I don't know much about DVD technology, but I was under the impression that prerecorded DVD movie disks have a capacity of ~9GBs. If this is correct, when will we be seeing recorders (and disks) that will reach this recording capacity?
Thanks for the explanation. I thought it was something like that but wasn't sure on the details. I guess many non-Americans would have wondered what a 401k plan was as well.
I think it's in the distributor's best interest not to get DVD movies treated as software. The reason is because then the medium would fall under the very strict classification guidelines of entertainment software (read: games).
Remember, with movies you can go all the way to an R- and X-rating (restricted to adults 18 years and over). However, with entertainment software, you can only go to an MA rating (restricted to persons 15+ years and over). Even then, it's possible that the Office of Film and Literature Classification may be more stringent with their reviews of DVD movies if they're under the perception that the title can only ever be aimed at most to a teenage demographic (as is the case for all games); so you'll end up having the ridiculous situation where titles which would have normally received an MA-rating as a movie, getting a refused classification rating (read: banned) as "entertainment software".
I'm so excited about this finding and what it really means! It's kind of like the end of daylight savings, where you get an extra hour to sleep. This is like it, but only better!!!!
Sorry, I should have been more explicit (no pun intended) when I gave an outline the type of material to be given the R-rating. Basically, I should have said, "generally anything that has very high levels of realistic (simulated), graphic, detailed violence, drug use, and sex scenes, and very high level course language... "
Star Wars, etc, aren't very realistic in that they don't emphasise the deaths. But horror films, for example, often have close ups of severe injuries, for which might be considered too graphic for anything lower than an R-rating. Films such as Saving Private Ryan or Shindler's List do come close, but weren't considered strong (high level) enough and are given an MA rating (for movies and computer games; softer version of the R-rating, restricts material to persons 15+ years.)
I thought the article failed to outline the key differences between R and X rated material that is confusing the "save the children" moralists. So here goes:
R: generally anything that has very high levels of violence, language, drug use (which does come under the broad "strong adult themes", unfortunately), and simulated sexual activity (soft porn only --no erections allowed). Films can have all of the above in one scene, provided there is context for each "adult theme" within the scene. The print publication equivalent of this type of material is "R rating category 1".
X: this is only for sexually explicit films/video (uncensored/"hardcore" pornography). It allows for real sex scenes. It cannot contain any sexual violence, cohersion, or "fetishes which are deemed offensive" (I won't go into details of what is deemed offensive as some people in here might be offended. *g*). The print publication equivalent of this classification is "R rated category 2".
RC: refused classification. Basically, includes anything that is so abhorent that it cannot be included in either the R and X classication (for example, snuff films, poo eating, animal loving works, etc.). The print publication equivalent is the same.
As the article pointed out, most conservatives and/or moralists have lumped all three classifications into the "R" category without realising the strict restrictions between each rating and the allowed context that these ratings must adhere to. Ignorance is bliss when you've been blinded, I guess.
What I thought was interesting about NSW's hesitance towards approving their censorship legislation was their interest in protecting adults rights to access adult natured material on the internet. However, this is from a state where it is illegal to sell X-rated videos (not that has stopped retailers of adult erotica from doing so), although for print publications, R-rating category 2 material is perfectly legal. And people wonder why our politicians are so ignorant about what is allowed within each classification -- it's inconsistent across mediums!. So for the internet where people mostly "read" or "view" material (rather than watch video), the medium is being classified using the classification system for videos, which will confuse people even more. But either way, I hope at least one state as *some* commonsense left in what is becoming Playground Australia.
Although many conservative religious leaders and followers will undoubtedly condemn this action, it will prove or disprove the point they have been arguing for centuries: that humans have a soul, and animals do not.
Of course, you have to realise that this is also dependent on culture and religions. For example, in Hinduism, the belief is that all living things, either plant, animal or human, have souls (or spirits). Similarly, many Hindus also believe that the soul is only restricted to animals and humans. Japan may harbour similar beliefs (I don't have a strong understanding of Shinto, admittedly), which might explain why there isn't such a cacophonous uproar.
I'd like to submit bug reports, but whenever Mozilla crashes on me (Windows build), Talkback brings up an error message saying that it can't connect to the reporting server. I've always had this problem, not sure why. Is there a reason for this? (for the record, I'm not connecting through a firewall).
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know much about DVD technology, but I was under the impression that prerecorded DVD movie disks have a capacity of ~9GBs. If this is correct, when will we be seeing recorders (and disks) that will reach this recording capacity?
That sound you just heard were the swag of doomsday websites changing the predicted date of apocolypse from 2003 to 2019. ;)
It looks nice and all, but man, a beautiful, DRM-free iPod for Windows still looks more attractive. (more info at mp3newswire.net).
Thanks for the explanation. I thought it was something like that but wasn't sure on the details. I guess many non-Americans would have wondered what a 401k plan was as well.
Yeah, well, some of us like to look at it from a positive angle than see it as another half empty glass. *grin*
I think it's in the distributor's best interest not to get DVD movies treated as software. The reason is because then the medium would fall under the very strict classification guidelines of entertainment software (read: games).
Remember, with movies you can go all the way to an R- and X-rating (restricted to adults 18 years and over). However, with entertainment software, you can only go to an MA rating (restricted to persons 15+ years and over). Even then, it's possible that the Office of Film and Literature Classification may be more stringent with their reviews of DVD movies if they're under the perception that the title can only ever be aimed at most to a teenage demographic (as is the case for all games); so you'll end up having the ridiculous situation where titles which would have normally received an MA-rating as a movie, getting a refused classification rating (read: banned) as "entertainment software".
I'm so excited about this finding and what it really means! It's kind of like the end of daylight savings, where you get an extra hour to sleep. This is like it, but only better!!!!
Sorry, I should have been more explicit (no pun intended) when I gave an outline the type of material to be given the R-rating. Basically, I should have said, "generally anything that has very high levels of realistic (simulated), graphic, detailed violence, drug use, and sex scenes, and very high level course language... "
Star Wars, etc, aren't very realistic in that they don't emphasise the deaths. But horror films, for example, often have close ups of severe injuries, for which might be considered too graphic for anything lower than an R-rating. Films such as Saving Private Ryan or Shindler's List do come close, but weren't considered strong (high level) enough and are given an MA rating (for movies and computer games; softer version of the R-rating, restricts material to persons 15+ years.)
I thought the article failed to outline the key differences between R and X rated material that is confusing the "save the children" moralists. So here goes:
R: generally anything that has very high levels of violence, language, drug use (which does come under the broad "strong adult themes", unfortunately), and simulated sexual activity (soft porn only --no erections allowed). Films can have all of the above in one scene, provided there is context for each "adult theme" within the scene. The print publication equivalent of this type of material is "R rating category 1".
X: this is only for sexually explicit films/video (uncensored/"hardcore" pornography). It allows for real sex scenes. It cannot contain any sexual violence, cohersion, or "fetishes which are deemed offensive" (I won't go into details of what is deemed offensive as some people in here might be offended. *g*). The print publication equivalent of this classification is "R rated category 2".
RC: refused classification. Basically, includes anything that is so abhorent that it cannot be included in either the R and X classication (for example, snuff films, poo eating, animal loving works, etc.). The print publication equivalent is the same.
As the article pointed out, most conservatives and/or moralists have lumped all three classifications into the "R" category without realising the strict restrictions between each rating and the allowed context that these ratings must adhere to. Ignorance is bliss when you've been blinded, I guess.
What I thought was interesting about NSW's hesitance towards approving their censorship legislation was their interest in protecting adults rights to access adult natured material on the internet. However, this is from a state where it is illegal to sell X-rated videos (not that has stopped retailers of adult erotica from doing so), although for print publications, R-rating category 2 material is perfectly legal. And people wonder why our politicians are so ignorant about what is allowed within each classification -- it's inconsistent across mediums!. So for the internet where people mostly "read" or "view" material (rather than watch video), the medium is being classified using the classification system for videos, which will confuse people even more. But either way, I hope at least one state as *some* commonsense left in what is becoming Playground Australia.
Of course, you have to realise that this is also dependent on culture and religions. For example, in Hinduism, the belief is that all living things, either plant, animal or human, have souls (or spirits). Similarly, many Hindus also believe that the soul is only restricted to animals and humans. Japan may harbour similar beliefs (I don't have a strong understanding of Shinto, admittedly), which might explain why there isn't such a cacophonous uproar.
I'd like to submit bug reports, but whenever Mozilla crashes on me (Windows build), Talkback brings up an error message saying that it can't connect to the reporting server. I've always had this problem, not sure why. Is there a reason for this? (for the record, I'm not connecting through a firewall).
What? The iceman was murdered by an arrow in the back?!? Thanks for the spoiler warning!!!! ;-)
Just be glad it's not called the T-800!