'make sure they take their rings off first, lest they take yours off instead...'
Now you tell me! I had to explain it at the hospital that I was taking a shower and slipped and fell onto a porcupine! No wonder the nurses couldn't stop laughing!:-)
NOBODY expects the Spanish Author! His chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... His two weapons are fear and surprise...and windmills.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and windmills...
How is this for ironic. We're getting a second hand copier that doesn't work, which we've been told will be a great copier if we spend about $200 fixing. It's to replace our current photocopier which is still working but majorly falling apart. I've actually been wondering if we spend the $200 on our current copier if it would be better than getting a copier that doesn't work.
Of course, when the copier repair guy turns up to fix the second hand copier, I'm going to challenge him and make sure he isn't trying to hack into our network by using reams of paper with passwords written on them.
'I'm sure when he's sober he'll be cheery and optimistic about his sacrifice for the War on Terror? Liberty? Iraqi Freedom? I forget why we're there. Maybe you can enlighten me.'
WMD. GW hss vowed to stay till we find one so he can say he was right.
I once flew from Cairns to Sydney, and my luggage flew from Cairns to Alice Springs. Took over 24 hours for QANTAS to locate and return my luggage, and when the guy did deliver it to me, he abused me, as though my luggage loss was my fault. I personally don't want to go through the experience again, as my medication was with my luggage.
'they will pick up the typing vibrations just fine, even in a vacuum.'
Except, in a vaccuum, no one can hear you type... as you've died from lack of air! Of course, what the technology interprets as typing while you're going into convulsions might be interesting to try to read.:-)
'That doesn't mean he created the world in six literal days, nor does it mean that "it just happened" as he wished. He could have initiated everything and guided it since then.'
A friend of mine from School went on to do a PhD in Theology. During that time he studied Hebrew & Kone Greek, along with all the books of the Bible in these languages. From what he told me the word in Genesis that gets translated as 'Day' doesn't mean that in Hebrew. It apparently just means a period of time. Thus, a literal interpretation of the term 'Day' is just literally interpreting the English Translation and NOT the original word or meaning behind it.
I think the old warning from the Bible of not leaning to ones own understanding gets missed by a lot of people. I get tired of arguing against people who interpret things from a Modern Western point of view, and won't even consider that the meaning of some passages might have been obvious to a culture two thousand years plus in the past but not to our current understanding.
A lot of people seem to forget that Religion and Science are answering two different questions.
You're getting a little confused between the copyrights being discussed here.
At present, if you are an author or a songwriter, the copyriht on the actual work [ie the book or song], last up to 50 years after your death. Which I think is fair (it at least provides something for artists families when they die early deaths, such as Buddy Holly who left a widow and baby behind). It's how it's been since about 1868 or something in UK & Australia [and I think most Commonwealth contries]. (I'm too lazy to go looking for my law book on copyright at present. I know the current Aussie laws are based on the British one from 1968, and I'm sure they're based on the old one from 100 years or so before that).
The copyright in question, is the copyright on the actual recordings, which are only copyrighted for 50 years. This is usually owned by the record companies [or publishers in the case of books]. Sir Cliff didn't write any of his earlier songs as far as I know (and probably not many of his later ones). Whoever wrote the actual song is still (in theory) allowed to collect their one cent per song every time it gets played on the radio, or sold or copied (in theory) provided they didn't die fifty years earlier. Of the recordings of those songs however, those are going into public domain. That means the record companies won't be collecting anything on the recordings.
There is a good reason for the difference in copyrights here. If Sir Cliff wanted to re-record Summer Holiday again, then the songwriters will collect royalties, and the NEW recording will have 50 years to make money for the record company again. The original recording will still go into public domain.
Many of the Beetles early recordings are also due to go into public domain too. But remember, it's the recordings, NOT the actual copyright of the song. If you or I or anyone else wanted to record a Beetles song, we'd still have to pay royalties to the owner of the copyright of the song [which I think is Michael Jackson at present, unless he sold it since buying it]. Our recording however will remain in copyright until fifty years after we recorded it. The song and recording don't share the same copyright.
This means you can record a song in public domain, [ie not a song which has a recording in public domain. The song itself has to be in public domain], and can make money off the recording without people copying it selling it. [If the copyright wasn't there on the recording, it means someone like Sony or EMI could take your recording, copy it and sell it over the top of what you were doing. And with their marketing machine, they'd probably make more money].
What a 50 year copyright on the recording also means, is that if a company like EMI held the copyright on a recording, once it falls into public domain, then Virgin or Sony and all other record companies can now sell that recording, as well as anyone [like ourselves], provided we still pay the artist the royalty on the song. Just remember SONG COPYRIGHT != RECORDING COPYRIGHT.
The Copyright on the song will last till 50 years after the creator/s has/have died.
This is unlike the US which has much longer copyright laws. [I added this last sentence, as SOME Americans always get confused and start talking about Sonny Bono and the US Constitution AT me, which has no relevence to the subject of UK or Australian copyright laws].
The first four minutes of the flim is people standing there going, 'Dupe', 'I for one welcome our new Border Collie Overlord', 'Wait till we get the friggin' lasers on their heads', 'In Soviet Russia, the void is crazier than the border collie' etc etc.
'"Chronicles of Narnia
Remake."
Adaptation, but there wasn't a previous Narnia movie that I'm aware of.'
There is a series of films, but they're British, filmed a while ago as well. I saw 'The Lion The Witch and the Wardrobe' and 'Prince Caspian' back in 1990, so that says something about how old the films were. I can't be bothered googling for a link.
The problem with the list you gave [I feel], is that a lot of them weren't that well received by critics, even if they were box office successes. I read only bad things about King Kong and War of the Worlds. I haven't seen either to make up my own mind. Almost everyone I know who saw both of those films told me not to bother going to see them. I figure I'll see them one day on DVD or on TV anyway. Anyway, no movies have really caught my attention for years. Last movie I saw was Return of the King.
I own House of Flying Daggers on DVD. Glad it made it onto the list. I plan on seeing Capote eventually, but only as I'm a Capote fan. I figured it wasn't a movie that needed a huge screen.
But, a lot of the films on your list, people I knew told me not to bother seeing them. As you've said yourself, you've only seen 1/3 to 1/2 of them. So, like me, you are just relying on other peoples opinion (for the ones you didn't see) as to whether they were good or not. Many critics often disagree as to what makes a good movie, and even box office successes are often 'bad films' that just got a lot of hype.
You don't understand, it was lonely and cold, there weren't enough women to go around and we thought everyone was going to die anyway! How were we to know everyone would live!!!!:-)
But the movie will be a prequel as the movie of the Hobbit is being made after the movie of LOTR.
So, the book isn't a prequel, the movie is. After all, the screen play will differ from the book (in the same way that LOTR's movies differed from that book). So by the definition given, the cinematic work being created now is a prequel as the narrative of it takes place before that of the LOTR movies which are pre-existing work.
'On the plus side, maybe some of us will appreciate Jackson more when we see how Hollywood botches these films. That or I'll eat my words.'
Hmmmm, the animated Lord of the Rings film made by that guy who made Wizards comes to mind. I thought Wizards was a great movie, so I won't critisize that. But his treatment of LOTR really sucked. It was a complete botch up of the material. I think Jackson has already proven he can handle the material, and we don't need to wait for Hollywood to prove they can botch up the Hobbit.
So, in short, I already appreciate what Jackson did with the material, even if he left out my favourite character, Tom Bombadil, but I perfectly understand why jackson did that.
But, we'll wait and see who Hollywood choses to do the Hobbit with. If it's someone who has a great understanding of Tolkiens work, then it might still turn out Okay. But, I must admit, I'm pretty much in agreement with your scepticism of the project.
It's sad they ended up cutting JarJaromir's parts from The Return of the King. but I'm sure they'll have it all as a special directors cut later on. Won't surprise me if they go back and edit him digitally into the first two movies as well, and release the lot 20 years later.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
'make sure they take their rings off first, lest they take yours off instead...'
:-)
Now you tell me! I had to explain it at the hospital that I was taking a shower and slipped and fell onto a porcupine! No wonder the nurses couldn't stop laughing!
NOBODY expects the Spanish Author! His chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... His two weapons are fear and surprise...and windmills.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and windmills...
How is this for ironic. We're getting a second hand copier that doesn't work, which we've been told will be a great copier if we spend about $200 fixing. It's to replace our current photocopier which is still working but majorly falling apart. I've actually been wondering if we spend the $200 on our current copier if it would be better than getting a copier that doesn't work.
Of course, when the copier repair guy turns up to fix the second hand copier, I'm going to challenge him and make sure he isn't trying to hack into our network by using reams of paper with passwords written on them.
'I'm sure when he's sober he'll be cheery and optimistic about his sacrifice for the War on Terror? Liberty? Iraqi Freedom? I forget why we're there. Maybe you can enlighten me.'
WMD. GW hss vowed to stay till we find one so he can say he was right.
I just hope whatever gets introduced WORKS.
I once flew from Cairns to Sydney, and my luggage flew from Cairns to Alice Springs. Took over 24 hours for QANTAS to locate and return my luggage, and when the guy did deliver it to me, he abused me, as though my luggage loss was my fault. I personally don't want to go through the experience again, as my medication was with my luggage.
'Sigma still sounds foreign'
To quote Shakespeare. It all sounds Greek to me!
'they will pick up the typing vibrations just fine, even in a vacuum.'
... as you've died from lack of air! Of course, what the technology interprets as typing while you're going into convulsions might be interesting to try to read. :-)
Except, in a vaccuum, no one can hear you type
'That doesn't mean he created the world in six literal days, nor does it mean that "it just happened" as he wished. He could have initiated everything and guided it since then.'
A friend of mine from School went on to do a PhD in Theology. During that time he studied Hebrew & Kone Greek, along with all the books of the Bible in these languages. From what he told me the word in Genesis that gets translated as 'Day' doesn't mean that in Hebrew. It apparently just means a period of time. Thus, a literal interpretation of the term 'Day' is just literally interpreting the English Translation and NOT the original word or meaning behind it.
I think the old warning from the Bible of not leaning to ones own understanding gets missed by a lot of people. I get tired of arguing against people who interpret things from a Modern Western point of view, and won't even consider that the meaning of some passages might have been obvious to a culture two thousand years plus in the past but not to our current understanding.
A lot of people seem to forget that Religion and Science are answering two different questions.
btw, enjoyed your post.
You're getting a little confused between the copyrights being discussed here.
At present, if you are an author or a songwriter, the copyriht on the actual work [ie the book or song], last up to 50 years after your death. Which I think is fair (it at least provides something for artists families when they die early deaths, such as Buddy Holly who left a widow and baby behind). It's how it's been since about 1868 or something in UK & Australia [and I think most Commonwealth contries]. (I'm too lazy to go looking for my law book on copyright at present. I know the current Aussie laws are based on the British one from 1968, and I'm sure they're based on the old one from 100 years or so before that).
The copyright in question, is the copyright on the actual recordings, which are only copyrighted for 50 years. This is usually owned by the record companies [or publishers in the case of books]. Sir Cliff didn't write any of his earlier songs as far as I know (and probably not many of his later ones). Whoever wrote the actual song is still (in theory) allowed to collect their one cent per song every time it gets played on the radio, or sold or copied (in theory) provided they didn't die fifty years earlier. Of the recordings of those songs however, those are going into public domain. That means the record companies won't be collecting anything on the recordings.
There is a good reason for the difference in copyrights here. If Sir Cliff wanted to re-record Summer Holiday again, then the songwriters will collect royalties, and the NEW recording will have 50 years to make money for the record company again. The original recording will still go into public domain.
Many of the Beetles early recordings are also due to go into public domain too. But remember, it's the recordings, NOT the actual copyright of the song. If you or I or anyone else wanted to record a Beetles song, we'd still have to pay royalties to the owner of the copyright of the song [which I think is Michael Jackson at present, unless he sold it since buying it]. Our recording however will remain in copyright until fifty years after we recorded it. The song and recording don't share the same copyright.
This means you can record a song in public domain, [ie not a song which has a recording in public domain. The song itself has to be in public domain], and can make money off the recording without people copying it selling it. [If the copyright wasn't there on the recording, it means someone like Sony or EMI could take your recording, copy it and sell it over the top of what you were doing. And with their marketing machine, they'd probably make more money].
What a 50 year copyright on the recording also means, is that if a company like EMI held the copyright on a recording, once it falls into public domain, then Virgin or Sony and all other record companies can now sell that recording, as well as anyone [like ourselves], provided we still pay the artist the royalty on the song. Just remember SONG COPYRIGHT != RECORDING COPYRIGHT.
The Copyright on the song will last till 50 years after the creator/s has/have died.
This is unlike the US which has much longer copyright laws. [I added this last sentence, as SOME Americans always get confused and start talking about Sonny Bono and the US Constitution AT me, which has no relevence to the subject of UK or Australian copyright laws].
Hope that's informative.
The first four minutes of the flim is people standing there going, 'Dupe', 'I for one welcome our new Border Collie Overlord', 'Wait till we get the friggin' lasers on their heads', 'In Soviet Russia, the void is crazier than the border collie' etc etc.
I'm allergic to beer ... and I'm an Aussie. What a national disgrace I am! :-)
With the way graphics cards are going, screw the computer, the Graphics card can run Halo 10 on its own!
I'm sure Black Sabath did it first and louder. It's not hard to make black metal~! :-)
Could be the methane has dropped as I've been eating less beans this year. :-)
'"Chronicles of Narnia
Remake."
Adaptation, but there wasn't a previous Narnia movie that I'm aware of.'
There is a series of films, but they're British, filmed a while ago as well. I saw 'The Lion The Witch and the Wardrobe' and 'Prince Caspian' back in 1990, so that says something about how old the films were. I can't be bothered googling for a link.
The problem with the list you gave [I feel], is that a lot of them weren't that well received by critics, even if they were box office successes. I read only bad things about King Kong and War of the Worlds. I haven't seen either to make up my own mind. Almost everyone I know who saw both of those films told me not to bother going to see them. I figure I'll see them one day on DVD or on TV anyway. Anyway, no movies have really caught my attention for years. Last movie I saw was Return of the King.
I own House of Flying Daggers on DVD. Glad it made it onto the list. I plan on seeing Capote eventually, but only as I'm a Capote fan. I figured it wasn't a movie that needed a huge screen.
But, a lot of the films on your list, people I knew told me not to bother seeing them. As you've said yourself, you've only seen 1/3 to 1/2 of them. So, like me, you are just relying on other peoples opinion (for the ones you didn't see) as to whether they were good or not. Many critics often disagree as to what makes a good movie, and even box office successes are often 'bad films' that just got a lot of hype.
I agree. It's like they always say. In movies, don't tell, show.
'Brokeback Helm's Deep?'
:-)
You don't understand, it was lonely and cold, there weren't enough women to go around and we thought everyone was going to die anyway! How were we to know everyone would live!!!!
But the movie will be a prequel as the movie of the Hobbit is being made after the movie of LOTR.
So, the book isn't a prequel, the movie is. After all, the screen play will differ from the book (in the same way that LOTR's movies differed from that book). So by the definition given, the cinematic work being created now is a prequel as the narrative of it takes place before that of the LOTR movies which are pre-existing work.
'On the plus side, maybe some of us will appreciate Jackson more when we see how Hollywood botches these films. That or I'll eat my words.'
Hmmmm, the animated Lord of the Rings film made by that guy who made Wizards comes to mind. I thought Wizards was a great movie, so I won't critisize that. But his treatment of LOTR really sucked. It was a complete botch up of the material. I think Jackson has already proven he can handle the material, and we don't need to wait for Hollywood to prove they can botch up the Hobbit.
So, in short, I already appreciate what Jackson did with the material, even if he left out my favourite character, Tom Bombadil, but I perfectly understand why jackson did that.
But, we'll wait and see who Hollywood choses to do the Hobbit with. If it's someone who has a great understanding of Tolkiens work, then it might still turn out Okay. But, I must admit, I'm pretty much in agreement with your scepticism of the project.
I don't know, seemed it was all homoerotic to me.
Especially this version.
Would the holiday special have Jarjaromir and Yoda the White Wizard in it?
You heretic! There are four elephants and only ONE turtle, and that turtle is the Great A'tuin! Om told me so! :-)
It's sad they ended up cutting JarJaromir's parts from The Return of the King. but I'm sure they'll have it all as a special directors cut later on. Won't surprise me if they go back and edit him digitally into the first two movies as well, and release the lot 20 years later. :-)
Oh come on. You know nothing in Computers is ever good till it reaches at least 3.0 something. :-)
'...then there is only one speed that antimatter would be traveling at, 100% of C speed.'
How about greater than C and it's travelling backwards through time?