Youtube

Souce: https://i.ytimg.com

• KEY ECONOMIC PRINCIPLES I’M ADDRESSING:  
• OVERALL RESEARCH QUESTION: How is YouTube a plausible job?
• SUB QUESTIONS
• What is YouTube and how has it grown?
• What is YouTube mainly used for?
• With YouTube as a person’s income, how much do they make?
• How does YouTube relate to the business world
• RESOURCES FOR RESEARCH:
• DATABASES: Student Resources in Context
• WEBSITES:
• https://gigaom.com/2009/07/28/34-ways-to-use-youtube-for-business/
• http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/suic/ReferenceDetailsPage/ReferenceDetailsWindow?failOverType=&query=&windowstate=normal&contentModules=&display-query=&mode=view&displayGroupName=Reference&limiter=&u=hins30136&currPage=&disableHighlighting=true&displayGroups=&sortBy=&source=&search_within_results=&p=SUIC&action=e&catId=VRBJZU288424390&activityType=&scanId=&documentId=GALE%7CGLTTBC369412473

https://www.business.qld.gov.au/business/running/marketing/online-marketing/using-youtube-to-market-your-business

To sum it all up...

http://www.microcosmologist.com/blog

As much as I will vouch for the superiority of vinyl, it really does come down to preference. Some people value accessibility to music over the minutia of sound quality. some people like CD format and its accuracy. And some people like Spotify. (One thing you can't have with vinyl is a playlist, I have to admit that that is a downside) Records also have some distinct, non-sound based advantages; they were at their prime when some of the best and most influential artists were around, normally people will listen to vinyl on a fairly nice setup while they listen to digital through a cheap pair of old ear buds, and vinyl now has a trendy, hipster connotation to it which can increase its popularity (though for the wrong reasons).

Music is music. However you listen is up to you. To quote 

http://cdn.mysitemyway.com/

Friedrich Nietzsche, "Without music, life would be a mistake." When it really comes down to it, I don't Nietzsche would really car if the music was played on a turntable, an iPod, or the speakers of your car, all that matters is that it's playing.

Hawking on Space Travel

https://nationalpostcom.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/520642806.jpg?quality=65&strip=all&w=620

               The economics of outer space can be a blurry area. As we have seen there are many factors that must be taken into account when determining if space travel is economically a good idea. In my last article we explored the alternatives to space travel and what we could be using that funding on here on Earth. It all certainly caused questions to arise about the topic. However, Stephen Hawking, a world famous physicist and cosmetologist, has put doubts to rest in a lecture he gave to a group at George Washington University. He brings up the points that we are in a golden age for exploration and funding for space travel, as well as how we can do all of this while increasing funding and research in other problems on Earth. 

               Hawking starts his lecture by disproving a common misconception that space travel is extremely expensive. He notes that though from a numbers point of view it may seem like they are spending drastic amounts of money, but when you compare how much NASA spends compared to the national GDP it comes out to roughly 0.1%. Hawking also notes that the world has access to more resources that ever at this moment in time and it is important to allocate some of those resources to NASA now so that down the road we will not be forced to blow off space travel when faced with a scarcity of resources. Hawking believes that if we could increase spending on NASA by doubling it then we could be exploring possible host planets in two-hundred years, and he says all of this is possible while protecting our homeland. 

             Hawking brings up a curious point where he explains that it doesn't matter how much we spend on things as long as they are worth their cost. From his point of view, defense is a commonly over budgeted program by governments and that money should be going towards space exploration as well as a number of other things, specifically the environment. I would agree with this statement in that we do not have much need for large defensive budgeting at this point in time. Most of our warfare is technological and the cost far exceeds what it should at this point in time. Hawking brought up data suggesting that the U.S. cutting back on defensive spending could double spending in environment conservation as well as NASA, all while still spending more on defense than any other country in the world. This all helps explain a solution to everyones interests concerning this debate and I believe that all sides benefit from Hawking's argument. It is uncertain if cutting back on defense and increasing in NASA is practical, but it is an idea that may spark hundreds more.

So let's talk $$$ here...

http://specials-images.forbesimg.com/imageserve/492638336/960x0.jpg?fit=scale

Isn't vinyl dead? Isn't it a thing of the past? 

Well.. Yes... but that doesn't seem to stop sales. Last year record sales jumped up by almost 3 million more records sold than the previous year. Sales are now 13 times what they were in 2006. To be clear, 11.9 records were sold in 2015. Big chains are begin to sell records as well, not just local shops. (though I would argue those are still the best and least expensive) Urban Outfitters has begun to sell vinyl, Barnes and Noble, and even Best Buy. 

The records that are being sold are not just old records, but newly released albums are being transferred to vinyl format. The number one best selling album of 2015 was Adele's 25, following that was Taylor Swift's 1989. Others on the top ten are Arctic Monkeys, Alabama Shakes, and Hozier. So as you can tell, the albums being sold are from new artists.

What sets Vinyl apart?

http://7-themes.com/

Why is vinyl different?

We've all heard record oriented hippies confidently brag about the superiority of their sound, warmth and "realness". However how true are those claims?

The main other platforms for listening to music that are still used are CD and digital. In this post I'll explain the differences between vinyl and CD. The main difference between the two is the way that the music is recorded and later read. On vinyl there are actual grooves the a needle bounces along and interprets to produce the intended sound. On CD's a small laser is shot onto the disk, and whatever light bounces back tells the disk player what to do. 

However when one mixes the physical with digital one can run into issues. The grooves in a record limit some of what the music can do on a scale dynamic range. For example the needle cannot read music that makes a radical drop in tone because the actual needle will bounce off the surface of the record and skip parts of the song. Records can also warp, where the vinyl bends over time. They actual surface of the record can be worn down over time and change the sound.

In CD's none of this can happen, for the only thing touching the disk is light. They don't really warp, and can handle intense drops in tone. By all accounts CD's appear to be significantly better than vinyl in all aspects, accuracy of sound, resistance to change, and overall ease of use. 

The thing is, the needle on record sound isn't a negative. It creates a tiny bit of distortion on that transfers to the speakers, providing a sort of background ambiance for the music to play with. It's what many people describe as the "warmth" or "fullness" of records vs digital. Listening to records is also an experience, you pull the record out of you collection, shimmy it out of its sleeve, put it on the turn table, set the needle, then sit back and listen to the whole album without many other distractions. Its difficult and impractical to skip songs on records, forcing people to fully appreciate the story behind the album. The larger album cover also allows for better cover art. I could go on and on about the unseen advantages that arise from record's seeming inconvenience. It's those things that take a little extra time and care where the experience of listening to records comes from.

Blog Post PP#6, Tirakian

Caity Tirakian

PP#6 

Through this project, I have learned that living vicariously through your children is dangerous and harmful, but is fixable. There are many negative implications to both this style and the opposite extreme of neglect or being permissive. It is necessary that the parent recognize why they behave in the way they do. The three main causes as to why parents live through their children are that parents never got to experience the thing they are pushing on their kid, parents want to benefit through their children’s success, or parents feel the need for their child to be perfect. While living through your children seems helpful, it has a very negative effect on the children. Parents just need to realize it’s better to work in agreement with their child and not through them. I would constitute my parents as part of that intermediate group of Authoritative. Not to toot my own horn, but I thought this was highly effective. I was raised with set expectations but my parents still entrusted me with a lot of responsibility and personal decision making. This style of parenting allows freedom for both parties and has allowed me to learn from my own mistakes while still knowing that I can go to my parents if the mistake really calls for some help beyond my reach. 

Don't even get me started...

http://createdigitalmusic.com/app/uploads/2011/07/loudness.jpg

The LOUDNESS War

(aka, what ruined the sound of modern music)

You may not be familiar with what the loudness war is, but you are definitely familiar with its effects. To explain, try to picture yourself in this situation. You are selling newspapers on the sidewalk of a busy street, you shout, "Extra! Extra!" People hear, and buy your paper. Now imagine a different newspaper hires a different newsboy to sell across the street from you. What are you going to do? Probably shout a little right? Shout louder, more people hear, more people buy. Now imagine that the number of paper boys increases tenfold... you're probably screaming at the top of your lungs. Well that's exactly what happened in the music industry.

For some reason people decided that louder is better. I have absolutely no idea why. However the fact remains that the new philosophy is that louder is better, so let's make all these tracks louder, purely in a sense of decibels. To do that one needs to decrease something called dynamic range. Dynamic range is the difference in sound between the softest and loudest note playing in a track. The thing that lets a song develop and move and sway and have... well... range. 

The three steps done in this process are as follows;

1) Decrease the dynamic range so no note is significantly louder or softer than any other

2) Increase the overall volume of the now modified track

3) Sound terrible

So say goodbye to crescendo, range, powerful vocals over soft instruments, focus on the specific instrument in a solo, and clear cut, non-scratchy music. So this, this is why digital music fails miserably in comparison to vinyl.