It may surprise some of you but in the rest of the world you actually need to show some real identity document, like a passport or drivers license, to get anyone to actually trust your identity.
So, do you provide those documents when you apply for a credit card via mail?
Then do you provide those documents via the web when you use that card to buy $5,000 worth of electronics on Amazon.com?
And has anyone noticed that if poor people ("poor" like those $100K/yr longshoremen)
To be fair, the longshoremen (at least the ones I heard about) weren't going on strike just because they wanted to get paid more, they wanted to go back to their normal volume and reduce workplace danger- I remeber hearing figures being bandied about in the news like workplace fatalaties were up by 300% since they had started having to do a higher volume than in previous years. Managers were encouraging the workers to skip over certain procedures and rushing them, and this was causing some danger as well...
Again, I'll mention that an advance is a lot different from either a loan or insurance, but if you insist on forcing it into one of those definitions, a loan is much closer.
What about PMI (mortgage insurance)? You pay later to get a mortgage now.
Pay later? You start paying your PMI immediately, at least my girlfriend had to start paying hers immediately... Besides, from what I know from her home purchase (I am not a homeowner myself, however, so I do not have personal experience with this), it's just insurance you need to get a home loan. That insurance transfers some risk from the lender to the insurance company, so they will lend to you.
I don't see how that has much bearing on advance payments. For example, from what I know about car loans (which I have never gotten, either - I'm still on my first car, which I bought new with cash ten years ago), you generally have to agree to get extra car insurance, or the lender won't give you the money. The fact that you have to get an extra form of insurance doesn't mean the car loan you get is not a loan.
Similarly, if you have to pay an extra fee to insure the lender from the fact that you might default, it does not mean that your home loan is not a loan. It's just a home loan that is insured.
There is absolutely a transferral of risk. The risk that the CD will bomb.
But the band is not paying the label to absorb the risk of the CD. You can tell this by simply imagining a scenario where a band's CD sells absolutely no copies - the only money that has changed hands is the label's. The band is out nothing except their time (and possibly their music, depending on their contract). In that situation, how is the band paying the label as insurance to defray the risk of the CD bombing? Where was the monetary risk? All of it was on the label - they are the ones out the money needed to make and distribute the record, as _well_ as the advance. So how is that insurance again?
In reality, the label is basically buying the music from the band (depending on if it's a licensing deal or not - but most majors don't do licensing deals, which are a lot different. Some do, and most indies do, however). They are making an investment that they hope they will recoup in the future, with profit. The advance is simply a loan on that future profit.
Actually the money is not required to be repaid later, it is drawn against future earnings.
And the money often WILL have to be paid back, or the band will have to break up. If a band has a one record deal, they put out the record and come up owing the label $20,000, their contract might very well state that they are not allowed to release another album under their band name until they settle up that money... (which is usually done by the band's new record label, if any).
Until you repay this money, the label can prevent your band from releasing material, keep you from using the band's name in publicity, etc... They might even be able to demand you pay it back either directly, or from other sources (via other labels is a common way), depending on the contract.
Since the money owed is owed by the band, not the individuals, it's easier sometimes, to just walk away from the band then try to work through it. I know several people whose bands have broken up because of money owed to labels, that they had no hope of ever repaying themselves, and no other labels wanted to pick up the tab - so it became easier to just break up the band and not have to worry about the debt.
Now, sometimes bands get lucky... The Dismemberment Plan is a good example - they recorded a record with a major, the major HATED it and dropped them, releasing them from their contract, just washing their hands of the whole affair. The album went on to be an indie hit. Something similar happened with the new Wilco record, I believe... But it's just as likely that a label _won't_ release you from your contract if you don't perform as well as they hope.
They only would have owed the money as a draw against future payments. If the label can demand full payment then it's a loan, but they generally can't, so it's not, it's essentially insurance.
Actually, it's an advance - but if you are bending the definition of "insurance" enough to consider the advance a label pays a band to qualify, then you can bend the definition of "loan" to fit even easier.
In insurance, I pay someone now to assume my monetary risk later. In an advance, the label pays the band now, and the label is the one taking the monetary risk, and that money is supossed to be repaid later. How is that insurance? Sounds a LOT more like a loan to me. There is no transferral of risk taking place, which is the key element of insurance - you are paying someone to take on your future risk.
They still would have owed the money, however. So it's a loan. Many bands break up because they can't afford to pay back the labels this money, and the labels won't let them out of their ontract until they do, but at the same time the label will not invest more money in having the band release a new album. I know quite a few people who were in promising bands that broke up for this reason.
The band gets seen by a A&R rep, the rep talks to them, has a meeting without lawyers present, since "it's not a contract meeting, just a get to know you meeting", then gets them to sign a deal memo that says they intend to sign a contract with the label. It's legally binding, though the A&R rep implies that it's an informal thing.
At this point the band can't sign with anyone else, so they are almost guaranteed to get a bad contract - they have no leverage anymore.
And, yes, they could probably get out of the deal memo, since it's a sketchy business practice - but the label can keep it in the courts for quite awhile, and they have lawyers on salary, while the band has to be paying a lawyer hourly, and probably doesn't have much money since they aren't signed...
I didn't blame it on anyone. I'm simply pointing out that some people can't shop anywhere BUT wal-mart, unless they want to drive miles and miles out of their way, in response to the guy who said that you should just avoid wal-mart.
Do you need to buy groceries? In my girlfriend's home town, the only place to buy groceries within about 15 miles is a Wal-Mart... unless you count 7-11/Circle K's, which also are heavy on NASCAR imagery.
Many smaller towns are like this. Even in my home town (pop 250,000+), Super Wal-Marts are knocking many of the grocery stores out of business.
About Connery's enduring sex appeal, film critic Pauline Kael explained, "Women want to meet him and men want to be him. I don't know any man since Cary Grant that men have wanted to be so much." Kael of course is not young...
Pauline Kael, in fact, died several years ago, and retired from writing in 1991 - over a decade ago. She was indeed not young - about ten years older than Connery.
I think New Woman - which IIRC is a magazine for younger women - naming him Sexiest Man of the Century only four years ago says it all.
It's also a - IIRC - a BRITISH magazine, and Connery is a British Celeb. Which quite possibly has a lot to do with your perception, if you are British. Maybe British chicks in their 20s do like the man. I wouldn't know about that. All I know is what the American chicks in their 20s that I know feel.
Also, the award you reference was "Sexiest Man of the Century", which puts him up against such dead luminaries as Errol Flynn and James Dean. This implies "who was sexy in the past". I never said the man wasn't sexy in the past, and neither did anyone I asked. (In fact, all of the women I asked did think he _used_ to be sexy.) Just because someone wins a lifetime achievement award doesn't mean they were the best that year.
Sean hasn't done too many movies lately, which can also account for his apparent lack of sex appeal...
Or perhaps the reverse is true?
And the reason the youngest woman you asked still thought he was hot is father-figure effect...
But wouldn't that be true for all the women I asked? They are _all_ young enough to be his grand-daughters...
Women over thirty start to prefer older, heavier set men with money...according to the surveys... 20-year-olds still haven't realized that looks fade and money is permanent...
Ah, so you're saying his main sex appeal these days is that he is rich? I'll accept that.
I know no women my age (mid 20s) who think Sean Connery is attractive.
In fact, let's do a quick poll. I asked all of my female friends who were on IM just now "Sean Connery : hot or not?" and here are their replies:
My girlfriend (25) says: "What decade?" I respond : "This one." "No!"
My friend Michele (24) : "As of today?" "Yes." "No... maybe a few years ago, when he still had sex appeal"
My friend Courtney (26) : "Well, he _was_ hot. he ain't all that and a bag of cheetos these days."
My friend Caitlyn (25) : "not. he's old as the hills. He was old even as james bond. Isn't he like a million years old or something? his accent is kinda hot, but ewan mcgregor's scottish too, and he's way hotter."
My friend Meredith (25) : "Not hot."
My friend Lisa (18) : "Hot." "Seriously?" "haha probably not but he rocks!"
My friend Marcy (26) : "Not hot. what brought that on?" "someone claimed that all women think he's hot" "ew. that person is an idiot. stop talking to him/her."
Oddly enough, the youngest girl I asked is the one who most thinks he's hot...
But yeah, that's the opinion of several of my friends that happened to be on IM, so it's definitely not scientific, but the answers seemed to fit what I'd expect with the under-30 crowd...
I am sure you are correct in saying that X-men opened up the door for more comic book hero movies, but the original post was about "heroes" in general, not just comic book heroes.
Well, the original post was this: "What is with the sudden onslaught of superhero movies?"
That sounds like a question about superheroes to me.
That was my point, there were plenty of projects on the side that "looked good, but not good enough" that now look good enough, and we are just seeing the fruits, 18 months later.
I'm sorry, you're just wrong. Spider-Man was already filming in January of 2001 (well before 9/11, it was finished with filming before 9/11), Daredevil was already in pre-production in August of 2001 (again, BEFORE 9/11), and I believe that Hulk was as well- I first read about the Hulk movie being directed by Ang Lee in the months after Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon came out here in the US (which was in 2000, I believe).
The reason these products are getting made is because X-Men was very successful, NOT because of 9/11. These films were either already in production, or pre-production BEFORE 9/11. A big budget film like a superhero movie takes at least 2 years to make. Hell, Spike Lee's the 25th hour has no special effects, only a few main actors and was shot right after 9/11 and that JUST came out a month or so ago.
This is just like what happened with various superhero films coming out in the wake of the success of Batman.
You're on crack. My girlfriend just bought a house in Washington DC and she can't get broadband in her neighborhood yet. It's coming in the next few months, but still!
Maybe your friends and family? That's pretty much what I think blogs are best for... A place where you can post updates on what's going on in your life for people close to you to read.
Uh, no... They are suing because McDonalds said they were switching to vegetable oil. Then it turned out they lied. At the very least it's false advertising, and there are probably other laws about lying about whats in food, I'd imagine.
It would have been a non-issue had they not publically stated they were switching to vegetable oil, then not done so.
(lawsuit for mcdonalds beef fat used in french fries, when they never claimed that they were vegan safe)
As I recall, the lawsuit happened after McDonalds announced they were switching to beef-free cooking oil, then still kept some beef in them... Which _is_ pretty annoying for Hindus and other people who can't eat beef on certain days (or at all) for religious reasons.
That's not at all what the grandparent was talking about though... He said he wrote a batch script to download game roms. I would assume that he doesn't need to download "Pac-Man" or "Paperboy" every five minutes to keep them up to date, so I pointed out that most good FTP clients would (or should) allow him to queue mass downloads in the same way, without having to write a script for it each time you want to do it.
Also, though this is unrelated to my point, I doubt there is "megs" of new news every five minutes.
Slashdot Mirror
It may surprise some of you but in the rest of the world you actually need to show some real identity document, like a passport or drivers license, to get anyone to actually trust your identity.
So, do you provide those documents when you apply for a credit card via mail?
Then do you provide those documents via the web when you use that card to buy $5,000 worth of electronics on Amazon.com?
And has anyone noticed that if poor people ("poor" like those $100K/yr longshoremen)
To be fair, the longshoremen (at least the ones I heard about) weren't going on strike just because they wanted to get paid more, they wanted to go back to their normal volume and reduce workplace danger- I remeber hearing figures being bandied about in the news like workplace fatalaties were up by 300% since they had started having to do a higher volume than in previous years. Managers were encouraging the workers to skip over certain procedures and rushing them, and this was causing some danger as well...
Again, I'll mention that an advance is a lot different from either a loan or insurance, but if you insist on forcing it into one of those definitions, a loan is much closer.
What about PMI (mortgage insurance)? You pay later to get a mortgage now.
Pay later? You start paying your PMI immediately, at least my girlfriend had to start paying hers immediately... Besides, from what I know from her home purchase (I am not a homeowner myself, however, so I do not have personal experience with this), it's just insurance you need to get a home loan. That insurance transfers some risk from the lender to the insurance company, so they will lend to you.
I don't see how that has much bearing on advance payments. For example, from what I know about car loans (which I have never gotten, either - I'm still on my first car, which I bought new with cash ten years ago), you generally have to agree to get extra car insurance, or the lender won't give you the money. The fact that you have to get an extra form of insurance doesn't mean the car loan you get is not a loan.
Similarly, if you have to pay an extra fee to insure the lender from the fact that you might default, it does not mean that your home loan is not a loan. It's just a home loan that is insured.
There is absolutely a transferral of risk. The risk that the CD will bomb.
But the band is not paying the label to absorb the risk of the CD. You can tell this by simply imagining a scenario where a band's CD sells absolutely no copies - the only money that has changed hands is the label's. The band is out nothing except their time (and possibly their music, depending on their contract). In that situation, how is the band paying the label as insurance to defray the risk of the CD bombing? Where was the monetary risk? All of it was on the label - they are the ones out the money needed to make and distribute the record, as _well_ as the advance. So how is that insurance again?
In reality, the label is basically buying the music from the band (depending on if it's a licensing deal or not - but most majors don't do licensing deals, which are a lot different. Some do, and most indies do, however). They are making an investment that they hope they will recoup in the future, with profit. The advance is simply a loan on that future profit.
Actually the money is not required to be repaid later, it is drawn against future earnings.
And the money often WILL have to be paid back, or the band will have to break up. If a band has a one record deal, they put out the record and come up owing the label $20,000, their contract might very well state that they are not allowed to release another album under their band name until they settle up that money... (which is usually done by the band's new record label, if any).
Until you repay this money, the label can prevent your band from releasing material, keep you from using the band's name in publicity, etc... They might even be able to demand you pay it back either directly, or from other sources (via other labels is a common way), depending on the contract.
Since the money owed is owed by the band, not the individuals, it's easier sometimes, to just walk away from the band then try to work through it. I know several people whose bands have broken up because of money owed to labels, that they had no hope of ever repaying themselves, and no other labels wanted to pick up the tab - so it became easier to just break up the band and not have to worry about the debt.
Now, sometimes bands get lucky... The Dismemberment Plan is a good example - they recorded a record with a major, the major HATED it and dropped them, releasing them from their contract, just washing their hands of the whole affair. The album went on to be an indie hit. Something similar happened with the new Wilco record, I believe... But it's just as likely that a label _won't_ release you from your contract if you don't perform as well as they hope.
They only would have owed the money as a draw against future payments. If the label can demand full payment then it's a loan, but they generally can't, so it's not, it's essentially insurance.
Actually, it's an advance - but if you are bending the definition of "insurance" enough to consider the advance a label pays a band to qualify, then you can bend the definition of "loan" to fit even easier.
In insurance, I pay someone now to assume my monetary risk later. In an advance, the label pays the band now, and the label is the one taking the monetary risk, and that money is supossed to be repaid later. How is that insurance? Sounds a LOT more like a loan to me. There is no transferral of risk taking place, which is the key element of insurance - you are paying someone to take on your future risk.
They still would have owed the money, however. So it's a loan. Many bands break up because they can't afford to pay back the labels this money, and the labels won't let them out of their ontract until they do, but at the same time the label will not invest more money in having the band release a new album. I know quite a few people who were in promising bands that broke up for this reason.
Things like "deal memos" are sketchy though...
The band gets seen by a A&R rep, the rep talks to them, has a meeting without lawyers present, since "it's not a contract meeting, just a get to know you meeting", then gets them to sign a deal memo that says they intend to sign a contract with the label. It's legally binding, though the A&R rep implies that it's an informal thing.
At this point the band can't sign with anyone else, so they are almost guaranteed to get a bad contract - they have no leverage anymore.
And, yes, they could probably get out of the deal memo, since it's a sketchy business practice - but the label can keep it in the courts for quite awhile, and they have lawyers on salary, while the band has to be paying a lawyer hourly, and probably doesn't have much money since they aren't signed...
Lucas will make money off this by:
A. Cartoon network is probably paying for the rights to air these.
B. These will be compiled onto DVD and released a few weeks/months before Ep 3.
C. The compiled version will probably be played on TV right before Ep3 comes out.
I didn't blame it on anyone. I'm simply pointing out that some people can't shop anywhere BUT wal-mart, unless they want to drive miles and miles out of their way, in response to the guy who said that you should just avoid wal-mart.
Do you need to buy groceries? In my girlfriend's home town, the only place to buy groceries within about 15 miles is a Wal-Mart... unless you count 7-11/Circle K's, which also are heavy on NASCAR imagery.
Many smaller towns are like this. Even in my home town (pop 250,000+), Super Wal-Marts are knocking many of the grocery stores out of business.
Some places, especially smaller towns, only have Walmarts - because the Wal-Marts run every competitor out of business.
About Connery's enduring sex appeal, film critic Pauline Kael explained, "Women want to meet him and men want to be him. I don't know any man since Cary Grant that men have wanted to be so much." Kael of course is not young...
Pauline Kael, in fact, died several years ago, and retired from writing in 1991 - over a decade ago. She was indeed not young - about ten years older than Connery.
I think New Woman - which IIRC is a magazine for younger women - naming him Sexiest Man of the Century only four years ago says it all.
It's also a - IIRC - a BRITISH magazine, and Connery is a British Celeb. Which quite possibly has a lot to do with your perception, if you are British. Maybe British chicks in their 20s do like the man. I wouldn't know about that. All I know is what the American chicks in their 20s that I know feel.
Also, the award you reference was "Sexiest Man of the Century", which puts him up against such dead luminaries as Errol Flynn and James Dean. This implies "who was sexy in the past". I never said the man wasn't sexy in the past, and neither did anyone I asked. (In fact, all of the women I asked did think he _used_ to be sexy.) Just because someone wins a lifetime achievement award doesn't mean they were the best that year.
Sean hasn't done too many movies lately, which can also account for his apparent lack of sex appeal...
Or perhaps the reverse is true?
And the reason the youngest woman you asked still thought he was hot is father-figure effect...
But wouldn't that be true for all the women I asked? They are _all_ young enough to be his grand-daughters...
Women over thirty start to prefer older, heavier set men with money...according to the surveys... 20-year-olds still haven't realized that looks fade and money is permanent...
Ah, so you're saying his main sex appeal these days is that he is rich? I'll accept that.
I know no women my age (mid 20s) who think Sean Connery is attractive.
In fact, let's do a quick poll. I asked all of my female friends who were on IM just now "Sean Connery : hot or not?" and here are their replies:
My girlfriend (25) says: "What decade?" I respond : "This one." "No!"
My friend Michele (24) : "As of today?" "Yes." "No... maybe a few years ago, when he still had sex appeal"
My friend Courtney (26) : "Well, he _was_ hot. he ain't all that and a bag of cheetos these days."
My friend Caitlyn (25) : "not. he's old as the hills. He was old even as james bond. Isn't he like a million years old or something? his accent is kinda hot, but ewan mcgregor's scottish too, and he's way hotter."
My friend Meredith (25) : "Not hot."
My friend Lisa (18) : "Hot." "Seriously?" "haha probably not but he rocks!"
My friend Marcy (26) : "Not hot. what brought that on?" "someone claimed that all women think he's hot" "ew. that person is an idiot. stop talking to him/her."
Oddly enough, the youngest girl I asked is the one who most thinks he's hot...
But yeah, that's the opinion of several of my friends that happened to be on IM, so it's definitely not scientific, but the answers seemed to fit what I'd expect with the under-30 crowd...
Good news for those of you of the male persuasion--a movie with Sean Connery is a movie your girlfriend would probably like to see.
Unless your girlfriend happens to be under 50...
So why'd you assume he was American?
I am sure you are correct in saying that X-men opened up the door for more comic book hero movies, but the original post was about "heroes" in general, not just comic book heroes.
Well, the original post was this: "What is with the sudden onslaught of superhero movies?"
That sounds like a question about superheroes to me.
That was my point, there were plenty of projects on the side that "looked good, but not good enough" that now look good enough, and we are just seeing the fruits, 18 months later.
I'm sorry, you're just wrong. Spider-Man was already filming in January of 2001 (well before 9/11, it was finished with filming before 9/11), Daredevil was already in pre-production in August of 2001 (again, BEFORE 9/11), and I believe that Hulk was as well- I first read about the Hulk movie being directed by Ang Lee in the months after Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon came out here in the US (which was in 2000, I believe).
The reason these products are getting made is because X-Men was very successful, NOT because of 9/11. These films were either already in production, or pre-production BEFORE 9/11. A big budget film like a superhero movie takes at least 2 years to make. Hell, Spike Lee's the 25th hour has no special effects, only a few main actors and was shot right after 9/11 and that JUST came out a month or so ago.
This is just like what happened with various superhero films coming out in the wake of the success of Batman.
You're on crack. My girlfriend just bought a house in Washington DC and she can't get broadband in her neighborhood yet. It's coming in the next few months, but still!
Maybe your friends and family? That's pretty much what I think blogs are best for... A place where you can post updates on what's going on in your life for people close to you to read.
To be fair, froogle is still in beta. Um... and google groups IS dejanews. They bought deja. So that might be why it's similar.
First of all, I don't believe in the bible. Secondly, I don't think sheep or people have souls.
But if something has to have a soul to have life, I'd say Dolly had a soul since she was definitely alive... Even if she had medical problems.
Uh, no... They are suing because McDonalds said they were switching to vegetable oil. Then it turned out they lied. At the very least it's false advertising, and there are probably other laws about lying about whats in food, I'd imagine.
It would have been a non-issue had they not publically stated they were switching to vegetable oil, then not done so.
So what you're saying is that you think sheep have souls?
(lawsuit for mcdonalds beef fat used in french fries, when they never claimed that they were vegan safe)
As I recall, the lawsuit happened after McDonalds announced they were switching to beef-free cooking oil, then still kept some beef in them... Which _is_ pretty annoying for Hindus and other people who can't eat beef on certain days (or at all) for religious reasons.
And that's the level of insightful commentary I expect from someone posting at -1...
That's not at all what the grandparent was talking about though... He said he wrote a batch script to download game roms. I would assume that he doesn't need to download "Pac-Man" or "Paperboy" every five minutes to keep them up to date, so I pointed out that most good FTP clients would (or should) allow him to queue mass downloads in the same way, without having to write a script for it each time you want to do it.
Also, though this is unrelated to my point, I doubt there is "megs" of new news every five minutes.