With the advancements in technology over the years movie makers and theaters are going to cut down on time and cost of delivering a film by going digital. In the article http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-studios-digital-cinema-20131023,0,4552757.story#axzz2j8HZxSBh. They talk about how movie theater are now turning to digital delivering of film for the future. It will help deliver movies more costly for bigger theaters but the initial cost of the new machinery might create some difficulties for smaller theaters.
Enabling factors of digital and satellite DCDC is paying for the cost of the new technology to large theaters, and that this will cut down on cost and delivery time of movies.
Limiting factors are the cost of the new technology and adapting to this new change. Because the film is not going to us any of the old equipment, there will have to be a investment into this new equipment and because the DCDC is willing to cover the cost this is going to help bigger theaters, but the smaller mostly single picture theaters are going to suffer to this new technology. Because the equipment cost around 60,000 the profits of the small theater cannot afford this and are going to be forced to go out of business.
Motivational factors of digital and satellite delivery of movies is cut down on time and cost of delivery. Now instead of shipping the actual film across states by mail which cost the companies around 2500 a ship they can send movies out for 50-125 dollars. So each movie they are saving around 2375 per film shipped. So if each theater is getting multiple films this will more than pay for itself very fast. Also instead of having to overnight the film or have to worry about when the film gets to its destination because of weather or complications in shipping, it will be as easy as downloading the movie by the internet.
Inhibiting factors are that the technology might be hard to understand or adapt to for people who have been running a theater a certain way for years and aren’t understandable to the change.
I personally don’t see a problem with having digital signs on billboards but I consider myself to be a very safe driver and able to do multiple things at once while I drive but I choose not too. I don’t think it would have any effect on people more then a normal billboard would but I would have to say they would have to be just pictures. If the billboards turn to using moving people or music I think it would distract a lot of not so good drivers and cause more wrecks. Even though the billboard companies did the research on the billboards I don’t see much change in if the study was done by a outside source. Just because your eyes look away for a sec doesn’t mean you are going to swerve all over the road. I don’t think banning billboards or anything that is unsafe is a good thing to do. I think that it would be better to just have some guide line to keep it safe and what it was intended to do. It is still a billboard, if you made it into a commercial then the point of the commercial would be missed while driving and making it not worth having. I believe ive seen some of these billboards and they don’t put me in any harms ways, no more than the crash people who are already on the road do.
The article that I am reading from is about Mel Watts’s bill about musicians rights. http://radiosurvivor.com/2013/10/02/bill-would-create-royalty-market-for-broadcaster-payments-to-musicians/. This bill is to protect the free publishing of their music to low bids. So they will be able to get more money for their music. I think this is a huge problem for everyone involved. Yes the rich are trying to get richer and i think when they do try to pass this law and make it harder for people to get their music or hear it less on the radio it is going to give them less exposure and people are going to start turning to stealing the music instead of buying it.
I don’t seem why they are trying to pass this law since everyone in the music industry is rich and gets everything they want any ways and i see this as they are being greed. I feel that this is going to hurt the music industry if anything, making it harder for new artistes to come up and making a monopoly out of the big producers.
Brian Roberts talked about staying in competition with everyone in the digital television world you are going to have to give the consumer everything they want. He said at Comcast they are trying to get the consumer as much content as possible for a reasonable price. He talked that everyone wants what they want in personalizing everything to themselves, rather it be the content that they want or personalizing the way everything look to be unique. He talked about using the cloud more to DVR shows and have everything on all your devises and he said in the future the prices of devices will go down so everyone can afford them.
I agree with Brian about getting everyone the content they want to be able to watch what they want when they want. If they missed a television show that they wanted to watch I feel that all they would have to do is go to their device and look up the network like HBO or whatever channel their show came on and just click and watch. That people won’t have to try and remember to record their shows and be at home that they will just have everything at their fingertips. Illegally right now there are sites on the internet that allows you to watch whatever you want like the newest movies out and every TV show you could ever want but the problem is how to regulate it to make a profit. I feel the problem is how do you keep all these billion dollar companies in play by streaming everything on the internet.
The enabling factor is getting more customers because of the fact that they can get what they want when they want without buying a bundle of stuff that they don’t want. Limiting factors are how do they regulate it or how do they make it fast enough for everyone to use if they go to leaving everything on the internet. Motivating factor is moving to the future of television which already a billion dollar industry is being the first to make it into the new realm would benefit with a lot of profit. Inhibiting factors would be what if it doesn’t work or going away from this already created and highly profitably industry, people and companies could lose a lot of money.
Okay in this weeks discussion I am kind of confused so i’m going to sum up what I think it means and go from there. The story is that the fcc is backing the unlocking of cell phones which allows consumers to keep or use their cell phones with any wireless provider. This way consumers can pick their best fitting cell phones and take it to their best providers.
This is were I am confused, the reason being is anytime I have ever bought a cell phone I have signed a 2 year contract with the provider and was given a cheaper cost for a cell phone. Seems pretty legit, all I have to do is pick a cell phone I like that is with the provider and stay with them long enough for my two year contract to fall off, or like it always happens I get a upgrade and start the contract over before its done. So this is were I am confused, If you wanted a certain cell phone with a certain provider who didn’t have the cell phone as a choice you would have to pay full price for the cell phone. Which is like taking a 200 dollar Iphone and paying 600 plus for it without a contract. If you bought the contract and left early then you would void the contract and have to pay early termination fees which is a lot. Last option is if you made it through the two years and wanted to trade with the phone you became so close to over the years you will be transferring with a outdated phone, which in my experience with technology and phones means its very slow, and the battery dies very fast.
So I don’t understand the law. If someone wanted to do this I feel that they would have to pay a lot more and have to go through a lot more trouble just to have the specific phone, that is not optional with a specific provider. But if they really wanted to do this why is there a law preventing it from happening. The phone company would still get the sell of the phone and the provider would get the monthly fees. Win win all around, so if I’m not understanding this properly please fill me in, or I’m saying this is a pointless law that effects very few people, and hurts no one.
After reading the article about using cell phones in class rooms. http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20130728/NEWS0105/307290010/JCPS-schools-can-apply-allow-cellphone-use-classrooms?nclick_check=1. I think the people are crazy. The problems I see are distractions in the class room, which happens here at the university when students are allowed on their phones. Another problem I see is that fairdale and southern are not middle to high income school so people who can not afford the phones could be liable to bullying or feeling insecure about not having the phones.
I believe structure should be applied in highschools, because they need the structure of not always being able to get what they want which is to bring out the phone, and having to stay on task and work in school just like they will have to do on the job. I have seen first hand how the life of a student at fairdale which i went to for my freshmen and sophomore years is compared to a more structural school like butler is which went to for my junior and senior years. At fairdale they still had uniforms which was not reinforced by any means. I was told i had to wear a polo and khaki pants or short at the beginning of the year. The teacher reinforced this for a little bit but gave up and at least by mid year i was wearing a fairdale t shirt everyday and cargo shorts or athletic shorts each day. With this being said i’m sure they will not enforce the cell phone code. Transferring to butler we had to wear proper color uniforms a belt and our shirts had to be tucked in which was all enforced all year and we would get in trouble if we didn’t abide by the rules. The academics and expectation at butler far exceeded those at fairdale and i feel that it is partly because of the structure of the rules.
Back to the money problem, because of the less fortunate of students at fairdale there could be more bullying because of who has what. With less structure at fairdale I witnessed more bullying and fights in the first half of the year then i did my entire career at butler. I didnt leave fairdale because i was scared nor do i dislike fairdale. I had fun at fairdale playing on their basketball team and a lot of my friends to this day graduated from fairdale, but looking back if there more structure at the school I would of learned more in my first two years in highschool.
I feel that more structure is needed then less structure in these school fairdale and southern. I feel that both schools are low on the grading levels even tho fairdale was far easier of a school to pass at. I tried to look at their ranking and Jefferson county website try to make every school sound the best so i couldnt find any useful information.
My last point is the problem in the work force. As a supervisor at UPS I get to see a lot of employees who have their phones work ethics compared to employees who don’t. And i have to say majority of the employees who have their phones could care less about working and are addicted to whatever social media they are in to. It is hard to be able to bring your phone into work and is only allowed through a security pass for personal reason only. So allot of the employees dont have them which is a good thing in my opinion, because they don’t need them to do their job just like students dont need them to learn.
I think students should not be able to use their phones at school and a little time without them would do them good. There is a world out there and people need to get unattached from their phones and live, learn and enjoy it.
The most surprising history that I found from chapter two was that mobile phones or wireless phones was a spin off from the bell system which was a radio telephone that cops use. It make a lot of sense that radios were the early phones but I never thought of it as being one of the first phones. A lot of the dates that the first phones were used were pretty crazy to find out, like the Detroit police cars having the hand held phone as early as the 1920’s. By 1946 the bell system offered radio telephone services to st. Louis, and what I think was most extreme was that the first hand held cell phone call was in 1973 which seems really early since no one hand them till the middle to late 1990’s.
A lot of the later numbers seem on par, like the amount of people who use mobile phones right now and how many people spend time on them, watching videos, texting, playing game or even sometimes calling other people. The cell phones have made it down to the youth with 234 million 13 and older American having them and the numbers are just going up.
I feel that a lot of life is wasted on cell phones, with people always on social medias worrying about everything that is going on in the world like they are going to miss something important. People are always using their phones to check and change Facebook status, keep up with their tweets and track their friend and people that they don’t even know like movie stars. I feel that this is a new trend that is only getting worse with the next generations, which is only going to make Americans’ fatter, lazier and more of know it all’s then we already are.
Another history lesson that I got from the cell phones was how they got their names. Bell engineers called the area that the phones got service in “cells”, and the phones didn’t work when they move out of there cell into another cell at first. This technology came along in the 1970’s then people could walk out and into all the cells making them cell phones. I thought this was pretty neat because I never questioned why a cell phone was called a “cell” phone. Now I know.