Stripey

check out my gear its awesum

customised tosh lappy

black pepakura cat on left monitor

jesus figurine

panorama

brb taking screenshots of all my softsynths

And photographing children?

Well if you are down the playpark with one hand holding an SLR with a telephoto lense and the other in your greasy trackpants playing with your cock I suspect most people, including the police would consider you to be up to no good.

If however, you are down the playpark with an SLR taking snaps of the kiddies, one of whom happens to be your own offspring, there is nothing illegal about it atall. If you're in a public place you can't reasonably expect any privacy. As much as I think peter dow is a bit of a wierdo, the idea that it's somehow wrong for him to film the street from his window is completely misguided.

Filming the kids through the window should be dealt with by the police

photography in a public place isn't illegal, and it's certainly not illegal to photograph a public place from your private property.

Not to mention the fact that with a lot of the online music purchases you now get the full artwork and lyrics either embedded into the music tracks or supplied as a separate PDF file with the download. So the only thing you are really missing is the physical CD and plastic case.

yeah absolutely, also when you're buying a CD in the shop most of the money is going to the retailer, the distributor, the label who has licensed the content etc. The internet as a means of music distribution was meant to cut out all those horrible middlemen, thus bringing down the cost of music to the consumer while increasing the actual real profit returned to the content creators themselves. In theory anyone should be able to sell their music online and keep 100% of that income (minus operational costs). Services like iTunes and the willingness of artists, aswell as consumers to accept that approach really make me sick.

Tiscali...?

It's a pain in the arse and there appears to be someone taking stuff off of me at a healthy rate.

Yeah tiscali use traffic shaping at peak times, have a look at the forums here thinkbroadband :: Viewing list of forums there is one dedicated to Tiscali that if you have read of might help suss out what they are up to with throttling. Basically all of thse ISPs on bt wholesale offering "unlimited" plans use traffic shaping. Some like Demon implement a fair use policy so you can download 50 gigs in a month and if you exceed it, they will throttle all your traffic 24/7 to some paltry rate until your monthly rolling total is under 50 gigs.

Have a look here Samknows Broadband - Broadband Availability Checker and see if your exchange is offering any LLU services such as O2 or BE which don't throttle and offer up to 24mbit. I was on bt internet for over a year, got totally sick of their service so I rang up and got a MAC number and switched to Zen internet within 3 days. 25 quid a month with a 25 gig per month quota, but if I want to torrent something it will come down at full speed regardless of the time of day.

are you on bt internet by any chance? I just left them because they throttle torrent traffic to 11k/s between 4pm and 1am. Almost every other ISP operating on BT wholesale (non LLU) in the uk is doing this at the moment.

because i like to see what an artists output is as well as hear it. when i get a cd or a record, i like to have the whole package, i like to sit in my room, and listen to the record/cd, read the lyric book, learn the words, and look at the artwork. Its nice to appreciate the amount of time/money that a band/label have put in to their releases. And lets not forget that downloading generally is shitter sound quality.

I suppose you buy breakfast cereal for the game of snakes and ladders printed on the back and the free toy that comes with it too?

It always makes me laugh when people go on about "artwork" from mass produced albums printed on cheap paper/card stock. Yes I could understand this if you mean something like a handprinted, hand folded cd sleeve that has been made with care and attention and in numbers less than the hundreds, but to go on about album artwork on the average cd or album sleeve is just as sad as admiring the design of a frosties packet.

no thats just your paranoia....what I attempt to highlight is that there is no visual requirement in your chosen media and you are reluctant to see the importance of it for others. But that will be ignored by you as usual...as I said before "pointless argument"

END!

Its an anal kazoo' date=' its the nearest stripey gets to playing a musical instrument....

bum-tss bum-tss bum-tss bum-tss bum-tss bum-tss bum-tss bum-tss....[/quote']

But of course if it wasnt for musicians you'd be fucked....nothing to sample!!!

etc etc, you consistently use this sort of pathetic innuendo.

anyway, what has what I do musically got to do with anything in this discussion? I'm not "reluctant" to see anything, I'm telling you that I think people posting photos of their guitars and amps online like this is pathetic. Let me have my opinion and stfu with your petty digs at me.

Wicked come back...thats taken the fight right out of me, you win, your the best and guitars are shite, im off to sell all my ego props and become Bhudist monk like you...

No really, why do you always feel the need to bring up the fact that I use a computer as the center of my studio whenever you don't like my opinion? You always try to imply that it somehow makes me talentless or negates my argument, which is of course utter rubbish and demonstrates how completely out of touch you are.

Thats hardly a comeback..... ITS WHAT YOU DO...!!!

So what?

This argument is pointless....

I didnt go off at any tangent about production methods

You did, and it's because the only comeback you ever have is "oh but you make music on a COMPUTER!". And it is quite clear you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about when you come out with rubbish like "if it wasn't for musicians you wouldn't have anything to sample".

This thread and the others like it would be equally as pathetic if people were posting pictures of their car, their tv or any other thing they've just bought in a shop and use to prop up their fragile egos.

But of course if it wasnt for musicians you'd be fucked....nothing to sample!!!

And I didnt miss your point, I just dont agree with it which I know you'll find hard to understand.

No, you did miss my point and went off on a tangent about production methods, as I have just clarified for you. Unless of course you really do disagree and think that what your instrument looks like is more important than what it sounds like? And that showing off pictures of your material possessions is anything other than boring and sad.

Also, I don't need to justify my approach to ignorant people like you who don't have the slightest clue about modern production techniques and whos understanding of the digital studio is rooted in misconceptions that have more in common with the 80's than how people work now. If you think it's all about sampling bars of people playing instruments then looping them, I feel sorry for you being so out of touch with the reality of making music in this day and age.

I wouldnt on the other hand like to look at pictures of laptops samplers or sound modules

yes, and neither would I. You miss the point I was making, which is that giving a crap about what your gear looks like is misguided, lame, and IMO just compensating for where you are lacking in other areas. Then again, of course, I'm forgetting being a musician is 98% image, 1% talent and 1% creativity.

Fewer pointless comments wouldn't go amiss either.

Yeah fewer pointless comments wouldn't go amiss, Hugh_Jazz.

every single one of them fails to mention the exact number of people who downloaded the album from Radiohead's website and paid for it. Why?

because radiohead won't release the statistics, actually, and with tom yorke saying he wouldn't recommend anyone else to do it I think anyone with some intelligence can draw their own conclusions about how successfull (i.e profitable) this was compared to their previous distribution agreements.

I'm guessing what they really found out, at their expense, is just what percentage of their fanbase are gullible idiots (or "dedicated fans" depending on your perspective), because the vast majority of people who would have otherwise bought the album probably just downloaded it for nothing off torrent sites since unlike straightforward piracy, they were "giving it away for free".

this site could do with less pointless pictures of guitars and amps and more actual fucking sounds that you people are recording. get a life.

Millions chose torrents over Radiohead's own site - survey | The Register

At least 2.3 million people preferred to download Radiohead's In Rainbows from torrent sites rather than the band's own site, a survey this week reports, even though the cost was the same: Zero.

includes the gem at the end of the article:

...the band said it won't repeat the experiment - nor recommend it to others.

Back in April, Thom Yorke described it as a "one-off response to a particular situation".

i.e it was just a publicity stunt.

that's kind of a contradiction there. you defend reading 2000ad as being different from the way dark night depicts violence yet go on to say it's darker and more subversive. so you're saying reading 2000ad will influence kids behaviour in a dark way right?

i really don't think we're going to have a spate of kids shoving their classmates heads into pencils because of the dark night. in the same way that you didn't wander the streets saying "i am the law" and dispensing justice after reading 2000ad. it may have been a comic but 2000ad regularly portrayed some pretty graphic violence and extreme behaviour.

the thing about 2000ad is you aren't meant to identify with characters like judge dredd, if anything it takes the piss out of batman and his unilateral form of justice.

er, you already said earlier in this thread that you were a regular reader of 2000ad when you were ten. hardly the fucking beano is it?

2000AD as a comic is a world apart from the way violence is depicted in this film - I hesitate to say "realistically depicted" because in the film, it isn't, it's sanitised violence that reduces murder to a casual inconsequential act.

Anyway compared to DC comics timid, patriotic, feelgood vigilante glorifying cheesy boring cliched american rubbish, 2000AD always was a darker and more subversive alternative, almost a polar opposite.

So now your admitting that you don't actually watch films, but just have them in the background while you do other things? o_O

Your petty arguments loose more credibility with every post. Hand over the spade son.

What's wrong with watching a film stickied in the top right hand 1/4 of the screen while you're working? How is that any different from listening to music in the background while you work, or while you're walking down the street with your ipod?

Try watching a de-interlaced DVD on big TFT monitor, you will quickly realise why watching such things in a window is a good idea.

Was supposed to be playing with Crake at The Moorings, but due to unfortunate unforseen circumstances will now be playing a solo set instead.

is that some kind of euphemism

actually i couldn't stop thinking about the Electro episode of the mighty boosh while I was listening to them.

the tunes on their myspace page are horrible

Have you seen Delicatessen? QUOTE]

god, i'd totally forgotten about that film. it's beautiful. and ugly too. just really great visuals throughout.

and no one's mentioned spike lee's Do The Right Thing or hitchcocks Rear Window yet, have they?

do the right thing is awesome, haven't seen that in years now

good point, Sudans Omar al-Bashir is another petty warcriminal that the hague is happy to go after, while completely ignoring george bush and tony blair.