Yes, but if you believe those statistics then there are more people interested in laptops in Bucharest than in San Francisco. Somehow, I don't see Romania as the next big market for Apple.
Funnily enough, they've included Visual Studio on the list. Two things to note about this:
Visual Studio 2005 will only be supported with SP1... which, er, hasn't been released yet
Visual Studio 2002 and 2003 aren't being supported at all and the MS FAQ for VS on Vista recommends for non-VS 2005 development tools that you install SP1 for Vista... which, er, hasn't been released yet
So, currently no version of VS is supported. It makes me wonder if any other MS products missing from the list or misleadingly added to it?
Those figures may look convincingly positive, but actually the film probably hasn't made a profit yet.
Gross box office takings are the money taken at the box office, and any profit is shared between the exhibitor (the cinema), the distributor, and the production companies and the taxman takes from all of them.
Moreover, the figure of 30 mill is likely to be what the industry terms the "negative cost" (that's negative as in film negative, not bad karma). This is the cost of making the film up to the point of having an actual negative. It doesn't include making prints, marketing, funding executives' cocaine habits or other costs not directly related to making the film. So of the money that goes to the production company, not all of it will amortise the negative cost. If the gross takings figure includes international sales, then they'll be other costs and an even larger number of companies to split the money between.
The net result is that absolutely NO film will make money at the cinema, even ones with seemingly spectacular box office receipts. Profit for a film technically comes when the negative cost is paid off, often a number of years down the line, from DVD sales and TV sales.
There's absolutely nothing in the BBC charter about their primary purpose being delivering TV to a British audience, and many of their activities patently show that -- the BBC World Service radio network for example and offering online news in 33 languages (fancy reading the news in Uzbek anyone?).
In fact, to be precise, the charter is aimed at providing services to:
Our United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man and the territorial waters
thereof, and on board ships and aircraft (such services being hereinafter referred to as "the
Home Services") and for reception elsewhere within the Commonwealth and in other
countries and places overseas (such services being hereinafter referred to as "the World
Service") the Home Services and the World Service together being hereinafter referred to as
"the Public Services".
It's a nice 1950s idea that the BBC is for the people of Britain, but in an age where the audiovisual and information industries are truly globalised, is it feasible to expect the BBC to be able to maintain it's quality without dabbling in international media markets.
A case like this is currently before the WTO and if the US loses it will either have to ban all inter-state betting in the US (which would effectively kill the horse-racing industry) or countries like Antigua will be able to put tarriffs on US imports. The issue is that from a WTO perspective you can ban anything you want for import provided that domestic production is also banned. As the US allows betting (lotteries and even gambling websites such as YouBet.com -- which proudly describes itself as "US-based and licensed, NASDAQ-listed"), the Antiguans are arguing that the US's position is untenable. So far, the WTO seems to agree with them.
But there's more! Since, the US is preventing more online gambling than Antigua can possibly raise in tarriffs, they are asking the WTO permission to be able to pirate Hollywood films and raise the money by selling them. Needless to say, everyone in Hollywood thinks this is a superb idea and welcomes it with open arms.
Those in charge of school curricula have recognised that IT will be important in the future (at least we should credit them with that) but they have no idea in what sense or how to impart the knowledge needed to deal with this to the next generation. This is the generation that elects a senator who thinks the internet is a series of tubes! How can it be expected to come up with a meaningful strategy for teaching this stuff.
If all middle school can teach is how to make a PowerPoint presentation, then maybe it's best to leave learning about IT to the traditional method -- by kids hacking into the Pentagon's most secure system in their spare time.
NYT are doing this for one very simple reason: if a British judge finds that material has been published that is prejudicial to the outcome of the trial, the people who tried to murder thousands by blowing up planes mid-flight can get off scott-free. In this respect, I guess it's the British equivalent of not reading someone their Miranda rights -- slip up on it and the whole case goes out of the window (not a brilliant analogy, but you get the picture).
The NYT has been in trouble in the UK courts before as it has published material prejudicial to a trial, albeit in a much less important case. They could receive a huge fine for contempt of court if people had to be released because of publishing prejudicial information.
I'm surprised this is being labelled censorship by some people -- it's complying with the law and ensuring that a very important trail isn't jeopordised.
As for whether NYT has to comply with British law: Firstly, the print edition of the NYT is distributed in the UK. Secondly, publish anything online and you are automatically suspectible to be taken to court in criminal or civil proceedings IN ANY COUNTRY!!! The Australian high court, for example, has ruled that in the case of libel "each time material is downloaded, it will enliven the defamation laws of the place where [downloading] occurs."
This is very obviously utterly disturbing... but it's the way things are at the moment and responsible news organisations, such as the NYT, are compelled to act accordingly.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but Der Spiegel is German.
Yes, but if you believe those statistics then there are more people interested in laptops in Bucharest than in San Francisco. Somehow, I don't see Romania as the next big market for Apple.
Funnily enough, they've included Visual Studio on the list. Two things to note about this:
So, currently no version of VS is supported. It makes me wonder if any other MS products missing from the list or misleadingly added to it?
Don't just sit there whining, do something! Send her a quick email with this contact form
Those figures may look convincingly positive, but actually the film probably hasn't made a profit yet.
Gross box office takings are the money taken at the box office, and any profit is shared between the exhibitor (the cinema), the distributor, and the production companies and the taxman takes from all of them.
Moreover, the figure of 30 mill is likely to be what the industry terms the "negative cost" (that's negative as in film negative, not bad karma). This is the cost of making the film up to the point of having an actual negative. It doesn't include making prints, marketing, funding executives' cocaine habits or other costs not directly related to making the film. So of the money that goes to the production company, not all of it will amortise the negative cost. If the gross takings figure includes international sales, then they'll be other costs and an even larger number of companies to split the money between.
The net result is that absolutely NO film will make money at the cinema, even ones with seemingly spectacular box office receipts. Profit for a film technically comes when the negative cost is paid off, often a number of years down the line, from DVD sales and TV sales.
There's absolutely nothing in the BBC charter about their primary purpose being delivering TV to a British audience, and many of their activities patently show that -- the BBC World Service radio network for example and offering online news in 33 languages (fancy reading the news in Uzbek anyone?).
In fact, to be precise, the charter is aimed at providing services to:
It's a nice 1950s idea that the BBC is for the people of Britain, but in an age where the audiovisual and information industries are truly globalised, is it feasible to expect the BBC to be able to maintain it's quality without dabbling in international media markets.
Yes, but such a shame that none of them are running the country
A case like this is currently before the WTO and if the US loses it will either have to ban all inter-state betting in the US (which would effectively kill the horse-racing industry) or countries like Antigua will be able to put tarriffs on US imports. The issue is that from a WTO perspective you can ban anything you want for import provided that domestic production is also banned. As the US allows betting (lotteries and even gambling websites such as YouBet.com -- which proudly describes itself as "US-based and licensed, NASDAQ-listed"), the Antiguans are arguing that the US's position is untenable. So far, the WTO seems to agree with them.
But there's more! Since, the US is preventing more online gambling than Antigua can possibly raise in tarriffs, they are asking the WTO permission to be able to pirate Hollywood films and raise the money by selling them. Needless to say, everyone in Hollywood thinks this is a superb idea and welcomes it with open arms.
The remarkable thing is the amount of headway that Antigua has made so far against all odds (as this Washington Post article punningly puts it)
Those in charge of school curricula have recognised that IT will be important in the future (at least we should credit them with that) but they have no idea in what sense or how to impart the knowledge needed to deal with this to the next generation. This is the generation that elects a senator who thinks the internet is a series of tubes! How can it be expected to come up with a meaningful strategy for teaching this stuff.
If all middle school can teach is how to make a PowerPoint presentation, then maybe it's best to leave learning about IT to the traditional method -- by kids hacking into the Pentagon's most secure system in their spare time.
You could always try firing the employee by a text message instead as this company recently did.
NYT are doing this for one very simple reason: if a British judge finds that material has been published that is prejudicial to the outcome of the trial, the people who tried to murder thousands by blowing up planes mid-flight can get off scott-free. In this respect, I guess it's the British equivalent of not reading someone their Miranda rights -- slip up on it and the whole case goes out of the window (not a brilliant analogy, but you get the picture).
The NYT has been in trouble in the UK courts before as it has published material prejudicial to a trial, albeit in a much less important case. They could receive a huge fine for contempt of court if people had to be released because of publishing prejudicial information.
I'm surprised this is being labelled censorship by some people -- it's complying with the law and ensuring that a very important trail isn't jeopordised.
As for whether NYT has to comply with British law: Firstly, the print edition of the NYT is distributed in the UK. Secondly, publish anything online and you are automatically suspectible to be taken to court in criminal or civil proceedings IN ANY COUNTRY!!! The Australian high court, for example, has ruled that in the case of libel "each time material is downloaded, it will enliven the defamation laws of the place where [downloading] occurs."
This is very obviously utterly disturbing... but it's the way things are at the moment and responsible news organisations, such as the NYT, are compelled to act accordingly.