Yes. CDs still make sense even in the iPod age because they provide a durable backup medium even when the content is transfered to a digital device.
I will keep buying CDs. I don't listen to the actual CD anymore: I just rip it, put the files on my RAID server and listen to the digital version via my computer or my iPod and keep the CD safe in storage. If anything happens to my music (or if, God forbid, i need to re-rip it because a new/better format comes along), I still have the original CD (which I paid for).
Personally, I hate iTunes and most online digital services: they will end up killing physical media, and that's a bad thing. CDs are (mostly/theoretically) DRM free and you can listen to them on a variety of devices. Digital media is often encumbered by lossy compression and/or DRM.
Average cellphone with castrated iPod (no click wheel, only 512Mb of storage) = pricey lackluster gadget. Why would I every want to buy one of these when I can get an iPod Nano and a cell phone separately and get more bang for the buck?
Not to mention that having an MP3 player and a cell phone sharing the same battery is a stupid idea.
This is one of those 'high concept' ideas that may have looked good on paper but will not connect with consumers.
Considering that most movies recoup their cost during theatrical release, the cost of production of the media really IS about the only cost involved. Yeah, you have to re-master it, throw together some special features, and have somebody design a pretty box. But saying that the DVD release of movies from major studios is still paying for the freakin painters and make-up artists is, in almost every case, absolute and unadulterated bullshit. Nearly every movie that sees theatrical release recoups it's cost before it is released on video. Unless, of course, I'm wrong.
You've got to be kidding. The bulk of revenue for studios comes from TV, homevideo, licensing and other ancillary revenues. Theatrical profits are the smallest slice of the pie these days, and only a fraction of titles are profitable during their their original release.
The rule of thumb is that a film has to gross domestically at least the equivalent of its budget to even hope to break even. Apart from bonafide hits, many films these days don't even come close (but handsomely recoup their investment once they hit video). In fact, in many cases the theatrical release these days is nothing more than promotional/marketing for the upcoming homevideo release. On many studio productions, advertising and print costs alone amount to more than the negative cost.
Because it was never lost. The film has always been available in one form or another.
Maybe this new 'lost' version has different/more hardcore material but the film was never really that hard to see. Necromania was originally a softcore feature, with hardcore inserts shot by cinematographer Ted Gorley to spice up Wood's softcore effort and make it more marketable, a very common practice in those days (Wood never actually liked to film actual hardcore scenes). As with most films of this kind, I'm sure there are tons of different edits/versions floating around, but that doesn't mean it was a "lost" film.
And anyway an hardcore version (credited to director "Don Miller") has been has been available from Alpha Blue archives for years (they sell it on VHS paired with another similar short titled Daughter of Satan). Something Weird Video also used to sell it.
The guys who announced this are trying to get mileage from to the recent DVD release of Tim Burton's "Ed Wood" -- and it looks like it worked: you think CNN and Reuters would have picked up this story otherwise?
"In the 1990s, government proposals to restrict encryption inspired a national debate. Then as now, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and electronic privacy groups locked horns with the DOJ and law enforcement agencies. Then as now, Kerry and Ashcroft were on opposite sides.
But there was noteworthy difference in those days. Then it was Sen. John Ashcroft (R-Mo.) who argued alongside the ACLU in favor of the individual's right to encrypt messages and export encryption software. Ashcroft "was kind of the go-to guy for all of us on the Republican side of the Senate," recalls David Sobel, general counsel of the Electronic Privacy Information Center.
And in what now seems like a bizarre parallel universe, it was John Kerry who was on the side of the FBI, the National Security Agency, and the DOJ. Ashcroft's predecessor at the Justice Department, Janet Reno, wanted to force companies to create a "clipper chip" for the government--a chip that could "unlock" the encryption codes individuals use to keep their messages private. When that wouldn't fly in Congress, the DOJ pushed for a "key escrow" system in which a third-party agency would have a "backdoor" key to read encrypted messages.
"Bart to the Future" - Episode BABF13. From snpp.com:
Bart: [rings bell] Flanders is a soft touch. He'll give us the
money for sure. [Ned answers the door. He's wearing dark glasses and
carrying a cane] Ned: Jesus? Is that you? Ralph: Mr. Flanders, you're blinded-ded! Ned: Oh, yeah. I never should have had that trendy laser
surgery. It was great at first but, you know, at the ten-year mark your eyes fall out.
I had lasik 3 years ago and I'm happy with the results. I'd been wearing glasses for 30 years and couldn't wear contacts except for very short periods because of mild dry-eye syndrome.
Now I have 20/20 vision and I'm quite happy with the results. The important thing to understand is that, although you'll be able to throw away your glasses immediately, your vision is not going to be perfect right away and some adverse side effects will be more noticeable for several weeks/months after the operation and fade away gradually.
In my case, the worst problem was night glare because my pupils dilate a lot in darkness (your doctor will be able to test this), but it became less and less noticeable. Same with dry-eye (which was a pre-existing condition for me): lasik tends to make that worse.
But I was aware that this would happen and the tradeoff was still worth it for me (I can drive without problems at night, I can watch TV and movies etc. I can live with a slight 'halo' effect around pinpoint light sources in darkness).
As long as you don't have unrealistic expectations and understand all the potential disadvantages (blurred night vision), you should be fine. It also depends on the amount of correction you will be able to achieve. Doing lasik to correct minor problems isn't probably worth it; but if, like me, you wear glasses pretty much all the time, you'll probably be a very happy man afterwards.
I think it's a naive point of view, especially if you can't easily prove that your MP3 files were stolen.
Given the "sue first, ask questions later" mentality of the RIAA, I'm more inclined to think that the RIAA would go after the person whose ID is in the MP3 files being traded.
Sure, in the end you may be able to prove that you are not the file-swapper, but at what cost? Why take the chance?
The potential hassles in storing personal identifying information in MP3 files IMHO far outweigh the few hypothetical benefits.
Guns are supposed to be safeguarded and stored in a safe place. In most cases you can't even take them with you.
MP3 files on the other hand are much more portable and have a much greater chance of being misplaced.
What happens if your perfectly legal superMP3 files, all with your name/personal identifier embedded in them, are stolen and traded online?
Loss or theft of a portable MP3 with thousands of songs on it is not such a far-fetched idea.
If you own a gun and it's lost or stolen, you can report this to the police. What happens if you lose thousands of MP3 files? Assuming it's worth the hassle to report the theft of individual files, would you be able to know exactly how many songs were stolen, and their individual titles?
Makes you wonder if you ever heard of posthumous credits...
I quote from The Hollywood Reporter, 9/17/2002:
Gary Barber and Roger Birnbaum's Spyglass Entertainment has tapped "Chicken Run" scribe Karey Kirkpatrick to co-adapt Douglas Adams' "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy."
[...]
Adams had begun adapting the project for the big screen before his death in May 2001, and Kirkpatrick will work from his draft. [...]
Adams will receive an executive producer credit along with Robbie Stamp and Jonathan Glickman, president of production at Spyglass. Derek Evans, senior vp production at Spyglass, will co-produce and oversee.
Full item is here but you have to be a paid subscriber to read it.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. CDs still make sense even in the iPod age because they provide a durable backup medium even when the content is transfered to a digital device.
I will keep buying CDs. I don't listen to the actual CD anymore: I just rip it, put the files on my RAID server and listen to the digital version via my computer or my iPod and keep the CD safe in storage. If anything happens to my music (or if, God forbid, i need to re-rip it because a new/better format comes along), I still have the original CD (which I paid for).
Personally, I hate iTunes and most online digital services: they will end up killing physical media, and that's a bad thing. CDs are (mostly/theoretically) DRM free and you can listen to them on a variety of devices. Digital media is often encumbered by lossy compression and/or DRM.
Not to mention that having an MP3 player and a cell phone sharing the same battery is a stupid idea.
This is one of those 'high concept' ideas that may have looked good on paper but will not connect with consumers.
You've got to be kidding. The bulk of revenue for studios comes from TV, homevideo, licensing and other ancillary revenues. Theatrical profits are the smallest slice of the pie these days, and only a fraction of titles are profitable during their their original release.
The rule of thumb is that a film has to gross domestically at least the equivalent of its budget to even hope to break even. Apart from bonafide hits, many films these days don't even come close (but handsomely recoup their investment once they hit video). In fact, in many cases the theatrical release these days is nothing more than promotional/marketing for the upcoming homevideo release. On many studio productions, advertising and print costs alone amount to more than the negative cost.
You may want to read this for some more info.
It's still up. Tell your girlfriend she needs Flash 7.0
You can also check irs.gov.
H1-B, TN, O1, J2 and L1 visa holders pay social security and medicare taxes like US citizens.
Only J1, F1, M1 or Q1 visa holders are exempt. All residents workers pay social security and medicare.
The DVD version may be new, but it's been out on VHS for quite a while...
Maybe this new 'lost' version has different/more hardcore material but the film was never really that hard to see. Necromania was originally a softcore feature, with hardcore inserts shot by cinematographer Ted Gorley to spice up Wood's softcore effort and make it more marketable, a very common practice in those days (Wood never actually liked to film actual hardcore scenes). As with most films of this kind, I'm sure there are tons of different edits/versions floating around, but that doesn't mean it was a "lost" film.
And anyway an hardcore version (credited to director "Don Miller") has been has been available from Alpha Blue archives for years (they sell it on VHS paired with another similar short titled Daughter of Satan). Something Weird Video also used to sell it.
The guys who announced this are trying to get mileage from to the recent DVD release of Tim Burton's "Ed Wood" -- and it looks like it worked: you think CNN and Reuters would have picked up this story otherwise?
Nothing to see, move along...
"In the 1990s, government proposals to restrict encryption inspired a national debate. Then as now, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and electronic privacy groups locked horns with the DOJ and law enforcement agencies. Then as now, Kerry and Ashcroft were on opposite sides. But there was noteworthy difference in those days. Then it was Sen. John Ashcroft (R-Mo.) who argued alongside the ACLU in favor of the individual's right to encrypt messages and export encryption software. Ashcroft "was kind of the go-to guy for all of us on the Republican side of the Senate," recalls David Sobel, general counsel of the Electronic Privacy Information Center.
And in what now seems like a bizarre parallel universe, it was John Kerry who was on the side of the FBI, the National Security Agency, and the DOJ. Ashcroft's predecessor at the Justice Department, Janet Reno, wanted to force companies to create a "clipper chip" for the government--a chip that could "unlock" the encryption codes individuals use to keep their messages private. When that wouldn't fly in Congress, the DOJ pushed for a "key escrow" system in which a third-party agency would have a "backdoor" key to read encrypted messages.
Full article here
Bart: [rings bell] Flanders is a soft touch. He'll give us the money for sure.
[Ned answers the door. He's wearing dark glasses and carrying a cane]
Ned: Jesus? Is that you?
Ralph: Mr. Flanders, you're blinded-ded!
Ned: Oh, yeah. I never should have had that trendy laser surgery. It was great at first but, you know, at the ten-year mark your eyes fall out.
Now I have 20/20 vision and I'm quite happy with the results. The important thing to understand is that, although you'll be able to throw away your glasses immediately, your vision is not going to be perfect right away and some adverse side effects will be more noticeable for several weeks/months after the operation and fade away gradually.
In my case, the worst problem was night glare because my pupils dilate a lot in darkness (your doctor will be able to test this), but it became less and less noticeable. Same with dry-eye (which was a pre-existing condition for me): lasik tends to make that worse.
But I was aware that this would happen and the tradeoff was still worth it for me (I can drive without problems at night, I can watch TV and movies etc. I can live with a slight 'halo' effect around pinpoint light sources in darkness).
As long as you don't have unrealistic expectations and understand all the potential disadvantages (blurred night vision), you should be fine. It also depends on the amount of correction you will be able to achieve. Doing lasik to correct minor problems isn't probably worth it; but if, like me, you wear glasses pretty much all the time, you'll probably be a very happy man afterwards.
I think it's a naive point of view, especially if you can't easily prove that your MP3 files were stolen.
Given the "sue first, ask questions later" mentality of the RIAA, I'm more inclined to think that the RIAA would go after the person whose ID is in the MP3 files being traded.
Sure, in the end you may be able to prove that you are not the file-swapper, but at what cost? Why take the chance?
The potential hassles in storing personal identifying information in MP3 files IMHO far outweigh the few hypothetical benefits.
Guns are supposed to be safeguarded and stored in a safe place. In most cases you can't even take them with you. MP3 files on the other hand are much more portable and have a much greater chance of being misplaced. What happens if your perfectly legal superMP3 files, all with your name/personal identifier embedded in them, are stolen and traded online? Loss or theft of a portable MP3 with thousands of songs on it is not such a far-fetched idea. If you own a gun and it's lost or stolen, you can report this to the police. What happens if you lose thousands of MP3 files? Assuming it's worth the hassle to report the theft of individual files, would you be able to know exactly how many songs were stolen, and their individual titles?
I quote from The Hollywood Reporter, 9/17/2002:
Gary Barber and Roger Birnbaum's Spyglass Entertainment has tapped "Chicken Run" scribe Karey Kirkpatrick to co-adapt Douglas Adams' "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy." [...] Adams had begun adapting the project for the big screen before his death in May 2001, and Kirkpatrick will work from his draft. [...] Adams will receive an executive producer credit along with Robbie Stamp and Jonathan Glickman, president of production at Spyglass. Derek Evans, senior vp production at Spyglass, will co-produce and oversee.
Full item is here but you have to be a paid subscriber to read it.
You're wrong: Nighy is confirmed. Moore is NOT, which is why he's not on IMDb.com.
Or so it seems, based on their reply to the Yale Law Blog article: http://cprr.org/Museum/Rants.html#Yale