PDA

View Full Version : Football 5 Complaints About Modern Life That Are Statistically BS


Pages : 1 [2]

Reerun_KC
02-05-2011, 11:37 PM
Beef is absolutely outrageously priced in SoCal.

Seriously, it costs me at least $35 dollars for a couple of nice NY Strip steaks at the market. Lean hamburger is $7 dollars a pound (for "good" hamburger, not Costco hamburger, which sucks).

We eat very, very little beef because of the climate (who wants to eat steak three times a week when it's 80 degrees outside?), but the cost also deters our consumption.

Plus, we're more into fish, chicken and salads.

Damn that sucks... I just head over to the grandparents house... Take a quick stroll to the freezer and get any kind of real Kansas steak I want... I couldnt imagine paying that kind of money for a steak...

'Hamas' Jenkins
02-05-2011, 11:41 PM
Cows eating corn is not unnatural. It's just as natural as chicken. You put cows on stalks in an open range scenario and they'll eat the shit out of any grain on the ground. I don't really know how the public views feedlots vs chicken lots.


Cows eating corn isn't natural from the sense that it's not good for them. It eats up their guts. Dogs drink antifreeze, too. It doesn't make it good for them.

DaneMcCloud
02-05-2011, 11:41 PM
Damn that sucks... I just head over to the grandparents house... Take a quick stroll to the freezer and get any kind of real Kansas steak I want... I couldnt imagine paying that kind of money for a steak...

Well when I got to good steakhouse like Fleming's, Ruth's Chris, Mastro's, etc., I'll drop $100 bucks on my own for a steak dinner. I'll do it a couple of times a year but for the most part, it's just not my thing anymore due to the climate.

chiefzilla1501
02-06-2011, 12:58 AM
JFC, Dude. There are like 20 questions in this response! I've encouraged you to be less verbose in posts in the past and I'm asking again. It's just to much to address in a single sitting.

Out of all these questions, please pare it down to the three most important and we'll go from there. I don't mind answering but I don't have hours on end.

Thanks.


Since you said that struggling major labels are run by ivy leaguers with no music sense and given my opinion that the music industry has struggled to operate in the new media world (took them forever to start selling mp3s), wouldn't you agree that major changes in the industry are needed? If so, what do you see as the biggest problems and how do we fix them?

You mentioned that radio is limited and if all money is with ad revenue and successful tours, isn't indie a strong media for an unknown band because they are more embracing of viral promotion than major labels (file sharing/cheap albums/etc...)? I see crowds growing at indie concerts and, especially to my demographic, they seem to be increasingly featured in a lot of ads/movies these days, and I credit that to the rise of internet radio, youtube, and file sharing, which I think are more conducive to indie. Is it really flopping, because my outsider opinion is that for many bands, it's an important first step to getting the attention to have commercial appeal.

Buehler445
02-06-2011, 01:40 AM
You do realize that one of the reasons why people eat so much beef is because its initial price is artificially inflated by corn subsidies. Business has nothing to do with it, it's the government.

For as much as people talk about the panacea of the free market, there isn't a more fixed market than beef, which might be nice if it weren't so bad for you.

Wait. What? What are these corn subsidies? Are you talking about USDA farm program payments?

And how is the beef market fixed?

I don't understand a single thing you're trying to say here.

Cows eating corn isn't natural from the sense that it's not good for them. It eats up their guts. Dogs drink antifreeze, too. It doesn't make it good for them.

See, it's statements like this that made me think that you were in favor of feeding out cows wholly on grass.

But corn is good for cows. It's not good for young cows that come off grass to go to a high corn ration, sure. That would be like you eating celery every day to you getting a nice big steak (See what I did there :)). But no feedlots do that. It kills their cost of gain. They all start the new ones on roughage and work their way into higher corn rations gradually. Plus they get sick and the feedlots have to spend money to treat them. Corn is most definitely good for cows. I must disagree here.

I could say the same about any dog food. Feed your dog one kind of dog food for a long time. Then change it. Then pick up their shit. Diet changes fuck up guts.

DaneMcCloud
02-06-2011, 11:38 AM
Since you said that struggling major labels are run by ivy leaguers with no music sense and given my opinion that the music industry has struggled to operate in the new media world (took them forever to start selling mp3s), wouldn't you agree that major changes in the industry are needed? If so, what do you see as the biggest problems and how do we fix them?

Forever? What's forever?

And when did ANY label or music publisher (outside of the Beatles) deny their music on iTunes?

You're talking about shit that happened in 1997 and trying to make it sound like it's happening today. It's not. It hasn't for 13-14 years.

The only way to stop piracy to make it illegal for ISP's to allow it to happen. Until that's regulated through "Net Neutrality" or other laws, there's no way to stop it. And there's nothing else that record labels can do to counteract it.

You mentioned that radio is limited and if all money is with ad revenue and successful tours, isn't indie a strong media for an unknown band because they are more embracing of viral promotion than major labels (file sharing/cheap albums/etc...)?

First off, "Indie" isn't a media type. Indie labels exist because there are 10 billion fucking "bands" out there that want their music heard. Viral doesn't work for those 10 billion bands because they blow fucking chunks and have a extremely limited appeal.

Bands have found out very quickly that there is not much to be gained by "giving away" their music for free and that's certainly not a sustainable model.

I see crowds growing at indie concerts and, especially to my demographic, they seem to be increasingly featured in a lot of ads/movies these days, and I credit that to the rise of internet radio, youtube, and file sharing, which I think are more conducive to indie. Is it really flopping, because my outsider opinion is that for many bands, it's an important first step to getting the attention to have commercial appeal.

You really don't seem to understand the music business. If a band initially has commercial appeal, they're likely to be signed immediately to a major label. If they have limited appeal, they need to grow their fanbase on their own to a point where a major label becomes involved or if they grow too quickly, they may not need the assistance of a major label, whatsoever. The bottom line is that very, very few of the 10 BILLION bands on the "internet" have any appeal, at all.

As for Indie bands popping up in films and commercial advertising, there's a simple reason for that: Budget. Most smaller films don't have the budget to license tracks from major label bands because that type of licensing costs anywhere from $20,000 per song to $12 million per song. If you're doing a $10 million dollar film, the likelihood of licensing a popular song by a major label band is slim and none, so music supervisors turn to Indie bands that are looking for exposure and will not charge a license fee. Same goes for commercials. There's a limited budget involved and furthermore, major label bands and publishers generally have the right of refusal when it comes to product endorsement, anyway.

Jenson71
02-06-2011, 11:41 AM
Buehler, cows are grass eating animals. Hence their two stomachs. All those breeds didn't eat corn in Germany, because there is no corn in Germany. Cows have been bred to eat grass, and corn is like a candy diet to them.

Count Alex's Losses
02-06-2011, 11:42 AM
The only way to stop piracy to make it illegal for ISP's to allow it to happen.

And even that's not going to work. People will find a way.

p2p and torrent sites are getting hit pretty hard these days, but no one is cracking down on the hundreds of forums out there distributing free music and movies.

notorious
02-06-2011, 11:43 AM
You do realize that one of the reasons why people eat so much beef is because its initial price is artificially inflated by corn subsidies. Business has nothing to do with it, it's the government.

For as much as people talk about the panacea of the free market, there isn't a more fixed market than beef, which might be nice if it weren't so bad for you.

Farming and Raising Cattle are as far from free-market as it gets.

My father got out of cattle when I was 14. The little guy doesn't stand a chance.

rockymtnchief
02-06-2011, 12:38 PM
Thirdly, Stone Gossard and Jeff Ament founded this band with Andrew Wood. They wrote some pretty great music, got signed and the singer tragically died before the record was released. What happened next was even more amazing, considering they captured "lightening in a bottle" by discovering and adding Eddie Vedder as the singer, changing their name to "Mookie Blaylock", then to Pearl Jam.



Damn nice to see Jeff Ament mentioned. Montana born, raised, and still lives here. He's done a lot in this state since becoming "somebody". He's a good guy and hasn't forgot where he came from.

chiefzilla1501
02-06-2011, 02:53 PM
Forever? What's forever?

And when did ANY label or music publisher (outside of the Beatles) deny their music on iTunes?

You're talking about shit that happened in 1997 and trying to make it sound like it's happening today. It's not. It hasn't for 13-14 years.

The only way to stop piracy to make it illegal for ISP's to allow it to happen. Until that's regulated through "Net Neutrality" or other laws, there's no way to stop it. And there's nothing else that record labels can do to counteract it.
Correct me where I'm wrong on this. But I recall the music industry being blindsighted by the mass switch to .mp3 format. It was clear that there was huge demand to buy singles without having to buy a full album yet they clung to CDs and didn't try to come up with a solution of their own. They should have seen it coming for years. Isn't it true that they're basically just riding the wave of Apple's genius? If Apple didn't innovate iTunes, would they ever have made the switch to the widely demanded mp3?

First off, "Indie" isn't a media type. Indie labels exist because there are 10 billion ****ing "bands" out there that want their music heard. Viral doesn't work for those 10 billion bands because they blow ****ing chunks and have a extremely limited appeal.

Bands have found out very quickly that there is not much to be gained by "giving away" their music for free and that's certainly not a sustainable model.
Is it fair to say that this is lumping all of indie into one gigantic category? Because it seems to me that there are lots of indie labels that are far more selective in the bands they pick and better at spotting talent. If you focus only on the big indie label players, is the success rate a whole lot different from the 5-10% success rate of the Big Four? And yes, I get that "success" in indie isn't nearly as lucrative as success in mainstream.

You really don't seem to understand the music business. If a band initially has commercial appeal, they're likely to be signed immediately to a major label. If they have limited appeal, they need to grow their fanbase on their own to a point where a major label becomes involved or if they grow too quickly, they may not need the assistance of a major label, whatsoever. The bottom line is that very, very few of the 10 BILLION bands on the "internet" have any appeal, at all.
But wouldn't you agree that there is a growing intersection between indie and mainstream? That the sentiment that "I don't listen to any of that commercial bullshit" is becoming almost mainstream thinking? I don't see pure indie bands like Sufjan Stevens or Arcade Fire seeing nearly the kind of success they had if they were started with a "commercial" tag.

As for Indie bands popping up in films and commercial advertising, there's a simple reason for that: Budget. Most smaller films don't have the budget to license tracks from major label bands because that type of licensing costs anywhere from $20,000 per song to $12 million per song. If you're doing a $10 million dollar film, the likelihood of licensing a popular song by a major label band is slim and none, so music supervisors turn to Indie bands that are looking for exposure and will not charge a license fee. Same goes for commercials. There's a limited budget involved and furthermore, major label bands and publishers generally have the right of refusal when it comes to product endorsement, anyway.
Budget is definitely a big reason. But you don't think a lot of that also has to do with a growing focus on targeting millennials? Watch what's going on with car commercials. It's not like Honda and Ford and Hyundai can't afford the rights to mainstream artists--they use them for some of their car commercials. But for their cars targeting millennials... you can't promote a Ford to a millennial with a Matchbox 20 song. But when you use Edward Sharpe or Band of Horses, it makes complete sense. You don't think there's a segment of indie that's starting to gain commercial appeal because, ironically, it's not commercial?

DaneMcCloud
02-06-2011, 03:07 PM
Correct me where I'm wrong on this. But I recall the music industry being blindsighted by the mass switch to .mp3 format. It was clear that there was huge demand to buy singles without having to buy a full album yet they clung to CDs and didn't try to come up with a solution of their own. They should have seen it coming for years. Isn't it true that they're basically just riding the wave of Apple's genius? If Apple didn't innovate iTunes, would they ever have made the switch to the widely demanded mp3?


Is it fair to say that this is lumping all of indie into one gigantic category? Because it seems to me that there are lots of indie labels that are far more selective in the bands they pick and better at spotting talent. If you focus only on the big indie label players, is the success rate a whole lot different from the 5-10% success rate of the Big Four? And yes, I get that "success" in indie isn't nearly as lucrative as success in mainstream.


But wouldn't you agree that there is a growing intersection between indie and mainstream? That the sentiment that "I don't listen to any of that commercial bullshit" is becoming almost mainstream thinking? I don't see pure indie bands like Sufjan Stevens or Arcade Fire seeing nearly the kind of success they had if they were started with a "commercial" tag.


Budget is definitely a big reason. But you don't think a lot of that also has to do with a growing focus on targeting millennials? Watch what's going on with car commercials. It's not like Honda and Ford and Hyundai can't afford the rights to mainstream artists--they use them for some of their car commercials. But for their cars targeting millennials... you can't promote a Ford to a millennial with a Matchbox 20 song. But when you use Edward Sharpe or Band of Horses, it makes complete sense. You don't think there's a segment of indie that's starting to gain commercial appeal because, ironically, it's not commercial?

I'm done with this conversation.

You're using the "Indie vs. Major label" rhetoric without knowing a fucking thing about either.

Secondly, I really give a fuck about debating with someone on this issue. I'm not interested, whatsoever.

Iowanian
02-06-2011, 05:50 PM
Buehler, cows are grass eating animals. Hence their two stomachs. All those breeds didn't eat corn in Germany, because there is no corn in Germany. Cows have been bred to eat grass, and corn is like a candy diet to them.

Cows have 4 stomachs, Lawyer Dagget.

The rumen, The reticulum, The omasum, and the abomasum

RJ
02-06-2011, 09:55 PM
Buehler, cows are grass eating animals. Hence their two stomachs. All those breeds didn't eat corn in Germany, because there is no corn in Germany. Cows have been bred to eat grass, and corn is like a candy diet to them.


That's sad. Maybe we should start a Corn Drive.

Jenson71
02-06-2011, 10:54 PM
Cows have 4 stomachs, Lawyer Dagget.

The rumen, The reticulum, The omasum, and the abomasum

Well, the point remains.

HonestChieffan
02-06-2011, 11:50 PM
I wonder where we in agriculture have failed. Some of the statements in this thread are so far from reality it is amazing. Yet, as often happens with the internet, someone can say something that is pure fiction but say it in a way the really sounds good and it is accepted as fact.

I dont think most of this is done with and malicious intent, its just how misguided and uninformed people have become relative to the actual process of raising a crop or feeding animals that we use as food. And in some cases its a matter of ignorance being passed on at a high rate of speed as a result of the electronics we have today.

To state that German cows don't eat corn is patently absurd. And to state there is no corn in Germany? Where do these sorts of things come from? German cattle are for all intents and purposes the same breeds as our cattle. US cattle come from primarily two sets of seed stock. Those from Great Britain...Hereford and Angus, and a long list from what are called continental breeds. Germany, France, Belgium, Austria, Switzerland, even Italy have sourced our livestock breeds as have Africa and India. The only true American bovine if my recollection is right is the bison.

Germany and France, at least in September when I was there, has a great many acres in crop production including a large number of acres of corn as well as barley, wheat, oats, grass hay, alfalfa....not any different than what we grow here in the midwest. And corn is harvested by the same equipment and stored and fed as it is here. No different at all. As an exchange student years ago, going from a midwestern farm in the US to a farm in Denmark was no challenge on the practical side at all. We do the same things with the same crops, same equipment, feed our pigs the same stuff, and produce milk the same way. Pigs oink and moo there just like here.

Maybe I am incapable of understanding this sort of misinformation since I grew up in the cattle and hog business, have a degree in ag, have worked in the US and Europe in agriculture, and still raise cattle. That gives me some perspective someone who is only aware of what they may read or hear does not have.

"Grass fed", "Organic", "hormone free" "free range" are all buzz words driven by people and companies advancing a marketing effort for the most part. And there are huge challenges to producers who decide to be a true "organic" producer.(Organic is a federal defined designation, the others are pretty much labels not defined) It is way more complex than not giving antibiotics. And Organic does not mean the animal is fed less corn or more grass at all. That "organic" beef you get may very well have been on grass longer, was in a feedlot longer and was fed as much or more corn than that one that does not say organic.

Its way to complex and way to difficult to explain the protein partitioning processes and the role of the rumen in breaking down feed into nutrients in a cow or a sheep. But the statement we have "bred cows to eat grass" is absurd. Buffalo are a native non introduced bovine. They were not bred to eat grass. They evolved as a grazer and a browser. Browser meaning they can and do at times eat woody species as well as grasses, seeds, and stover. Our cattle today have bloodlines that are traceable back to when the first purebred animals were imported. Breeding and selection for body type is not genetic engineering and the cows I have in my pasture eat the same things cows ate in that pasture 200 years ago.

Mr Jenkins made a few statements that get stated over and over in one form or another referencing government programs and such. The cattle business is not a subsidized ag business. And when you assert that since corn is by definition beef is that is counterintuitive and wrong. As a cattle raiser I am far better off if my feed costs are low and selling price i high. His grain costs put pressure on the price i get from the buyer because his cost to finish the animal are high. And if I feed any corn it raises my cost as well. Since I feed the corn and since the corn is over the loan price I dont participate in government programs at all.

Oh well, its late, been a long day, and its a grad level class in adecon/ livestock production/ animal husbandry/nutrition thats needed to try to explain the errors in peoples perceptions.

Good discussion all. Just try to sort the misinformation and pure garbage from facts and real information you can use to reach a real informed conclusion. If you dont have a background in a given area ask...usually someone here can give you a great answer that is spot on. Beware of those who just opine with no basis.

Brock
02-06-2011, 11:55 PM
Well, corn is not native to Europe, or North America for that matter. I doubt there's anything wrong with feeding it to livestock, but it is true that cattle don't have a millions of years history of eating it they way they do grass.

HonestChieffan
02-07-2011, 12:02 AM
Well, corn is not native to Europe, or North America for that matter. I doubt there's anything wrong with feeding it to livestock, but it is true that cattle don't have a millions of years history of eating it they way they do grass.


Corn is a grass.

Corn as we produce it today is genetically very very close to Gama Grass. Gamma grass is the northern hemisphere relative of maize, the genetic starting point for field corn and sweet corn. Gama is a native warm season grass plant that grows in most grass producing areas of the US

Im afraid the simplistic statement corn is not native is fundamentally flawed and wrong. Corn is a grain grown from a grass crop, the seed is made up of starch,proteins and nutrients. Corn, wheat, milo, barley all have a seed component that are similar and interchangeable in a ration and all are found naturally growing in wild forms worldwide.

salame
02-07-2011, 12:05 AM
Dane what label do you work for

Brock
02-07-2011, 12:10 AM
Corn is a grass.

Corn as we produce it today is genetically very very close to Gama Grass. Gamma grass is the northern hemisphere relative of maize, the genetic starting point for field corn and sweet corn. Gama is a native warm season grass plant that grows in most grass producing areas of the US

Im afraid the simplistic statement corn is not native is fundamentally flawed and wrong. Corn is a grain grown from a grass crop, the seed is made up of starch,proteins and nutrients. Corn, wheat, milo, barley all have a seed component that are similar and interchangeable in a ration and all are found naturally growing in wild forms worldwide.

No, it's not fundamentally flawed and wrong. Corn is NOT native to Europe, nor to North America. I don't care how many distant relatives of it are. That's not the discussion.

DaneMcCloud
02-07-2011, 12:11 AM
Dane what label do you work for

I left that side of the business in 2003.

Previously, I worked at Universal and Paramount's music division.

It's been well documented over the years in this forum.

salame
02-07-2011, 12:13 AM
I left that side of the business in 2003.

Previously, I worked at Universal and Paramount's music division.

It's been well documented over the years in this forum.

I haven't been here for years
I have a social life


were you a part of anything I would have heard of?

DaneMcCloud
02-07-2011, 12:15 AM
I haven't been here for years
I have a social life


were you a part of anything I would have heard of?

Yeah, I have no social life.

Except when I share it with Chiefsplanet and then I'm an insecure name-dropper.

LMAO

salame
02-07-2011, 12:19 AM
Yeah, I have no social life.

Except when I share it with Chiefsplanet and then I'm an insecure name-dropper.

LMAO

we all need an outlet
:)

DaneMcCloud
02-07-2011, 12:20 AM
were you a part of anything I would have heard of?

Quite frankly, your posting style is due South of Hootie's and you've always seemed like a weird fucking dude to me.

If you have specific questions, PM me and I'll do my best answer them, in due time.

No offense.

Jenson71
02-07-2011, 07:26 AM
I dont think most of this is done with and malicious intent, its just how misguided and uninformed people have become relative to the actual process of raising a crop or feeding animals that we use as food. And in some cases its a matter of ignorance being passed on at a high rate of speed as a result of the electronics we have today.

To state that German cows don't eat corn is patently absurd. And to state there is no corn in Germany? Where do these sorts of things come from? German cattle are for all intents and purposes the same breeds as our cattle. US cattle come from primarily two sets of seed stock. Those from Great Britain...Hereford and Angus, and a long list from what are called continental breeds. Germany, France, Belgium, Austria, Switzerland, even Italy have sourced our livestock breeds as have Africa and India. The only true American bovine if my recollection is right is the bison.

Germany and France, at least in September when I was there, has a great many acres in crop production including a large number of acres of corn as well as barley, wheat, oats, grass hay, alfalfa....not any different than what we grow here in the midwest. And corn is harvested by the same equipment and stored and fed as it is here. No different at all. As an exchange student years ago, going from a midwestern farm in the US to a farm in Denmark was no challenge on the practical side at all. We do the same things with the same crops, same equipment, feed our pigs the same stuff, and produce milk the same way. Pigs oink and moo there just like here.

Yeah, I'm sure they have corn now. I'm talking about the 15,000 years of agricultural history and domestic breeding before 1950.