The truth of the matter is that Russell T Davies has stated publicly for quite a while that he won't stay on forever - he has previously said he wouldn't be in the Executive Producer role after 2010. Another truth is that he has no control over what the BBC choose to do with the show after he leaves. Quite an important truth is that Doctor Who is one of the BBC's most important programmes - regularly top of the ratings (after soaps) and a merchandising gold mine. The Sun is not a reliable source for stories like this as they will take a germ of a story and run it in whatever direction suits them. Anyone concerned that the fourth season will be the last should stop worrying.
It all depends on whose numbers you take. The margins for a label for the artist will appear low because the label claims a lot of expenses that are bullshit. It will pay itself $20,000 for the recording and mark that down as an expense. Pay itself 150,00 for promotion ditto with the fucked up accounting then it will pay the artists ect.. and int he end your left with 2-8 % but it managed to be the lions share of the expenses so in reality it made a lot more money but defered it to another portion of the label. Movies do the same stupid shit with fucked up accounting.
"You can make a record in 1955 and have been getting royalties... been living on that and suddenly they're gone." Maybe you could get of you're arse and do some work then? Just a suggestion...
Exactly what went through my mind as I was reading that line. There are those of us who have to work nine to five in an office for 50 years and still struggle to live off the 'royalties' from that effort.
However I think this 'living on that' comment is a bit of a red herring. There may be a few artists who are in that position. For the most part though, anyone who wrote/recorded something successful enough to still be earning a living off the royalties 50 years later is likely to have amassed enough wealth not to worry about the financial implications - remember what they're getting now is a tiny fraction of what they would have been receiving back then in real terms. And most likely they've had other hit records, toured, etc. Sir Cliff Richard is a prime example of this.
I don't think it's really about the money (for the artist at least). It's about control of the product. I think the artist would be more concerned about what people can do to their music when it's out of copyright, and how that might taint their 'legacy'.
As for the record companies, maybe that's a slightly different story...
Maybe it's just that Friday morning feeling, but I was quite amused to mis-read the summary: "Reuters reports that Microsoft has handed over technical documents to the EU in order to enable the competition to make inpenetrable software."
As you flag your second comment 'slightly less serious' I will treat it with a modicum of seriousness.
Do you honestly believe that an alien intelligence with the knowledge and power to travel 45 light years across space will have any trouble at all finding a way to kill us?
Don't forget they've probably seen most of the CSI series too...
Actually, from a software design point of view, that's not necessarily the correct answer. If you make everything configurable that every user would possibly want to change, then you're looking at a UI that's going to be almost impossible to navigate, at least when you're talking about an OS the size of Vista. That said, I think this is a case where it should be something the user can change.
Actually, you're confusing the questions "Should the user be able to change this?" and "Would the user want to change this?" which won't necessarily share the same answer.
Slashdot Mirror
You're both right. However, Information Technology Year was also 1995, 1996, 1999 and 2006.
I wanted more.
The truth of the matter is that Russell T Davies has stated publicly for quite a while that he won't stay on forever - he has previously said he wouldn't be in the Executive Producer role after 2010. Another truth is that he has no control over what the BBC choose to do with the show after he leaves. Quite an important truth is that Doctor Who is one of the BBC's most important programmes - regularly top of the ratings (after soaps) and a merchandising gold mine. The Sun is not a reliable source for stories like this as they will take a germ of a story and run it in whatever direction suits them. Anyone concerned that the fourth season will be the last should stop worrying.
Surely it would also make more sense to use a device from Creative, or others, that includes a voice recorder?
...and curtains.
I thought 640KB was enough for anyone?
Exactly what went through my mind as I was reading that line. There are those of us who have to work nine to five in an office for 50 years and still struggle to live off the 'royalties' from that effort.
However I think this 'living on that' comment is a bit of a red herring. There may be a few artists who are in that position. For the most part though, anyone who wrote/recorded something successful enough to still be earning a living off the royalties 50 years later is likely to have amassed enough wealth not to worry about the financial implications - remember what they're getting now is a tiny fraction of what they would have been receiving back then in real terms. And most likely they've had other hit records, toured, etc. Sir Cliff Richard is a prime example of this.
I don't think it's really about the money (for the artist at least). It's about control of the product. I think the artist would be more concerned about what people can do to their music when it's out of copyright, and how that might taint their 'legacy'.
As for the record companies, maybe that's a slightly different story...
Hide and seek is all very well, but when are they going to teach robots to do useful things like build cars?
Maybe it's just that Friday morning feeling, but I was quite amused to mis-read the summary: "Reuters reports that Microsoft has handed over technical documents to the EU in order to enable the competition to make inpenetrable software."
I've heard that it can last indefinitely if you just leave it buried in the ground.
Headlines, not stories, comprise six words.
No, it really works! I've seen no electronic teenagers round here...
Sorry.
As you flag your second comment 'slightly less serious' I will treat it with a modicum of seriousness. Do you honestly believe that an alien intelligence with the knowledge and power to travel 45 light years across space will have any trouble at all finding a way to kill us? Don't forget they've probably seen most of the CSI series too...
Do you mean 'typical sepersontic jibberish'?
I been saving for over 10 years, waiting to find something good to spend my air miles on. So, Mr Branson, what can you offer me for my 2,537?
That's the ideal solution in a perfect world, but I wouldn't put money on the right person getting fired.
Actually, from a software design point of view, that's not necessarily the correct answer. If you make everything configurable that every user would possibly want to change, then you're looking at a UI that's going to be almost impossible to navigate, at least when you're talking about an OS the size of Vista. That said, I think this is a case where it should be something the user can change.
Actually, you're confusing the questions "Should the user be able to change this?" and "Would the user want to change this?" which won't necessarily share the same answer.
It's not beyond the manufacturers to include multiple drives. Only a question of cost as I see it.
Except "Planet of the Apes". There's no talking monkeys in "1001" - at least not with guns. Unless something got lost in translation.
So what you're saying is this guy had a PC working for 4 years, then you installed a network card and it died. Interesting...