I agree though it doesn't bother me, but it's not a war you're going to win. People are prepared to pay - you just have to get them on your side.

You sound like you're passionate about your music. From your band description you also seem to be offering something quite unique and I'd like to hear your band (though for anonymity reasons I'm sure you can't disclose their name). I just really hope you don't let cynicism become your downfall. This is 2012, not 1996.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Posted in: Have you ever bought, copied or downloaded unauthorized music, TV shows or movies? See in context

tkoind2, have you never heard of fan-funding sites like Pledge Music? There's a new wave of artists (new and old) who now are completely free from record company dependence with their albums are funded up front gives them artistic freedom to make the album they want to make because of this new model.

On top of the album, there's a whole host of extras the band can throw in to the deal - check out the Pledge site and look through what some bands are offering. It fosters artist-fan relationships and rewards hard work, generosity and talent over a pretty face.

I thoroughly recommend you give this method of making music a shot before writing off independent music.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Posted in: Okinawa noise pollution trial begins with 22,000 plaintiffs See in context

They have a cheek. If you want noise pollution take a walk down Kokusai Dori in Naha on a summer's night.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Posted in: Olympus shares continue slide amid fall-out from British CEO's ouster See in context

Woodford was clearly unfamiliar with some traditional Japanese business practices, like the mandatory 20% yakuza cut through a series of complex offshore accounts. Lessons learned eh.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Posted in: Japan routs Tajikistan 8-0 in World Cup qualifier See in context

@smith, the mark of a good team is being able to leave top players out and play as well without them. The team have been excellent with or without Honda in the side. Zaccheroni just has them very well organised, they play a formation that doesn't lose many goals and they have great movement going forward that allows them to create chances. Honda gives the team a different option going forward with his more physical game and long shooting.

@calm down, who was saying that? Every team misses chances, it's when they stop creating them you should worry.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Japan routs Tajikistan 8-0 in World Cup qualifier See in context

As poor as Tajikistan were, Japan continue to be very impressive. The current lot must be the best Japan team of all time. Roll on the world Cup.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Posted in: Australian parliament approves carbon tax See in context

@gogogo, the scheme is revenue neutral and any income generated is refunded to taxpayers. An almost identical system in been in place in BC, Canada since '08 - the purpose is to put a properly price in the long-term effects of carbon emissions.

As one of the largest per capita emitters, Australia is a big testing ground for this system. If it's successful there then it should be successful anywhere.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Obama to GOP: Act on jobs or get run out of town See in context

At one point Obama even told his media questioners to accept a “little homework assignment” and “go ask Republicans what their jobs plan is.”

Tax cuts! Tax cuts! More tax cuts!

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Posted in: Scientists worried as Arctic has record ozone loss See in context

NeverSubmit, you need to learn the difference between the troposphere and stratosphere. A cooling of the stratosphere (where most of the ozone is) while the troposphere warms is one of the indicators of greenhouse warming and has been predicted for years.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Posted in: The American 'allergy' to global warming: Why? See in context

@NeverSubmit

Lol

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: The American 'allergy' to global warming: Why? See in context

Roy Spencer (who wrote "The Great Climate Swindle")

*Correction: The Great Global Warming Blunder

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Posted in: The American 'allergy' to global warming: Why? See in context

Man-made global warming is just a hypothesis, it has not been objectively proven or observed in a scientific manner. Moreover, it cannot be falsified, since any and all types of weather are blamed on the theory.

The greenhouse effect of CO2 is a physical fact. That burning fossil fuels has increased the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is a fact observed by carbon isotope analysis. Even well-known 'skeptics' like Lord Monckton or Roy Spencer (who wrote "The Great Climate Swindle") who claim it's a conspiracy, a religion, etc. and disparage the IPCC at any opportunity accept this. Their contention is just that it won't be as bad as is projected, and that other factors like increased cloud cover will negate some or most of the warming.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Posted in: The American 'allergy' to global warming: Why? See in context

If you cling to a concept that your own projections failed to prove after 30 years of trying, you're the IPCC.

What do you base this on?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Posted in: Canadian Arctic nearly loses entire ice shelf See in context

@Sam, if it's sea ice that's melting the water level should remain almost unchanged (although there is a very small increase as fresh water is less dense than salt water). It's when ice over land melts that you should see sea levels increasing significantly.

The Global Cooling/New Ice Age stuff from the 70s was mostly sensationalising by the magazines. There were some scientists theorizing that then but the majority were predicting warming even then when it was an emerging science.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Posted in: The American 'allergy' to global warming: Why? See in context

Someone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming is a skeptic, not a denier.

If you look at it objectively you're a skeptic. If you blanket ignore any research supporting global warming and latch onto any unsubstantiated claim against it (see your Mount Pinatubo post) you're a denier.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Posted in: The American 'allergy' to global warming: Why? See in context

The IPCC made the claim several decades ago that the GLOBAL temp would increase and man-made CO2 was the reason why.

Several decades? It was formed in 1988 so I guess 23 years is 'several decades' right? They gave a number of scenarios given the scientific uncertainties then and the temperature change is well within that range.

The question of GLOBAL warming is easily settled by looking at the GLOBAL tempurature.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt

Any honest scientific organization would have readdressed their computer modeling to find out WHY they were so wrong.

The models are constantly being improved as new research is done, but this isn't the IPCC's responsibility. The IPCC doesn't do any research. Their are no such things as 'IPCC models'.

I'm sure that many global warming zealots "believe" they are right - They just can't "prove" it.

Sorry, but I don't do belief

I did notice that "global warming" became "climate change" when GLOBAL warming couldn't be proven.

The two terms have been used independently for years in the scientific literature to describe two different things.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Darth Vader takes over Tokyo trains See in context

The trains are made to look pro-jedi, but when they stop you can here them go "Siiitthhhh".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: The American 'allergy' to global warming: Why? See in context

And speaking of the Petition Project, of those 31,000 only roughly 200 were involved in climate science. If I lived in the US I could have signed that petition on the basis of being a qualified scientist. All you need is a bachelors degree. The petition methodology was also non-scientific and open to abuse.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project-intermediate.htm

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Posted in: The American 'allergy' to global warming: Why? See in context

Talk about projection. You have not given one piece of accurate science backing up what you're saying. I've given plenty.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Posted in: The American 'allergy' to global warming: Why? See in context

Not to mention Nobel Laureate Dr. Ivar Giaever who spoke out against the global warming dogma just this month and resigned in protest.

Giaever earned his Nobel prize in semiconductor physics and quantum tunnelling. He is as much an authority on climate science as you or I.

Let's not forget that the institution which has been providing (or should I say making up) the data used to toute the global warming theory, the University of East Anglia, has been thoroughly discredited and is now an object of international ridicule.

As Pawatan says six commitees have investigated their methods and found no wrongdoing. An independent inquiry went back to the primary data sources and were able to replicate CRU's results. I'm surprised you're keen to discredit their data since it's the HADCRUT dataset that gives rise the the much parroted "no warming since 1998" claim that I recall you were very keen on in your former guise of 'arrestpaul' (am I allowed to say that?) You must believe NASA have also tampered with their GISS data in order to come to good agreement with HADCRUT? It's all part of the hoax right?

And for those who insist on sticking with their fundamentalist doctine of the global warming mantra, I suggest you start protesting at Mount Pinatubo in the Phillipines, as has been the single largest contributor of CO2 in the atmosphere in our life time.Or better yet, stop breathing, since every time you exhale your hot air contributes to global warming.

Lol! Where do yo pull these gems from? CO2 from human activity is 100 times that from volcanoes. I think you need to step out from your (very small) bubble.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Posted in: The American 'allergy' to global warming: Why? See in context

Yes, I am aware of the Milankovitch cycles. I learned it as the Milankovitch "Theory." I'm not too fond of the word "Theory." However, in a nut shell, it basically states that The Global Warming, (if there is any at all), is based on orbits, axis tilt, etc.,. Doesn't mention anything about humans causing the orbits and earth's axis to change, i.e., "Human Infuenced."

Why would Milankovitch cycles say anything about human-induced warming? They're two different effects. The important factor that links them is an energy imbalance which causes changes in climate amongst other things to rebalance.

In M. cycles, it takes a certain 'perfect storm' of earth's precession, axial tilt and orbital eccentricity to induce an ice age. Basically the conditions have to be right to allow enough ice to gather at the poles (primarily the land-free north pole), and to remain there, so that the albedo effect (reflection of sunlight back into space by the ice) becomes dominant, reducing the temperatures further. But these occur over a period of many thousands of years.

In human-induced climate change the imbalance is mainly caused by extra CO2 added to the climate system - carbon which has not been been in the system for millions of years.

BTW it's entirely possible than we are putting an end to the ice ages by releasing this carbon. The ice ages are a pretty new phenomenon that only appear to have come about once CO2 levels dropped sufficiently through weathering.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Posted in: Canada has best reputation in world: study See in context

Japan placed 12th.

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/09/27/3942379/canada-is-the-country-with-the.html

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Posted in: The American 'allergy' to global warming: Why? See in context

As more and more evidence comes that counters the theory of global warming we'll see more global warming alarmists resort to these types of tactics to defend their doctrine.

Again, what new evidence? Can you even just once back up a single one of your claims?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Posted in: The American 'allergy' to global warming: Why? See in context

Still wondering how the earth came out of the Ice Age when.....oh, wait....there wasn't any automobiles and factories back then. I bet the creatures that raomed the earth back then blamed something on Global Warming too.

I'm sure you'll well aware of how Milankovitch cycles control the ice ages, after all:

I've read alot about this global warming

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Posted in: 2 Shanghai subway trains crash, injuring over 260 See in context

The top guy in the rail company had already had to resign from a simliar job with another rail company because an major crash happened on his watch. Then he got hired by Shanghai Shentong and it happened again! Wonder where he'll end up next...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Republican candidates seek Trump stamp of approval See in context

Isn't Trump running for prez? I remember him being an early favourite. I'd hate to think he was just saying dumb things that dumb people want to hear just to boost his TV ratings.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: The American 'allergy' to global warming: Why? See in context

The "climate science" you speak of is nothing more than computer models which are designed by vested interests.

Firstly climate science is a LOT more than computer modelling. Secondly the models themselves and their inputs are based on factual physical relationships. Where their are uncertainties in the models or the inputs this is reflected in uncertainties in projections. The first thing they have to do is model the past, and the current models do a very good of modelling temperature trends over the recorded period (c.1850-date). Thirdly vested interests? Be serious please.

Real scientists are looking at the observable data and man-made CO2 is not a contributing factor to weather patterns.

Name me one of these 'real' scientists.

Remember, 98% of the greenhouse effect is caused by natural water vapor while CO2 is only 1%.

You mean 60-70% is caused by water vapour and about 25% by CO2 (confirmed by infra-red measurements of radiation entering and leaving the earth's atmosphere). The difference is water vapour is short-lived in the atmosphere while CO2 remains for 100 years and so levels are constantly being increased by human activity. Water vapour levels are increasing though as a feedback from increasing CO2-driven temperatures, and roughly double the warming caused by CO2 alone.

Why are we even debating this anyways, scientists have already debunked the man-made global warming theory. It's just a political fringe now.

Again, what scientists and also what have you been smoking? The fact you call it a 'political' fringe says it all. Your opposition to it is political not scientific.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Posted in: The American 'allergy' to global warming: Why? See in context

I for one, stand on the "Climate waxes and wanes" much of the world was tropical when certain reptiles of a grand nature ruled the earth, then it got cold.

And fortunately we have some very smart, hardworking people who spend years researching 'why' the world was hotter then, why it got colder and what is causing the current warming trend. Or you could just shrug and says 'It changes. Whatever.'"

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites


©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.