I think that you'll find that devices used in state-sanctioned executions are either dual-purpose with far greater utility in saving lives, on average, even including the drugs used, or actually relatively primitively put together. IE not actually done by engineers.
Actually, music writers have a very good guild and have managed a much better job at maintaining publication rights than the artists that perform the songs.
I'm not going to go so far as to say they need to work 40-50-40(hours/weeks/years), it's more a contract job. There's plenty of non-standards out there - military, police, and fire fighter careers are often 20 years, and the average NFL career is a mere seven years, and it is indeed possible to save enough to retire in that period if you receive median pay. You just can't live like a NFL star...
Still, I view it a bit like writing - should the average writer be 'set for life' after writing only one book? Most of the authors I follow are far more prolific than that. If you only produce 5 books in your life you're not much of a writer, sad to say. Even Tolkien wrote at least a dozen in his life, and he was a notoriously slow writer.
If you're simply a 'one hit wonder' you should probably get enough money to cover production costs the first couple months, then it dwindles to maybe a couple hundred a month. If you're a consistent performer, a serious of hits, even just modest ones, should eventually provide enough residuals to support you in your retirement. If you're a superstar you get to live like a king, of course.
If a "stream" is a single song listened to once, and the artist has (say) 10 reasonably popular songs, then only 4,000 fans worldwide listening to each of those songs once every 3 days would be enough for the artist to live comfortably. That doesn't sound too bad.
I figured that $3.3k/month for 1 album(~10 songs?) per the article was a touch high, but you mention 10 'reasonably popular' songs, and there's usually only one of those per album. So ~100 songs, 10 good enough to listen to fairly frequently, that's about right for a reasonable living, especially if you figure that other revenue streams(live performances, merchandise, other services) pay for the business expenses(studio*, editing, instruments, etc...)
*It's easier than ever to set up a home studio, but setting up one good enough for broadcast quality still costs money. Renting is still an option, but again expensive unless you get lucky.
So, how much does an artist make per single over-the-air play on a station with 550,000 listeners? If as many people listened to Spotify as to broadcast radio, half a million plays per month seems absolutely trivial.
That's the thing, I don't think the rates are based much on the estimated listener, plus as somebody else mentioned, most of the payment goes to the writer of the song, not the performer. Even then the sticky fingers of all the middlemen suck most of the money out.
On the other hand, I have to ask, should a 'nich indie performer' with a single album earn $3.3k/month from spotify alone? Maybe once he or she has ~5 albums out.
Why? Because previously, the issue was that the car manufacturer was monopolizing all the car sales.
I don't think this was ever seriously the case. Originally speaking the car companies loved dealerships because it allowed them to concentrate on making and selling cars to dealers - they didn't particularly care if an individual dealership failed or not. Sort of like clothes companies selling to dealers and the bigger stores; less paperwork and hassle for them.
But with the rise of technology closer control made sense, and thus the dealers had a bunch of laws passed to protect themselves from companies like GM. Still, there are no Tesla dealers to protect, I have the feelings that margins on the cars are razor thin as is, and there's some honest concerns about dealers who are used to selling gasoline vehicles. Tesla vehicles just don't have the maintenance needs(yet) to justify the ever so profitable dealer service station.
So for the sake of research based on "science", if we were to consider vampires in this model, would you consider Tom Cruise's survival characteristics in Interview with a Vampire an outlier?
Sure, there's always a few. Numerous species,including our own, have avoided outright extinction only by the survival of outliers. Evolution at it's harshest.
until their lives are ended in a split second without pain by somebody who does not take some perverse kind of pleasure in killing animals.
Don't know about you, but I think that 'professional hunters' like you propose are going to precisely be the people who 'take some perverse kind of pleasure in killing animals'. There's a difference between somebody who goes hunting once a year for 1-6 animals, and a professional who does it for hundreds.
I've heard of the occasional evidence of pure 'trophy hunting' where no effort is made to collect the meat. However it's extremely rare and more associated with illegal hunters, IE poachers. The general consensus in my family and friends who hunt is that they like to put a round to the back of the head of those people.
And yes, the family has a few trophies, and they've pretty much all been 'lucky' in the sense that they happened to find a trophy buck, not that they particularly went looking for a trophy, if that makes sense.
Say what? Gunshots range from ~143-174+. Hearing damage is pretty much instant at 130db.
That means you need hearing protection, but when hunting hearing is still very useful, so 'active' hearing protection that shuts down for the gunshot but otherwise amplifies quiet signals are helpful assists.
As for the cost of hearing aides, it's my understanding that the expensive ones are much more configurable than 'simple' devices like bluetooth headsets, and are designed to last longer(with better warranty), plus often include the cost of the configuration in the cost for the device. But yeah, a lot of medical device paperwork&liability expense baked into the price.
Youtube is blocked where I am. Who are you talking about?
Personally, I've been of the opinion that corporations should be harder to form than $50 and a sheet of paper, such that there are numerous people, even with incomes under $100k, that are sole owners of multiple 'corporations'.
The thought off the top of my head is 'require a $50k surety bond' to ensure that there are some resources available if the 'corporation' behaves badly. Second would be to kill the idea that corporations are 'people', and restrict corporation's rights to own other corporations.
Not to diss you, but what the NSA was doing was indeed within the 'rule of law', assuming you look at the right set of laws.
Ever consider that the setup might be to help them *SELL* the bigger more expensive set? Take Bored's example of being able to see that a dude's shirt is striped vs just plain red. I saw videos like that before when they were trying upsell from 480 to 720 to 1080.
Consider that in your case they went from a 70" to an 80" - did you make sure you got ~5" closer to account for the smaller screen with the lower resolution? Were you actually as far away as you would be in your living room, or did you get closer? I'm betting they were showing fairly static scenes as well.
That's without getting into sneakier things like feeding the 70" with a 720 or even a 480 image rather than a true 1080 one. Messing with color balances and such.
Was it part of a proper double blind study? Because just like sound, there's all sorts of ways to make a picture 'look' better in ways other than pixel density. Brightness properly set for the room, angling of the lighting in the room, color balance, etc...
Think about weight loss/exercise before/after pictures, where they feature a grumpy 'before' without any makeup, and a smiling person in makeup and nice clothing afterwards.