That is so true. Most people pay more for a concert ticket than they do an album to hear a bunch of songs in a few hours and inspiration or even recovering from mistakes can lead somewhere interesting.

The commitment to practice that it takes to get to that level of performance art is something I hope we don't ever loose. It's the essence of being human.

If you say so. I doubt you will find a musician doing a live performance concerning themselves about reproducing it in the studio.

He was a great musician, now he is decomposing! ;)

Exactly.

Because it shows that they aren't musicians at all. Live performances are the pinnacle of performance art, the albums support that objective. As a musician I have been the lead vocalist in front of the crowd, I know what it is like and the amount of preparation that it takes to deliver an outstanding performance both live and in the studio - the two are completely different. I see an album as a contract between the band and their fans that this is what they can do live night after night.

That's because a live performance is often a shared experience between friends and the band, one that fans will remember for years after the band has gone. Punters will either experience the shared triumph of the band delivering on the promise of their albums or a shared disappointment - what punters remember is up to the band.

As for A.I, most artists who signed music industry contacts (no, I didn't) have already signed their rights away to the record industry when they agreed to have their recordings financed by future earning of the album.

It works (roughly) like this. Imagine you took on a coding contract (as opposed to a job) where you had to take out a loan to rent the machine you wrote the code on paid by your future earnings. In a normal common law contract you would be permitted to have a copy of the code you delivered to reuse to create new software because it is your product. In the music industry paradigm not only do you have to pay back the rent on the machine (the studio) you also loose access and control of the IP you created on it, denying you the ability to remix, repackage and resell your own work through another avenue.

It's this contractual control over the IP that will allow the music industry to do whatever they want with an artist's creativity using AI (derivative works) so there isn't much that musicians can do about it other than appeal to their fans as they are doing now.

Exactly this. Unless you have some bespoke high end media production or engineering apps, the platform is mostly irrelevant now. it's almost all web.

Some of the more tech knowledgeable are relying on smartphones and tablets too, if they fit their needs. The days of needing a desktop or laptop for general purpose tasks are pretty much over. Unless you're an IT guy, gamer or need some high end engineering or media production apps - you could probably get by with a tablet with far less PC janitor work.

EOM

10nm shipping in volume in 2016, etc wake me up when it ships and actually posts performance numbers.

This. Iâ(TM)d pay $5 Aussie for this. It the current pricing is hilarious.

You can get 1TB and larger SD cards now.

iPhone manages it, because the memory/resource management isn’t a dumpster fire

BC: Hello
FB: Hello, we heard that you were attempting to delete your facebook account and we wanted to talk to you about that
BC: How did you get this number, I never gave it to you.
FB: Never mind about that, we promise to never misuse your information
BC: You're calling me now using my information without consent
FB: The owner of the information consent to our use of it
BC: I am the owner of that information
FB: That is a matter of opinion, and not relevant, we are not misusing the information.
BC: WTF? You're misusing it now
FB: No, it's appropriate to warn you, you don't want to delete your FB account
BC: Yes I do
FB: No, you don't, you wouldn't want anything bad to happen would you?
BC: Fuck you, you don;t know where I live
FB: Are you sure about that?

As predicted, you are unable to provide an argument based in fact.

In-Situ leech mining is illegal in the US and Russia, it's primary by-product is radioactive sulfuric acid in the hundreds of megalitre range. In Australia, there has already been an accident involving this in a World heritage National park despite assurances from the mining company that an accident could not happen. Even so, this particular form of mining leaks into water tables, so the concerns for bio-accumulation here is very real as bore water is usually used for farming.

As for seawater extraction even membrane technology has not reached efficiency levels required to get EROEI below 70 petajoules IIRC.

Which is where we agree. A full analysis of all the concerns addressed by implementing a proper Nuclear infrastructure is a conversation I have had here many times over the years. Why specific technologies are chosen, which materials technologies are required, what is an appropriate location, how do we address the logistic concerns. Primarily, which reactor technology eliminates Mining, in any form, simultaneously using DU and pu-239 as a fuel whilst eliminating the mass of the waste stream to, unfortunately, something more radioactive with shorter half-lifes and encapsulate fuel reprocessing and reactor disposal.

I think it is possible, unfortunately most of the pro-nukkers here are too short sighted to see past their spite for anyone who questions their social proof to improve the technology to make it viable relative to the energetic potential. Since you are new here, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and discuss it in another thread some other time.

Yankee Rowe, was a controlled shutdown of a functioning reactor. It cost half a billion dollars to clean-up and it was only 137 Megawatts, less than a quarter of the size of TMI-2. You have to wait decades to allow the *really* radioactive elements to decay. This is because new and highly radioactive elements are created in the reactor core. It's still not something that has been addressed in an industrially proficient way that makes the sites safe or 'greenfeild'. Considering the 104 reactor sites around America are multi-core the United States will be looking at a conservative estimate of a quarter of a *Trillion* dollars, at todays prices, on reactor decommissioning alone.

Germany is engaged in such a project now, with no projected end date, they started in the 1990's. So unless you have some new or additional information to contribute, which I welcome you to do, my comment *specifically* referred to SMRs where the common assumption is that they will be removed on the back of a truck in the same manner they were installed.