Disclaimer: This is an opinion piece. All thoughts contained are that of my own. If you have an opinion about my opinion, please use the comment box at the bottom.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA for short. It’s been in the news regarding it’s new budget from President Obama.

This got me thinking…

Why is it even in the budget? It’s the Space Age, and yet, we’ve only made our way to our Moon with our own men. While this is a huge leap from what had been done before, it’s still only so far in the grand scheme of things.

Sure, we’re traveling into space via our machines, and a lot has been done in the last 40 years in these respects…

But imagine a world where we didn’t limit our space exploration, due to an invention of our own: money.

Imagine if all those advancements, if all the discoveries, all the missions had of happened years before. We’d be that much further ahead.

One of the biggest reasons is that our current system, at least in this area of the world, is capitalism: money runs everything. It’s what we know, it’s what we do.

But that’s not to say things can’t change. Things have changed in the past, and they will change in the future, but it’s a matter of when. So why not now?

Space exploration should be on the top of our list. Not only are many of the technologies developed by NASA in use in today’s gadgets and utilities, but NASA are also changing the world every day, by developing even more for their use. These will eventually find their way to consumer use as well.

These technologies create jobs, and most important push us even further towards space, and all that it has to offer.

Which brings me back to my point. Why are we holding them back?

Why are we telling them, “you can do this much, but that’s it for now, maybe more later”.

Why is it even an option to not push the limits of what we know and what we can do, at all times, and as far as they can?

So, how do we thwart this capitalism to give this wonderful cause some structure? My only idea would be an “International Initiative”.

One of the big issues of giving something unlimited money, would be dealing with the inflation that that causes against the people giving. So why not make it everyone’s responsibility?

We as a world community allow this to happen. We allow them to keep on developing past any boundaries that are laid out by “budgets”.

We might just find ourselves those years ahead, and in places where we never thought of even reaching.

These are the places we should be.

Technorati Tags: budget, Community, funding, Life, Money, NASA, Society

The internet is a wonderful thing, it connects people to the world around them, and around others as well. The benefits are incredible, but there still are issues surrounding how we and others use this great invention.

One of the biggest issues we face is news, and reporting. Journalism has finally come full circle, and most news is spread via the web, even by well known journalists. Newsprint and the 6 o’clock news have turned into online news and twitter feeds.

The updates are faster, more easily accessible, free, but with these advantages comes one big disadvantage: credibility.

If we get our news from these sources, who’s to say the journalists reporting back to us aren’t using the same tools we are? And who’s to say that that source is credible?

Comments on internet articles make it immensely easier for those in the know to correct information, or indulge on information given to remove bias, or to set the record straight.

But those in the know can’t be every where, correcting all the biased or incorrect articles. We need another system.

We need a system, not dissimilar to that used by teachers and professors to check that an essay hasn’t been copied from another source. Something that checks where the information came from, and the relevance and credibility of said source.

A study conducted by a university, or committee will, and should, hold more sway than a publicly edited wiki article, for example.

This will force journalists to check and re-check their sources, and present a better product and better information.

Another facet could be to check the amount and locations of the sources.

An article which pulls heavily from one committee’s findings, yet ignores another reports findings, likely for sake of bias, is not a credible news source, and should not deserve to be considered as such.

With the wide world of the internet, and all that it gives us, one thing we need is credible journalism, but certain measures have to be put in place to force journalistic integrity, and to push for unbiased and correct information in articles.

We need a system, and we need it now.

Any ideas on how to implement this system? Or how we can push for more journalistic integrity?

Technorati Tags: Education, information, integrity, Journalism, Society

In today’s society, it seems like there’s always something to stress about. There just aren’t enough hours in each day to get everything done.

However, when we do focus our attention onto something, it must be done in moderation. Whether it’s work, entertainment, exercise, hobbies, or whatever else fills your time, there has to be a time to stop and do something else.

This is a huge problem in today’s world, people will focus too much on certain things. On one side, it’s too much work, and on the opposite end of the spectrum it’s too much play. Everything can be easy to focus on a bit too hard, and this can lead to other aspects of life suffering.

Equal parts may work for some, but the moderation of each aspect of life has to be determined by the person living it: you. Different ratios will work for different people.

A great way to keep track of time spent is to keep a calendar, or agenda. Most phones have these built in, and if not, major computer operating systems will have them, as does Google, with their calendar service.

This will allow you to see where you’re spending your time, and also allow you to map out time, so you can switch activities before something gets out of hand.

People need not be afraid to make time for entertainment. It is essential to maintaining sanity. All work and no play will indeed make you a dull boy. Just make sure as with everything else, it’s done in moderation.

Too many times have I found myself surfing the internet, or playing video games for too long, and losing track of other goals that need to be accomplished for that day.

Another aspect that needs moderating is work. Workload can be piled on a bit too hard sometimes, but it can’t consume your life. As with everything else, track your time spent working with your agenda. The easiest way is to schedule something important right after work.

Something such as exercise can make a great breakaway activity for work. It gives you a rigid schedule to leave or take a break, and it also is very effective for stress management. Say something like work until 5, gym at 5:30, or whatever works for your life.

The key is to make sure you have time for the most important things every day. Make time for your family, and friends. Make time for your work and your play. And make time for exercise and hobbies.

If one part of your life suffers, the rest will as well.

Everything in moderation.

Technorati Tags: Happiness, information, Moderation, Society, Success

A gaunt Wolf was almost dead with hunger when he happened to meet a House-dog who was passing by. “Ah, Cousin,” said the Dog. “I knew how it would be; your irregular life will soon be the ruin of you. Why do you not work steadily as I do, and get your food regularly given to you?”

Better to starve free than be a fat slave.



We’re seeing a change in the way people not only look at the world, but interact with it.

People are finding more of a sense of community, even with people they’ve never met, and who may live thousands of miles away.

The key difference is that these communities don’t thrive on the competition that typical corporations would. They thrive on the generosity of others. Anyone familiar with aspects of P2P, or social media knows this very well.

Through this, we have the ability to express ourselves, and help others, without expecting anything in return, except the satisfaction of knowing a job was well done.

Now, I digress, but the point I’m trying to make is, these communities didn’t start themselves. These communities were built by people, people with an idea.

They also weren’t put there by corporations (although many of the larger ones have since been acquired, but the practice still holds true), they were put there by people like you or me, people like your friends, your neighbors, your family.

Going into work every day to make someone else a pretty penny can be taxing on this freedom, on one’s self-image.

With a great idea and some hard work, one can create their own community, their own life, their own vision, and succeed with it.

Now while the stories ends with the wolf choosing to starve, it’s more a matter of his choice for freedom, his choice to be able to choose, and this is the most important point.

Getting stuck in a dead end job may be for some, but if you have an idea, or a dream, why not follow it?

The world is always changing, and it’s not going to wait for you, you have to make these changes happen for yourself.

You also have to be free to do it, that collar and chain will always wear you away, but the freedom will open up the world, and all it has to offer.

Technorati Tags: Ability, Community, Drive, Freedom, Life, Success

This used to be the case, until one day, something happened.

After someone sat down and payed that fee for the work, he went up to other people and offered it to them for free. He’s just a nice guy like that. He wanted to share this amazing song with everyone, because it was just that special to him. But don’t be mistaken, he bought it, and will most likely continue to buy everything by me as well.

Now given the option of paying me for my music, or having the ability to have all the benefits that he did for free, most people in this situation will likely take the second option, its just human nature.

Why this happens is also due to the fact that they’re dealing with a second-party for their access. This makes them feel detached, and doesn’t give that same feeling of guilt that it directly would, to not directly support that artist. This does lack the sense of ownership that would arise from the direct transaction.

This isn’t all terrible, however. With that second party, it’s become easier to reach more people. People I, as an artist, may never have had the ability to share my music with.

This also opens up the possibility of them coming back to me to pay me directly for my music. This is reflected on what that person thinks my music is worth to them.

Are they willing to seek me out to give me my due?
Now that they have the work, do they feel the need to pay for it, after maybe a trial period?
Are there alternative methods of making money for my work, that maybe aren’t a result of a direct sale?

These are questions that have arisen in the Music Industry, because music piracy is far too prevalent to get rid of.

The metaphorical story at the beginning of this post is only really scraping the surface.

We have to factor in the fact that, in most cases, I’m not sitting down directly with the fan, and this is where it got/gets very complicated.

Imagine we’re back in that metaphorical scene: you sampled the song, or heard it somewhere, and wanted to come pay me for it.

Well it’s not that easy.

You can’t just come to my house and buy it from me, you have to go to a huge building and meet with a bunch of lawyers and people in suits in a room, and give them your money. They then take a lion’s share of that money, put it in their pockets, take out some of the change, and throw it in a pile named “Artist”.

This once again turns into a second-party transaction, and you see most of your money go towards someone who had nothing to do with the actually music, except for “loaning” me [the artist] money to record in their facilities, and put some posters up. [Excuse the bitter brevity.]

This doesn’t make you, the hopeful supporter, feel any more attached than getting it from your friend for free.

At this point, the free option doesn’t make you feel as guilty, so you take advantage of it.

It’s also when many reached this point, the complete devaluation of music, that things started changing for the better.

Let’s look at Radiohead’s In Rainbows. They left EMI and self-funded and produced the album, under their terms, and under their name. No big record producer, no label A&R guy popping in with his opinions. This was their work.

So naturally, they felt they should release it on their own as well.

They put the album up on their website, with the ability to “Pay What You Want”.

This also included the ability to pay nothing. However, according to the band’s co-manager, most fans decided that that music was worth something to them, and payed their hard earned cash to not only have access to that music, but a sense of ownership, and a feeling that they are supporting the band.

Direct-to-fan relations are quick becoming the new popular way of getting your message across. People have always felt attached to the music, but these relationships allow the fan to feel attached to the artist as well.

It’s been said that all it takes is 1000 True Fans. That means people that will buy anything you sell. They just want to see you succeed. To them it’s not just the music, it’s the musician(s), the feeling of being part of a unique group.

To them the music is priceless.

Yet, to others that music has no value. The people who payed nothing in Radiohead’s experiment (barring that they didn’t have the money to spend in the first place) were in essence saying, “This music is worth nothing to me.” Harsh words, but in this society, monetary value carries much weight on perceived value as well.

Perhaps these people planned on supporting the band in other ways: seeing them live, buying a t-shirt. Perhaps these people wanted to sample the album first, lest they be one of the many who’s been disappointed with a lack-luster album purchase.

It is with these questions, these people, this state of the industry, that we must ask,

What is music worth?

Should we have the option of paying what we want at the checkout?
Who’s to decide what we pay for the music we buy?
How are we to be guaranteed the money goes to the artist?

Everyone’s trying to see what the next “working model” will be.

Digital downloads have not, and most likely will not be able to gain back all the revenue lost in CD sales. This is most likely due to people cherry-picking out the hit songs, while leaving the fluff. And should that not be their right? No one wants a bad song.

So we need an answer.

How can value be put back into music?

We’ve been spoiled, having access to seemingly infinite musical choices at the tips of our fingers. It’s been a great time for music, and I think that needs to be recognized as well.

But, an artist’s music, if good enough, should be able to fund their life. Just like anyone else’s job.

If you do your job well, you deserve your due payments.

One thing that is changing is the amount of artists going to alternative labels, going independent, because they are fair to them.

Under these new labels, the artist can make enough, without having to worry about the guy upstairs taking the lion’s share.

Fan funded music is gaining steam, with several services allowing the ability to make donations towards the next album of an artist, effectively cutting out the major label loan process.

Auctions, direct donations: the list goes on.

The key is that there isn’t going to be an answer to all the problems.

There isn’t goes to be the “new model”.

It’s going to be a revolution of artist-fan relations.
It’s going to be musical entrepreneurs.
It’s going to be people finding value in music again.

It’s going to be ever changing.

So don’t wait for the new model to start working. Get out there and be a part of the evolving industry.

Fans, find a way to support your favourite bands.

Artists, don’t be afraid of trying something new, something unique, who knows, it might just work.

Technorati Tags: Music, Music Industry, Success, Trends, Worth

I stumbled across this site which offers side-to-side comparisons of songs which sound similar.

It’s amazing how many there are already, with more likely to come. The similarities are sometimes a little too similar (and admitted by certain artists).

Some of these raise very complicated copyright issues:

• Was the similarity intentional?
• Is the similarity close enough to demand credit/royalties?
• How close is too close?

Some of these similarities border on the issues of electro producers, who make their music by using actual samples of existing music.

For many of these artists, licenses save them from getting sued by the original content owners, and it ensures the artists responsible for the original music get their due payments from the use.

For those unfamiliar with licensing in music, there are four different types. Each has their own specific use, and sometimes all are needed.

For example, an electro producer, using a sample in a song would require the Master Use Rights, in order to use the original recording within their track, Performing Rights to make it legal to play in public (radio, internet, etc.), and if the choice was made to make a video for the track Synchronization Rights are required to put the piece to video.

For the case of a musical similarity that turned out to be intentional, and was required to find rights, replace Master Use rights with Mechanical Rights, as the original recording isn’t used, but the piece still requires rights for re-recording.

It gets complicated very fast.

Many electro producers miss a great deal of their licenses before release, and require re-releases, or edited versions of their originals. The Avalanches went through this with their 2001 album Since I Left You, and saw slightly different versions released in different countries.

So what constitutes the need for these licenses? Where is the line drawn?

A good case would be to look at Green Day’s 2009 “21 Guns“, which draws heavily on several songs before if, and receives 3 mentions within 2 weeks on music similarity site That Song Sounds Like.

Both the verse and chorus draw so heavily on the songs mentioned, it comes close to being an electro mash-up.

Is the line drawn there? Where seemingly original content comes very shy of being a mash-up? How much leeway is given?

Those are for the courts to decide, but at some point, close is too close, and artists should take heed.

For example, here’s a fun video comparing Cat Stevens songs, and their similar counterparts:

What are your opinions? Where should the line be drawn?

Technorati Tags: Education, information, Licenses, Money, Music, Music Industry

Last night I made sure to watch the Munk debate, which posed the question, “[Is] Climate Change Mankind’s Defining Crisis, and [does it] Demand a Commensurate Response.”

On the Pro side we had the Canadian Green Party Leader, Elizabeth May, and a weekly columnist for the Guardian and author, George Monbiot. While the Con side was represented by climate change expert and organizer of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, Bjorn Lomborg, and the founder and chairman of the Global Warming Policy Foundation and ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Nigel Lawson.

Each of these people is very important to this debate, as they each represent a specific group. Elizabeth May represents the extremist-climate change activist, George Monbiot the realist-climate change activist, Bjorn Lomborg the realist-effective change activist, and Lord Nigel Lawson the extremist-capitalism activist. It’s important to note that last fact, as many people don’t realize Lord Nigel is responsible for privatizing many British sectors and deregulating financial sectors during his tenure in office, as well, note that his Global Warming Policy Foundation is an organization which promotes skepticism on global warming.

The topic was not focused entirely on what to do about climate change, but whether it exists, if something should be done, and to what extent.

Each of their arguments can be summed up into a few words:

The debate was a heated one, with Elizabeth May getting very angry, and yelling at the opposition (which is something she’s known for in parliament), which led to her microphone being cut off by the mixers. Yet, her voice could still be heard in the bleed from the other microphones. She was promptly given a “time out”, along with Mr. Lomborg, until she calmed down enough to participate in the debate again.

Elizabeth May and Bjorn Lomborg resorted to insults and degradation of character to assist their perspectives, while the British representatives conducted themselves in a profession debate manner, rarely resorting to these practices. George Monbiot came off very respectable, with checked facts, and first-hand experience to share, along with a very polite demeanor in respect to the debate.

Going into the debate the audience of 1100 people was asked to cast their votes on the resolution, voting 61-39%. Post-debate results came out as 53-47%, declaring that although the con side had gained 8% on their side, the resolution still favoured the pro.

Most people think that this is mankind’s defining crisis, and believe that our effort should be focused on overcoming it, and its effects.

What are your thoughts?

[Watch debate here]

Technorati Tags: Climate Change, Debate, Education, Munk, World

Well today’s Friday, the day everyone seems to look forward to in the week.

Working for the weekend, to our time away from vocation, and spend some time doing what we really want.

Now, there are two problems here.

The first being: that there should be some joy in the work you do. Accomplishing something, and especially contributing to society all have their benefits for the ego. Its likely that this has been forgotten in the day-to-day shuffling of the business world, but try to remember why you got into it in the first place.

The second: the weekend just isn’t long enough.

I know the second point goes against what I just said, but there’s a reason for it:

We all need time away from work, and with all the stresses that burden us, we deserve more.

How about a four day work week?

There has been a push for this in recent reporting. The CBC wrote this article detailing how the shortened week inevitably saves the company money, due to lowered energy costs of shutting down the plant on the extra day.

The state of Utah did a yearlong experiment with the four day work week. They have found amazing success, with saving costs for the company and gas for their employees, such as in the CBC article, but also found 82% of the workers preferred the new schedule.

While these two examples involve a longer work day, but shortened work week, the salaries stay the same [at 40 hours a week for standard full time, 4 days a week, 10 hour days].

This keeps you at work longer during the day, but you get the work week done much quicker, with a larger pay-off as well.

My belief is that this will lower stress, increase employee morale [which it has shown in examples], and will also spark the economy, with an extra day for people to go out and spend money on their free time.

Families could possibly improve, with a whole extra day for family time, and making it easy to plan trips without taking time off.

It’s shown to work, and its preferred by employees, while saving employers money, why hasn’t this been done sooner?

For more read this post at Bullion Bulls Canada.

Technorati Tags: Business, Happiness, information, Life, Money, Society, Success

Procrastination can take something you’re not looking forward to, and make it last even longer.

So why do we do it?

We know what we have to do, we know that if we don’t do it, it’ll just sit there, bugging us, until there’s little-to-no time to do it.

The other thing that can happen, is perhaps we’ll bug ourselves about it to the point that we just do it, to get it over with.

The key is to just get it over with. Take the initiative, without having to trick yourself, or using time as an excuse.

It probably won’t take half as long as we imagine, and it probably won’t be as bad as we’re dreading.

For example, something as simple as unloading the dishwasher can seem like the most daunting task anyone could ever think of. Yet, when we actually do it, we find it only takes a few minutes.

“Wow, that didn’t take that long and I feel great. Why the hell didn’t I do this sooner.” If you say you haven’t ever thought that, you’re lying.

Yet, it seems like its still a very difficult lesson to permanently learn from.

One great idea is to just start your amazingly difficult (but probably not that difficult) task. It’s most likely that once you start, the rhythm will pick up, and it’ll be done in no time.

It’s a lot more intuitive to accomplish your task, or even start it, rather than put effort into finding something else to distract yourself.

Just get it over with, you’ll feel a lot better once you have.

Technorati Tags: Common Sense, Happiness, Life, Procrastination, Success

It seems like they’re always after something else, no matter how great their life may already be.

Now, while it’s great to have drive and determination, thinking down about what you are, because it doesn’t match some particular dream you may have is only going to affect your confidence negatively.

The key is finding that fine line between being proud of what you are, and what you’ve accomplished, and still having the determination to push it even further.

Don’t take your accomplishments thus far for granted.

As I’m sure you know, what you are today took a long time to become, make sure to remember that.

Being happy with yourself can help with confidence, and actually improve the chances of accomplishing your dreams.

Don’t forget who you are, or you’ll miss out on who you want to be.

Technorati Tags: Drive, Happiness, Help, information, Life, Success