We want miles megaupload

Francis Marmande Contributor ,. John Szwed Contributor ,. Mike Zwerin Contributor ,. Franck Bergerot. The most comprehensive book on the artist to date, offering an insightful look into the legendary musician and his enormous impact on the development of jazz.

Miles Davis explores the life and art of one of the greatest visionaries in jazz history—through photographs, handwritten musical scores, album covers, posters, and more—cementing his reputation as the embodiment of The most comprehensive book on the artist to date, offering an insightful look into the legendary musician and his enormous impact on the development of jazz.

Miles Davis explores the life and art of one of the greatest visionaries in jazz history—through photographs, handwritten musical scores, album covers, posters, and more—cementing his reputation as the embodiment of cool, both on- and offstage. To examine his extraordinary career is also to examine the history of jazz from the mids through the early s, as Davis was crucial in almost every important innovation and stylistic development during that time.

His genius paved the way for these changes, both with his own performances and recordings, and by choosing collaborators with whom he forged new directions. Miles Davis—trumpeter, bandleader, and composer—was one of the most important figures in jazz history. He was born in a well-to-do family in St. Louis in and died in a Los Angeles hospital in He was at the forefront of several major developments in jazz music, including cool jazz, hard bop, free jazz, and fusion.

Get A Copy. Hardcover , pages. More Details Original Title. Friend Reviews. To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up. To ask other readers questions about We Want Miles , please sign up. Lists with This Book. This book is not yet featured on Listopia. Add this book to your favorite list ». Community Reviews. Showing Average rating 4. Rating details. More filters. Sort order. Jul 26, Blog on Books rated it really liked it.

This page compendium features a wide array of photographs and accompanying text covering every stage of Miles career. From the early days as a backline horn player for a host of St. Miles transition from support player to band leader and ultimately star — soloist — frontman, is covered throughout every phase. Jun 07, Tim rated it really liked it. Jan 09, Ned Bajic rated it it was amazing. Great book if you can find it. Plenty of information, anecdotes and photographs.

This came out as part of a canadian exhibition, would love to have seen it! Sim rated it it was amazing Jul 21, Leroy Rodriguez rated it it was amazing Jan 08, Davey Schreurs rated it it was amazing Jan 04, Kyle Osland rated it really liked it Mar 04, Tiff rated it it was amazing Aug 10, Adam rated it it was amazing Aug 15, Robin rated it it was amazing Nov 02, EdwinBohm rated it it was amazing May 12, Jon rated it it was amazing Aug 05, Exzentrius rated it it was amazing Mar 29, Glenn rated it really liked it Jun 10, If you have ever seen the film, The Right Stuff, you may know what I'm talking about.

Aerospace planes, the Bell X-1 to the X The idea with aerospace planes is that the vehicle - or vehicles, two combined - take off like a conventional plane and ascend to a given altitude where the spacecraft detaches and proceeds up into space.

But the year before, Yuri Gagarin, atop Vostok 1, had not only soared to miles but had orbited the Earth. This was a huge wake up call - a month later JFK made his famous "Moon speech. If were going to put men in space, we were were going to do it with rockets. Aerospace planes, while they might be safer, were just taking too long.

And speaking of safety; nothing about space travel or experimental aircraft is safe. Referring again to The Right Stuff, I recall the scene when Chuck Yeager broke the sound barrier and those on the ground who heard the sonic boom thought that yet another test pilot had bitten the dust. However, rockets are way more dangerous. The "Nedelin catastrophe" of at the Soviet Baikonur Cosmodrome killed between 78 and people, depending on whose accounts you want to believe, when the rocket exploded on the launch pad.

Given all that, what we should have done, in my humble opinion, is this: 1. Simultaneously developed aerospace plane and rocket technology to use the former to lift personnel into orbit and the latter to lift equipment and supplies into orbit.

Construction of a permanent, manned orbital space station. This would not be like the MIR or Skylab of limited duration for research purposes but would be constantly upgraded and enlarged to be used not only for research but as a "spaceport" - a launching point for other missions, thus eliminating the need for overcoming Earth's gravity with heavy lift rockets.

This leads to: 3. Construction of a moon base. The first missions to the moon would not have been like the Apollo missions - land on the moon, get out, walk around, go for a drive in the Rover in later missions take samples and do a little science then go home.

Instead, unmanned vehicles would have been launched from the space station to the Moon. The payloads of these vehicles would have been modules for the Moon base - a habitat for the crew, supplies, research equipment and possibly an emergency return vehicle.

Once the modules were in place on the Moon, personnel would make the trip to set up the base. As the manned mission to the moon would have been sent from the space station, instead of the surface of the Earth, it is entirely possible that a larger crew could have been sent - possibly seven or more like the shuttle missions, instead of the two three to the moon - two to the surface, one in the command module in lunar orbit of the Apollo missions.

Granted this would have had greater potential for loss of life if disaster occurred but a greater measure of safety would have been provided by the equipment sent by the unmanned vehicles and by the presence of the space station in orbit and it's ability to launch a rescue mission on short notice.

Once established, the base could have been constantly manned by crews on rotating shifts. Like the space station, the base could have been constantly improved and enlarged.

In this manner, we would have never left the moon. The base would have been a fantastic place for research. The Hubble Space Telescope would not have been unnecessary. The potential of a large, moon - based optical telescope can not be understated. The Hubble would be like a kid's toy in comparison. Once large enough, the Moon base could have been used as a base camp for exploration of the Moon and a final assembly and launching point for missions to Mars and the outer planets.

But we didn't do any of that. Instead we raced to the Moon. We took a lot of chances along the way. We lost the crew of Apollo 1 and nearly lost the crew of Apollo But that doesn't mean that we still can't do this. Technology has advanced. Aerospace planes have advanced enough for the first civilian mission to space in - SpaceShipOne.

Personally I think it was a big mistake to cancel the Space Shuttle program without deployment of a suitable replacement. There has been considerable speculation about and research done for a substitute for rockets as heavy lifters.

The two most plausible candidates are rail guns and a "space elevator. It is, simply put, a gunpowder-less cannon using electro-magnetism. Rail guns have the potential to accelerate objects to greater speeds than combustion based ordnance. A rail gun of sufficient size could be installed at an advantageous location, such as a mountainside near the equator, to launch payloads into orbit. Of course such payloads would only be of materials that would not be affected by the tremendous G-forces experienced during launch such as fuel and supplies.

A space elevator is, simply put, a rope tied to the ground and an object in a geostationary orbit. The technology for this is a little farther off than that used for the rail gun. The "rope" would, of course, have to be made of something with an incredibly high strength to weight ratio. Carbon nanotubes have been suggested as the logical choice.

The "elevator" would ride up the cable to the object in orbit. Most concepts call for the elevator to be driven by high powered lasers. In addition to technology not being up to the task there are inherent dangers. A snapped cable nearly a hundred miles long falling back to Earth could cause catastrophic damage if it landed in populated areas.

Weather and space junk are also dangers to take into consideration. The advantage of both these systems is that the propulsion source stays on the ground thus eliminating the need to lift the weight of fuel. Quite frankly I believe that we should give serious consideration to rail gun technology for use as a heavy lifter for fuel and supplies.

Conventional rockets could be used to get G-sensitive equipment into orbit and aerospace planes to get personnel into orbit. Hopefully, technology will advance to the point where a single stage aerospace plane will be able to serve all three functions.

While inspiring to proponents of space travel and exploration, Mr. Gingrich's words are ill - advised. Yes, I want a Moon base. But first we need good, reliable, economical heavy lifters, reliable, safe, economical, personnel vehicles and a permanent space station.

We also need to explore space in well thought out, logical, incremental steps with a goal of sustainability, not lurch forward with poorly thought out, crowd pleasing, spectacles. Saturday, January 21, We want free stuff - Megaupload. I understand that people want free stuff.

Of course they do. I want free stuff too. However I have a problem with getting free stuff if someone else worked to create it and did not get any compensation for it or, that getting that free stuff harmed it's creator's ability to make a living.

OK, yeah, I hear all the arguments that free downloads of music and movies don't hurt anyone, all those movie companies and "artists" are filthy rich anyway. So what if I download the newest mega-blockbuster movie and Rihanna song for free from some peer to peer site? They will still make millions. Well, lets say that the powers that enforce copyright laws just give up. It's a free for all from now on.

No enforcement, just have at it; upload and download anything you like - no more copyrights! Trademarks and patents will be the next step. It's just information and art. Why shouldn't it be free? To illustrate the implications of this on a long term basis I fired up my time machine and paid a visit to my grandson, 25 years in the future: We got into his Corvette actually a Corvette copy made by a company in Bangladesh and cruised around.

The mall was still there but the Sony Theaters was gone, replaced by stores that sold imitation handbags and imitation designer clothes. Actually, all movie theaters have been gone for years. Everyone just downloads movies now. So when a new movie is released, it just goes right to the net. Grandad, there really aren't any new movies, not like the ones you knew anyway.

Those days are gone. People make movies at home, some of them are pretty good too but they aren't anything like the classics you knew, like Jurassic Park and Titanic. No one can afford the big sets, elaborate special effects and traveling to locations and stuff. It's just not practical when they can't make much money at it. You mean all the big, film studios closed down? What about Hollywood?

It's just a tourist trap now - a nostalgia thing. Most of them took their money and moved out. Most of them are dead now. A lot of that area is a ghetto now but some of the big estates were bought up by Chinese factory owners and people who own the big websites. There's no actors anymore, at least not many professional ones. There are actors who do dinner theater and Broadway shows but there hasn't been a big "movie star" like, um, Ryan Reynolds for decades.

The big star today is Nuuh Fuuh, he made it big when he made a movie where he sucker punched and knocked out twenty guys and one of them died.

He went to prison for a while but when he got out he was like a god. Anything he makes now gets like 10,, hits right away. I mean what wins Oscars nowadays?

Oh, yeahright, I read something about that old awards thing. No, they don't do that anymore. Mostly movies are people chasing each other around shooting at each other or fighting in some way or doing dumb stuff, drunk. Some of them have a plot and fancy stuff like that but they don't get a lot of hits.

Somebody made a movie a few years ago that was kind of cleaver. It was about a guy who could read everybody's mind through the net and took over the world but Nuuh Fuuh tracked him down, cornered him in a mall and knocked him out.