At least it was in my experience, running a much smaller company than the one cited by the orginal poster. We had a couple dozen machines, servers, monitors and assorted perpherials, all leased.
We went belly-up during the dotcom bust. At first we thought, we just stop making the monthly payments (important since our revenue was minimal) and we just return the equipment, right?
Nope. That didn't work. See, the leasing contracts did not have a voluntary termination clause. In other words, we were LOCKED into them.
They were less like leases and more like loans....Loans where we got nothing at the end of the term! That is, unless you count the right to buy the equipment at 10% on the dollar or some other "very cheap" price once we were done paying them off.
So we got stuck with large $$$ settlements with these lease (aka loan) companies, in order to get out of the leases, just as if they were credit card companies.
Moral of the story: Read the fine print and pay with cash!
-- Another self-referential, manually-generated SIG.
If I recall (brother of a good friend is an astronaut), the flights are numbered when they are scheduled and sometimes the schedule changes, but the numbers don't. Think of it like a project plan, with each task given a separate number. The task may move within the overall schedule, but to make sure you're all referring to the same task you use the "absolute" number assigned, even if it's out of order with numbers of tasks that occur before it in "relative" terms.
Man, I just used way too many characters to explain that.
Actually, the best way to get this right-wing Congress to give NASA a virtual blank check would be to classify extra-terrestrial microbes as "possibly terrorist-related WMD" and then declare war on Mars.
Forget the deficit: it's our PATRIOTIC DUTY to fund the Billion Dollar Mars Orbiter Metric Converter, because the TERRORISTS hate space travel.
Nothing would move us along faster: we'd be getting Priceline deals on the daily Halliburton red-eye to the lunar colony before Jeb takes the oath of office......
MANUALLY-GENERATED SIG: See I'm not just a cynic -- I'm a dreamer too!
Ah yes, the Evil Trail Lawyers knee-jerk response.
Let's see, what exactly do trial lawyers like John Edwards do?
They make sure that companies follow the law.
And what exactly is wrong with that?
Shouldn't these companies be following the law in the first place? Where's all the "tough on crime" words against cheating corporate greed-heads? Strangely enough, the hard-core "anti-crime" rightwing is essentially mute on issues of corporate crime.
Well, not exactly mute: they want to cut back on our corporate policing system through their tort bashing. In other words, they want MORE criminals to go free.
Try this one: Trail Lawyers Are Your Friends!:-)
Yes, it sounds so crazy because the popular press (and many in the blog/web/zombie-libertarian fantasy world) alway beat up on class action lawsuits and trail lawyers.
But the facts are simple:
It's just common sense to have a way for people to make sure the laws are enforced....and it was built STRONGLY into our democracy: sometimes the people themselves need to seek redress in the courts when our elected representatives (and their appointed industry-approved regulators and gov't lawyers) won't act.
This isn't just a good idea. It's a GREAT idea.
It's strange that the loony right has such a problem with trail lawyers, class action lawsuits and the whole tort system, since it's based on a number of core conservative ideas:
- The common person is wise (juries decide the cases).
- Greed is used to motivate positive behavior (trail lawyers can make big $$$ (from the corps -- NOT the gov't) in the process of making sure our laws are enforced).
- Don't trust the gov't (the gov't regulators may look the other way, but citizens can still seek relief through the courts).
So here's John Edwards: a guy who made millions helping hold corporations accountable for things like unsafe trucker training and pool drains that literally suck the intestines out of five-year-old girls.
I say we need more John Edwards. And even if he's a greed-head, at least he's making the world a better place at the same time. That much can't be said for the oil and military tycoons running our country now.
Disclaimer: I'm neither a trail lawyer nor a Democrat.
Yes, sadly that's the problem with trying to do an autopsy of a joke...you kill the humor.
But given the amount of misunderstanding going on with people about it on the board, I thought it was worth mentioning for those few souls that didn't get it due to the terminology.
Perhaps through trying to understand the corpse, we could reanimate the humor with an "I get it!" moment.
Okay, for those of you out there like me that don't live and breath jargon, this paper is a joke, a satire, a ha-ha (and a very good one from what I can tell).
By Lowest Total Cost of 0wnership (spelled with a zero), they mean that Windows is easier to "0wn" i.e. hack into.
0wning (with a zero instead of an O) a computer is high-falutin' jargon meaning that you have hacked into it and can do as you please.
So the point here (joke explained): that the cheapest, easiest system to hack is Windows. That's not exactly a joke (since it's true), but it's a joke since they're using the Total Cost of Ownership metric...just redefining Ownership to be 0wnership (with a zero).
Why is it spelled with a zero? That's because that's the way (cue menacing music) the hackers do it.
Clever paper, but too clever for people who don't use the terminology. Extra points for the in-jokes.
Ah. Did someone move the rock or did you crawl out on your own?
http://www.craigslist.org/ is the site. You type in Craigslist.com and you end up at the former, just as you say. That's the place. Simple and elegant, eh?
By the way, George W. Bush is President and California is now a state of the union.
Actually, my original comment was not to merely indict capitalism (which resulted in the knee-jerk anti-commie comments), but to say that it is primarily a distributed system of capitalist consumption and corporate activity that is the dominant ongoing reason for our sorry environmental state.
There may be other systems at work, but nothing compares to the program of capitalism in its seemingly viral ability to infect, adapt and expand through-out the world.
We can debate good vs. bad, but you can't say that socialism has won the day and is the dominant form of industrial activity. History and current stats show us otherwise.
You're right that the old Soviet commies and China have a HORRIBLE record on the environment. That's not a distributed scheme though, but a state-centralized scheme. I presume that we agree that state-centralized schemes tend to be less sustainable (when it comes to economic production at least). History has shown this in both the collapse of the USSR and the changes in China.
The point here is simple: distributed-capitalist schemes are more nimble and widely entrenched due to their distributed nature and are lot more difficult to remove (i.e. not top-heavy) than top-down state-centralized schemes.
Hybrid socialist/capitalist schemes like that of many Euro countries seem to be doing a much better job of taking the strengths from both systems. But we still have a long way to go before we have a sustainable society on this planet....why do we think we have the capacity to build it on another planet?
Thanks for the feedback and the opportunity to clarify.
Wait wait! Let's finish the job here first. Once we're done Venusforming Earth, we can Terraform Mars.
I'm sure we can figure out some capitalist-distributed scheme that Wall Street loves while changing the atmosphere of Mars as we've done here (deforestation, carbon-based energy industry, too many cow farts, etc.). Of course, the real question is how long will the Mars atmosphere be breathable by "naked" humans before it's unbreathable again thanks to the top-selling 2050 Ford Evacuate super-SUV......
But I'm not sure what indie musicians you're speaking about that make a decent living doing non-traditional/non-label distribution, but I know a good number of them and all either have day jobs or do corporate work.
Believe me, I wish it were otherwise.
I totally agree that indie filmmakers have a lot to learn from the indie music world. Music is ahead of filmmaking since the means of production are more accessible and only now is widespread desktop filmmaking starting to take off more.
But distribution will always be a tough issue.
Actually, there's a growing movement of self-distributed indies (example: Greg Pak's Robot Stories) that are doing some version of this for theatrical and many, many others that are doing self-distribution for home video and DVD.
However, filmmaking is fundementally different than music. The difference is this: live shows are never the same while film screenings are always the same. It's the difference betwen live performances and recorded performances, which is pretty fundemental from an audience perspective.
Here are the other reasons why films seek larger distribution deals:
- Fixed costs are high Film production, music clearances, SAG actor costs, legal costs, etc. are all relatively fixed costs regardless if the film budget is $30,000 or $3M. While some of these costs are based on number screens (music and SAG, in particular), even the entry-level costs are considerable (for limited release).
It's a brutal cycle, since audiences want to see expensive stars and production values before they pay to see most films. This then means more cost thus the need for wider distribution to cover these costs.
- ROI for investors Most indie filmmakers are not independently wealthy and even those that are don't want to simply lose their money on a film. Investment-driven film financing ensures that filmmakers seek the widest possible distribution. Self-distribution rarely makes much money.
- Helps sell home vide This is a big deal. Theatrical release rarely turns a profit due to the HUGE marketing costs of being in theaters, even for small indie films that don't do major advertising. Basically, theatrical releases are marketing for the home video releases, which is where most filmmakers make their money back. Of course, this is the revenue stream that peer-to-peer directly threatens. Why buy a DVD when you can just download it for free?
And this is where music is very different than the film industry: musicians (even "stars") tend to make their money on live performances while filmmakers make it on recorded DVD/video sales.
- Audience trust and experience Most audiences will not see a film an auditorium or club. It's a matter of perception of quality and expectation. Movie theaters are made for movies. The technical quality and the overall experience in spaces that are not theaters is generally horrible. Trust us, our film has been shown in one of these multi-use spaces and no one could understand a word of dialogue.
Musicians have somewhat the same situation in that spaces that are not meant for live music can make their work sound like crap.
Thus, filmmakers seek distribution in movie theaters, rather than just anywhere with a blank wall.
- Our filmmaking careers In order to make more movies, we need to raise the funds to do so. In order to that, we need to prove a track record of ROI for past investors or at least an ability to get a film into theaters. This drives us to get into as many theaters as possible and avoid self-distribution.
- Economies of scale Also, filmmakers are generally not marketing people. Experienced film marketing people can only handle so many jobs at once, since each job has a certain overhead regardless of size (as any consultant will tell you). Thus, they tend to take on the larger projects that have the possibility of larger distribution and thus larger dollars for them. Same is probably true of music labels.
First off, you haven't seen the movie. People that have seen the film say that it's pretty fairly neutral on the issue of pro or con graffiti.
Second, that "awful flash site" has been nominated for a Flashforward award and has gotten a ton of amazing feedback.
But I respect your right to trash a film you haven't seen and a website that other people rave about....So you're on your way to being a mainstream film or music reviewer already!;-)
P.S. In all seriousness, I'd love you to see the film and talk about it with you afterward.
I'm the producer on an indie film currently in its festival run (shameless plug: http://www.qualityoflife-themovie.com) and it's amazing how much power these reviews have, particular with the industry press (Variety, Hollywood Reporter, etc.).
What's completely messed up is that these industry reviews can make or break a small indie film like ours. The big Hollywood bloatware films can just spend their way into the hearts and minds of American theaters.
We might not even get a chance to be in theaters if the industry reviews are poor. Distributors pay attention -- or not -- based on these reviews.
And why not? Distributor's lives are hectic and who has time to do detailed marketing analyses on thousands of new indie films each year...why not let the industry rags do it for you?
It's so frustrating since so many of these reviewers aren't the target audience for the films.
For instance, our film is a narrative feature about two graffiti writers in San Francisco. It's completely targeted at an underground youth audience...and those people that love that sort of thing. But the Variety reviewer was -- drumroll please -- a middle age dude who actually used the word "louts" in his review....and said the soundtrack was "molar-rattling".
Grandpa obviously woke up on the wrong side of the bed.....
In fact, younger audiences (14-25) generally love the film....but the acquisitions folks may never get the chance to know this. Etc etc.
We're just one example, but in the music industry, the same sort of thing is going on.
During the dotcom years, people talked about disintermediating the system such that people like us (media producers) could reach an audience (film viewer, music lovers, etc.) directly.
Sadly, the only thing that came of this (in a major way) is peer-to-peer, which doesn't exactly pay the rent. Also, filmmaking has a much different $$ structure than music. Musicians can make most of their money on live shows, while filmmakers make it all in the exhibition/distribution. Thus, peer-to-peer directly threatens us in a way it doesn't necessarily hurt musicians....But I'm sure some of our musician (or geek) friends might disagree in one way or another.
Slashdot Mirror
That explains that whole General Grevious thing.
I was wondering why he was built like a toaster except for the gizzards.
- This was a manually created sig. Take THAT robot overlords. -
Leasing is a hoax.
At least it was in my experience, running a much smaller company than the one cited by the orginal poster. We had a couple dozen machines, servers, monitors and assorted perpherials, all leased.
We went belly-up during the dotcom bust. At first we thought, we just stop making the monthly payments (important since our revenue was minimal) and we just return the equipment, right?
Nope. That didn't work. See, the leasing contracts did not have a voluntary termination clause. In other words, we were LOCKED into them.
They were less like leases and more like loans....Loans where we got nothing at the end of the term! That is, unless you count the right to buy the equipment at 10% on the dollar or some other "very cheap" price once we were done paying them off.
So we got stuck with large $$$ settlements with these lease (aka loan) companies, in order to get out of the leases, just as if they were credit card companies.
Moral of the story: Read the fine print and pay with cash!
--
Another self-referential, manually-generated SIG.
If I recall (brother of a good friend is an astronaut), the flights are numbered when they are scheduled and sometimes the schedule changes, but the numbers don't. Think of it like a project plan, with each task given a separate number. The task may move within the overall schedule, but to make sure you're all referring to the same task you use the "absolute" number assigned, even if it's out of order with numbers of tasks that occur before it in "relative" terms. Man, I just used way too many characters to explain that.
Actually, the best way to get this right-wing Congress to give NASA a virtual blank check would be to classify extra-terrestrial microbes as "possibly terrorist-related WMD" and then declare war on Mars.
Forget the deficit: it's our PATRIOTIC DUTY to fund the Billion Dollar Mars Orbiter Metric Converter, because the TERRORISTS hate space travel.
Nothing would move us along faster: we'd be getting Priceline deals on the daily Halliburton red-eye to the lunar colony before Jeb takes the oath of office......
MANUALLY-GENERATED SIG: See I'm not just a cynic -- I'm a dreamer too!
Ah yes, the Evil Trail Lawyers knee-jerk response.
:-)
Let's see, what exactly do trial lawyers like John Edwards do?
They make sure that companies follow the law.
And what exactly is wrong with that?
Shouldn't these companies be following the law in the first place? Where's all the "tough on crime" words against cheating corporate greed-heads? Strangely enough, the hard-core "anti-crime" rightwing is essentially mute on issues of corporate crime.
Well, not exactly mute: they want to cut back on our corporate policing system through their tort bashing. In other words, they want MORE criminals to go free.
Try this one: Trail Lawyers Are Your Friends!
Yes, it sounds so crazy because the popular press (and many in the blog/web/zombie-libertarian fantasy world) alway beat up on class action lawsuits and trail lawyers.
But the facts are simple:
It's just common sense to have a way for people to make sure the laws are enforced....and it was built STRONGLY into our democracy: sometimes the people themselves need to seek redress in the courts when our elected representatives (and their appointed industry-approved regulators and gov't lawyers) won't act.
This isn't just a good idea. It's a GREAT idea.
It's strange that the loony right has such a problem with trail lawyers, class action lawsuits and the whole tort system, since it's based on a number of core conservative ideas:
- The common person is wise (juries decide the cases).
- Greed is used to motivate positive behavior (trail lawyers can make big $$$ (from the corps -- NOT the gov't) in the process of making sure our laws are enforced).
- Don't trust the gov't (the gov't regulators may look the other way, but citizens can still seek relief through the courts).
So here's John Edwards: a guy who made millions helping hold corporations accountable for things like unsafe trucker training and pool drains that literally suck the intestines out of five-year-old girls.
I say we need more John Edwards. And even if he's a greed-head, at least he's making the world a better place at the same time. That much can't be said for the oil and military tycoons running our country now.
Disclaimer: I'm neither a trail lawyer nor a Democrat.
Yes, sadly that's the problem with trying to do an autopsy of a joke...you kill the humor.
;-)
But given the amount of misunderstanding going on with people about it on the board, I thought it was worth mentioning for those few souls that didn't get it due to the terminology.
Perhaps through trying to understand the corpse, we could reanimate the humor with an "I get it!" moment.
IT'S ALIVE....ALIIIIIVE!!!!
Okay, for those of you out there like me that don't live and breath jargon, this paper is a joke, a satire, a ha-ha (and a very good one from what I can tell).
By Lowest Total Cost of 0wnership (spelled with a zero), they mean that Windows is easier to "0wn" i.e. hack into.
0wning (with a zero instead of an O) a computer is high-falutin' jargon meaning that you have hacked into it and can do as you please.
So the point here (joke explained): that the cheapest, easiest system to hack is Windows. That's not exactly a joke (since it's true), but it's a joke since they're using the Total Cost of Ownership metric...just redefining Ownership to be 0wnership (with a zero).
Why is it spelled with a zero? That's because that's the way (cue menacing music) the hackers do it.
Clever paper, but too clever for people who don't use the terminology. Extra points for the in-jokes.
No astroturf here. Well done!
Ah. Did someone move the rock or did you crawl out on your own?
http://www.craigslist.org/ is the site. You type in Craigslist.com and you end up at the former, just as you say. That's the place. Simple and elegant, eh?
By the way, George W. Bush is President and California is now a state of the union.
Anything else we can clear up?
Actually, my original comment was not to merely indict capitalism (which resulted in the knee-jerk anti-commie comments), but to say that it is primarily a distributed system of capitalist consumption and corporate activity that is the dominant ongoing reason for our sorry environmental state.
There may be other systems at work, but nothing compares to the program of capitalism in its seemingly viral ability to infect, adapt and expand through-out the world.
We can debate good vs. bad, but you can't say that socialism has won the day and is the dominant form of industrial activity. History and current stats show us otherwise.
You're right that the old Soviet commies and China have a HORRIBLE record on the environment. That's not a distributed scheme though, but a state-centralized scheme. I presume that we agree that state-centralized schemes tend to be less sustainable (when it comes to economic production at least). History has shown this in both the collapse of the USSR and the changes in China.
The point here is simple: distributed-capitalist schemes are more nimble and widely entrenched due to their distributed nature and are lot more difficult to remove (i.e. not top-heavy) than top-down state-centralized schemes.
Hybrid socialist/capitalist schemes like that of many Euro countries seem to be doing a much better job of taking the strengths from both systems. But we still have a long way to go before we have a sustainable society on this planet....why do we think we have the capacity to build it on another planet?
Thanks for the feedback and the opportunity to clarify.
Wait wait! Let's finish the job here first. Once we're done Venusforming Earth, we can Terraform Mars.
I'm sure we can figure out some capitalist-distributed scheme that Wall Street loves while changing the atmosphere of Mars as we've done here (deforestation, carbon-based energy industry, too many cow farts, etc.). Of course, the real question is how long will the Mars atmosphere be breathable by "naked" humans before it's unbreathable again thanks to the top-selling 2050 Ford Evacuate super-SUV......
Good points.
But I'm not sure what indie musicians you're speaking about that make a decent living doing non-traditional/non-label distribution, but I know a good number of them and all either have day jobs or do corporate work.
Believe me, I wish it were otherwise.
I totally agree that indie filmmakers have a lot to learn from the indie music world. Music is ahead of filmmaking since the means of production are more accessible and only now is widespread desktop filmmaking starting to take off more.
But distribution will always be a tough issue.
Actually, there's a growing movement of self-distributed indies (example: Greg Pak's Robot Stories) that are doing some version of this for theatrical and many, many others that are doing self-distribution for home video and DVD.
However, filmmaking is fundementally different than music. The difference is this: live shows are never the same while film screenings are always the same. It's the difference betwen live performances and recorded performances, which is pretty fundemental from an audience perspective.
Here are the other reasons why films seek larger distribution deals:
- Fixed costs are high
Film production, music clearances, SAG actor costs, legal costs, etc. are all relatively fixed costs regardless if the film budget is $30,000 or $3M. While some of these costs are based on number screens (music and SAG, in particular), even the entry-level costs are considerable (for limited release).
It's a brutal cycle, since audiences want to see expensive stars and production values before they pay to see most films. This then means more cost thus the need for wider distribution to cover these costs.
- ROI for investors
Most indie filmmakers are not independently wealthy and even those that are don't want to simply lose their money on a film. Investment-driven film financing ensures that filmmakers seek the widest possible distribution. Self-distribution rarely makes much money.
- Helps sell home vide
This is a big deal. Theatrical release rarely turns a profit due to the HUGE marketing costs of being in theaters, even for small indie films that don't do major advertising. Basically, theatrical releases are marketing for the home video releases, which is where most filmmakers make their money back. Of course, this is the revenue stream that peer-to-peer directly threatens. Why buy a DVD when you can just download it for free?
And this is where music is very different than the film industry: musicians (even "stars") tend to make their money on live performances while filmmakers make it on recorded DVD/video sales.
- Audience trust and experience
Most audiences will not see a film an auditorium or club. It's a matter of perception of quality and expectation. Movie theaters are made for movies. The technical quality and the overall experience in spaces that are not theaters is generally horrible. Trust us, our film has been shown in one of these multi-use spaces and no one could understand a word of dialogue.
Musicians have somewhat the same situation in that spaces that are not meant for live music can make their work sound like crap.
Thus, filmmakers seek distribution in movie theaters, rather than just anywhere with a blank wall.
- Our filmmaking careers
In order to make more movies, we need to raise the funds to do so. In order to that, we need to prove a track record of ROI for past investors or at least an ability to get a film into theaters. This drives us to get into as many theaters as possible and avoid self-distribution.
- Economies of scale
Also, filmmakers are generally not marketing people. Experienced film marketing people can only handle so many jobs at once, since each job has a certain overhead regardless of size (as any consultant will tell you). Thus, they tend to take on the larger projects that have the possibility of larger distribution and thus larger dollars for them. Same is probably true of music labels.
First off, you haven't seen the movie. People that have seen the film say that it's pretty fairly neutral on the issue of pro or con graffiti.
;-)
Second, that "awful flash site" has been nominated for a Flashforward award and has gotten a ton of amazing feedback.
But I respect your right to trash a film you haven't seen and a website that other people rave about....So you're on your way to being a mainstream film or music reviewer already!
P.S. In all seriousness, I'd love you to see the film and talk about it with you afterward.
The same issue applies to film reviews.
:-)
I'm the producer on an indie film currently in its festival run (shameless plug: http://www.qualityoflife-themovie.com) and it's amazing how much power these reviews have, particular with the industry press (Variety, Hollywood Reporter, etc.).
What's completely messed up is that these industry reviews can make or break a small indie film like ours. The big Hollywood bloatware films can just spend their way into the hearts and minds of American theaters.
We might not even get a chance to be in theaters if the industry reviews are poor. Distributors pay attention -- or not -- based on these reviews.
And why not? Distributor's lives are hectic and who has time to do detailed marketing analyses on thousands of new indie films each year...why not let the industry rags do it for you?
It's so frustrating since so many of these reviewers aren't the target audience for the films.
For instance, our film is a narrative feature about two graffiti writers in San Francisco. It's completely targeted at an underground youth audience...and those people that love that sort of thing. But the Variety reviewer was -- drumroll please -- a middle age dude who actually used the word "louts" in his review....and said the soundtrack was "molar-rattling".
Grandpa obviously woke up on the wrong side of the bed.....
In fact, younger audiences (14-25) generally love the film....but the acquisitions folks may never get the chance to know this. Etc etc.
We're just one example, but in the music industry, the same sort of thing is going on.
During the dotcom years, people talked about disintermediating the system such that people like us (media producers) could reach an audience (film viewer, music lovers, etc.) directly.
Sadly, the only thing that came of this (in a major way) is peer-to-peer, which doesn't exactly pay the rent. Also, filmmaking has a much different $$ structure than music. Musicians can make most of their money on live shows, while filmmakers make it all in the exhibition/distribution. Thus, peer-to-peer directly threatens us in a way it doesn't necessarily hurt musicians....But I'm sure some of our musician (or geek) friends might disagree in one way or another.
But that's a different debate....
- Brant