The End of the Video Rental Business

[jay gw]

Rupert Murdoch is attempting to revolutionize the world's video-rental market (both VHS and DVD). Since its inception in the late 1970s, video renting has been an inefficient business.

Murdoch plans to digitally deliver movies and other programming from his satellites to home digital video recorders that would be the same quality, or higher (HDTV), than a DVD. Since there are not enough transponders on satellites to stream movies to individual subscribers on demand, Murdoch needs DVRs in every home to make his digital-delivery system work.

Once it's possible to go no further than one's couch to rent a movie, why would any viewer choose to make two trips to the video store? Electronic delivery would also be much more profitable for the movie studios. Not only would it eliminate the manufacturing, warehousing, distribution, and return cost of DVDs, but it would cut out the video stores, which at present get about 40 percent of the rental money.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2120868/

I don't have satellite but would love not to have to go to the Blockbuster and rent their crappy films. I swear, maybe it's the local BB but god their selection is crap.

[Mercutio]

Historically, the majority of media revolutions were spearheaded by...well, by the porn industry of the time. Murdoch may have dreams of doing this; I'll invest after this when somebody puts together a reasonable package to use this method to distribute a complete porn library to hotel on-demand services.


Come to think of it, if I had the money, I would put together that proposal myself.

[jay gw]

I'll invest after this when somebody puts together a reasonable package to use this method to distribute a complete porn library to hotel on-demand services.

I hate to tell you but hotels already have on demand porn. Have you not been in a hotel recently?

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by jay gw
...Rupert...Murdoch plans to digitally deliver movies and other programming from his satellites to home digital video recorders that would be the same quality, or higher (HDTV), than a DVD...I don't quite follow. The final product is only as good as its original source. Unless, say, Casablanca was shot in hi-def, playing it on a HD system won't improve it beyond what is already possible. Or am I mistaken?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
I don't quite follow. The final product is only as good as its original source. Unless, say, Casablanca was shot in hi-def, playing it on a HD system won't improve it beyond what is already possible. Or am I mistaken?

No you are not mistaken. Kind of like the people who clamored for recordable CDs so they could transfer their vinyl albums over to CD. I never understood why.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
No you are not mistaken. Kind of like the people who clamored for recordable CDs so they could transfer their vinyl albums over to CD. I never understood why.

In this case it isn't IMPROVING the quality of the music, but PRESERVING it. LPs tended to lose quality over time due to scratches, etc., while CDs, being digital, would not. There was also the issue of storage: 100 CDs are easier to store for most people than 100 LPS.

[davidhorman]

I don't quite follow. The final product is only as good as its original source. Unless, say, Casablanca was shot in hi-def, playing it on a HD system won't improve it beyond what is already possible. Or am I mistaken?

I think you are mistaken. Casablanca was shot on film. Unless the original film has degraded, it will almost certainly have higher resolution that regular TV. It might have to be rescanned, but I'm sure they could make an HD version.

The Bond films were all recently rescanned at something like 4000 pixel accuracy - far higher than regular or HD TV. It was done to produce better quality DVDs, but presumably the new scan can be used to make HD broadcasts.

David

[bruto]

Originally posted by Skeptic
In this case it isn't IMPROVING the quality of the music, but PRESERVING it. LPs tended to lose quality over time due to scratches, etc., while CDs, being digital, would not. There was also the issue of storage: 100 CDs are easier to store for most people than 100 LPS.

Actually, I think LP's will probably outlast burned CD's in dead storage. But for repeated play, the CD wins, and you can't play LP's in the car.

[TjW]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
No you are not mistaken. Kind of like the people who clamored for recordable CDs so they could transfer their vinyl albums over to CD. I never understood why.

Well, that part I can explain: have you ever tried to play a vinyl album in a car?
Cassette tape works, but it hisses a lot.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by bruto
Actually, I think LP's will probably outlast burned CD's in dead storage. But for repeated play, the CD wins, and you can't play LP's in the car.

Really? Why? Not doubting you, BTW.

[bruto]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Really? Why? Not doubting you, BTW.

I'm assuming your question regards the longevity of burned CD's versus LP's

I've read reports of some burned CD's deteriorating within a few years even when not used or abused. I haven't seen this yet with my own CD's, but then again, I've only been burning them for a few years. It's become a concern for people such as digital photographers who have no reliable analog storage medium. How much of this is anecdotal or alarmist I don't know, but it is beginning to look as if burned disks may not be as permanent as we had hoped. An analog disk will pick up noise and faults with use, but it will also continue to yield its information even when severely compromised. You can still play an acoustically recorded 78 after nearly a hundred years, and it will play, after a fashion, even if it is cracked or warped. Right now, if I chose, I could walk over to my turntable and put on disks of Pablo de Sarasate playing his own compositions, brought home by my grandfather from England after the first world war. Played too many times with steel needles, they are worn, scratchy, and of course not very high fidelity, considering that Sarasate died in 1909, but they play. A digital disk, once it goes bad, can become unreadable and lose everything.

LP records have been around for over 50 years. I have a number that are at least 50 years old, which have been carefully handled and stored, and they still sound good. It remains to be seen how digital media will fare, but the analog disk has a long and proven history of reliability.

[elgarak]

The worries of professional photographers are mostly not connected with deteriotion of media. The problem for them is that the camera manufacturers store the high resolution RAW data in a proprietary format, which can only be read by the software the manufacturer provides. There is no standard as of yet for RAW formats, and manufacturers change the format rather quickly, while at the same time do not allow decoders to be used by different software companies or allow loss-less transfer into another format. So you might end up buying a high-end SLR camera now and are not be able to access the raw, unmodified pictures you have taken with it when the next Windows version comes around, since the camera manufacturer has changed the software by then, and the old software doesn't run under the new Windows.

[bruto]

Originally posted by elgarak
The worries of professional photographers are mostly not connected with deteriotion of media. The problem for them is that the camera manufacturers store the high resolution RAW data in a proprietary format, which can only be read by the software the manufacturer provides. There is no standard as of yet for RAW formats, and manufacturers change the format rather quickly, while at the same time do not allow decoders to be used by different software companies or allow loss-less transfer into another format. So you might end up buying a high-end SLR camera now and are not be able to access the raw, unmodified pictures you have taken with it when the next Windows version comes around, since the camera manufacturer has changed the software by then, and the old software doesn't run under the new Windows.

Indeed, the changing software issue is always present, as it has been for other media, but as I understand it, part of the worry is that the recordable CD's themselves are failing with age, and I've seen some pretty detailed discussions relating not to the preservation of the software but to the choice of CD's and DVD's that will not degrade.

It's always a problem when media and operating systems evolve, but as long as you can transfer the data to new media, you can usually find software to access it. If I had a high-end digital camera with dedicated software, I think I'd make sure that I always had a computer available that runs it, even if it meant raiding dumpsters, as well as re-recording my CD or DVD collection with some regularity. As it happens, I shoot film, and though my scanner might be orphaned before it conks out, I'm not worried about what software is needed to read slides. Eyes work pretty well, and projectors are turning up with reliable regularity in free junk piles, as are flatbed scanners. Give it a few years, and film scanners will be appearing too. I'll grab a couple of spares when they do.

As an amusing side story, a couple of years ago while researching something now forgotten on the web, I ran across a forum post from someone in California who was desperately in need of someone to get data off of a collection of 10 megabyte Iomega Bernoulli disks (the huge one that's the size of a pie plate). As it happens, I have a barn full of computer junk, and from it I was able to put together a working 10-meg Bernoulli drive, read the disks onto the hard disk of an old 286, thence laplinking it to a Win95 laptop, where I sent it all to a single zip disk, which I then read on my desktop and used to burn a CD for good measure. It's scary to realize that I may be the last clown in the country who can still dub off a 10 meg Bernoulli disk!

On another occasion, again by chance it seems, I ran across a person in Pennsylvania whose old Epson 286 had died, and who was desperate to recover the data from its hard drive (I think there was a doctoral thesis or something on it!). He took it to one of those companies that advertise data recovery, and they couldn't get it to boot, of course. He mailed it to me. Back to the barn, where I put it in MY old Epson 286, where it booted and I bagged the info as before (Dos-based laplink rules!). That computer was only 15 years old, and already the pros could not even figure out how to boot an MFM drive!

So I think digital photographers are facing a double-headed challenge here.

[Vagabond]

I went to blockbuster today to pick up Million dollar baby and they had every employee in the store, moving all the movies from the blockbuster boxes into the actual movie cases. I asked when they were going to put the copies on the shelves and was informed of the change. This is a brilliant move, as before I would never consider keeping the movie as a purchase because I didn't have the box. Now I probably still wouldn't but at least I would consider it now. I keep being impressed by the quick decisive changes blockbuster keeps making to keep on top of the market.

As to the media question. Is it really the task of the computer companies to see to it that the dumbest person on the planet can still recover their thesis off a 15 year old hard drive? Would have to be the dumbest not to have numerous backups in different places of something so important. You can make pictures, but those can burn up in a fire and their quality also degrades over time. They also don't take to being handled a lot. I can't see that any medium is going to be a permanent cure to human stupidity any time soon.

[Beady]

Sounds to me like, for archival purposes, the hardcopy and fireproof safe still come out on top.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jay gw
Once it's possible to go no further than one's couch to rent a movie, why would any viewer choose to make two trips to the video store?

For the same reason we don't order our groceries or clothes online: We need to touch the product. See it, feel it, handle it.

A good book on the subject of buying is "Why we buy - The Science of Shopping" by Paco Underhill.

[bruto]

Originally posted by Vagabond
I went to blockbuster today to pick up Million dollar baby and they had every employee in the store, moving all the movies from the blockbuster boxes into the actual movie cases. I asked when they were going to put the copies on the shelves and was informed of the change. This is a brilliant move, as before I would never consider keeping the movie as a purchase because I didn't have the box. Now I probably still wouldn't but at least I would consider it now. I keep being impressed by the quick decisive changes blockbuster keeps making to keep on top of the market.

As to the media question. Is it really the task of the computer companies to see to it that the dumbest person on the planet can still recover their thesis off a 15 year old hard drive? Would have to be the dumbest not to have numerous backups in different places of something so important. You can make pictures, but those can burn up in a fire and their quality also degrades over time. They also don't take to being handled a lot. I can't see that any medium is going to be a permanent cure to human stupidity any time soon.

Indeed, there will never be a cure for carelessness or stupidity, or just plain bad luck, and the best digital practices will probably work as well as anything else. Of course it doesn't help if someone forgets to label the photographs, and when grandma dies, they just throw them all out, a very common event especially in this mobile, rootless era. Still, people and families and albums aren't as rootless and evanescent as digital technology.

Many of the slides I took as a kid (ektachromes) have degraded terribly, losing their color and much of their contrast, but for all that they are still recognizable images, just as the first LP I got with my first "real" phonograph at age nine, though a bit worse for wear, is still playable and worth playing (Jean Fournier playing Mozart violin concertos).

It's an interesting paradox, that in the real world analog media seem to have an advantage. In theory, digital information has the greater potential for being eternal, because it is independent of its media. You could take your latest digital photograph, and inscribe the bits on vellum with carbon ink, or carve them on a stone tablet, and if you included the instructions for decoding, a person thousands of years from now could recover the data. Even without a computer, if the instructions were adequate, and the person at the other end had the time, your photograph could be reconstructed on graph paper with crayons. Yet, for the conditions of the real world, the photographs that will be seen a hundred or two hundred years from now will probably be Kodachromes and silver based prints that were kept in a box somewhere. Many of the photographs we see as valuable are valued for information and cultural insights that did not seem so important at the time. Digital information, in order to be preserved, has to bee seen as important enough to bother with.

[tkingdoll]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
For the same reason we don't order our groceries or clothes online: We need to touch the product. See it, feel it, handle it.



??I buy almost all of my groceries and clothes online. I also rent my movies online and buy all of my books, DVDs, CDs, games, you name it.

The same goes for many of my friends.


Originally posted by jay gw
Once it's possible to go no further than one's couch to rent a movie, why would any viewer choose to make two trips to the video store?

Well, via cable/satellite TV you can already order 'movies on demand', albeit limited. My mother watches the latest blockbusters this way and never goes to a video store.

However, in my household, we don't have any kind of TV aerial at all, we use our TV set only for watching DVDs and playing games. So if Murdoch's plan did spell the end for Blockbuster, my movie-on-demand options would be zero. My online DVD rental provider picks a film from my list, so I don't have any control over what arrives in the post, and no option for 'impulse' renting. I need my local video stores!

There is no apostrophe in CDs or DVDs, people!

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by tkingdoll
??I buy almost all of my groceries and clothes online. I also rent my movies online and buy all of my books, DVDs, CDs, games, you name it.

The same goes for many of my friends.

"Many" people are also being abducted by aliens. ;)

Point is, even though Internet trade is on the rise, there are some commodities that we seem to want to touch before we buy.

You buy milk online?

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
You buy milk online?

Analog: When I was growing up we had it and other dairy products delivered twice a week. This is essentially the same thing as buying it online.

True, that service went the way of the buggy-whip (mostly) but not because of the reasons you suggest. It simply became more cost effective and almost as convenient to get them from the grocery.

If that service could compete economically I'd probably subscribe to it. They'd have to deliver beer also, though.

[HarryKeogh]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Point is, even though Internet trade is on the rise, there are some commodities that we seem to want to touch before we buy.

True. Some people (though I buy clothes online and in the store) want to try on clothes before they buy them (different manufacturers size items differently) or look at the food because every apple is different, food is costly to ship and of course many food items have a short shelf life and sitting in a UPS truck doesn't help.

But with movie rentals...they're all the same. Every DVD is the same. If Blockbuster Video is still around in 10 years it will have a much different business model than it has today. The "brick and mortar" rental industry is doomed.

[davidhorman]

For the same reason we don't order our groceries or clothes online: We need to touch the product. See it, feel it, handle it.

I don't get the analogy. You can't "test" a movie by touching it before you watch it. The best you can do is watch the trailer, read the reviews, and listen to word of mouth, all of which you can do without leaving the house.

I wouldn't feel I was being jipped just because I was receiving a stream of bits down a line instead of borrowing a nice shiny disc.

David

[tkingdoll]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
"Many" people are also being abducted by aliens. ;)

Point is, even though Internet trade is on the rise, there are some commodities that we seem to want to touch before we buy.

You buy milk online?

Yes, I buy milk online. Duchy Originals free-range organic milk, to be specific. It's delicious! I do my grocery shopping at www.ocado.co.uk but I have also been known to use Sainsburys online service.

Internet grocery shopping is huge where I live, the only downside being they generally can't deliver immediately, so the net will never replace the corner shop. Also, it's not worth paying a £5 delivery charge just to get a Mars Bar delivered.

I think that the idea of 'touch before you buy' is slowly changing, and a lot of people just aren't as bothered. It's a personal preference. I bought a new washing machine from a website, with only a photo to guide me. My mother was amazed that I wasn't bothered about seeing it in the flesh (metal?) first, to test the 'action' of the door etc. Perhaps it's a generation thing, I don't know.

I will admit that there are some items I do like to buy 'in person', as it were. Artichokes (when they're in season), for example. You can tell a good fresh artichoke by the sound it makes when you squeeze it, and I like to be the squeezer.

"Many" people may be being abducted by aliens, but can they get a copy of the new Harry Potter book delivered overnight by special courier to the mothership? I doubt it.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh
True. Some people (though I buy clothes online and in the store) want to try on clothes before they buy them (different manufacturers size items differently) or look at the food because every apple is different, food is costly to ship and of course many food items have a short shelf life and sitting in a UPS truck doesn't help.

But with movie rentals...they're all the same. Every DVD is the same. If Blockbuster Video is still around in 10 years it will have a much different business model than it has today. The rental industry is doomed.

Only in terms of brick and mortar, which I guess is your whole point. If so, I agree.

None (that I know of yet) offer fast, free delivery. Even that would only slow down their inevitable demise. Ten years at the outside before Blockbuster, et cal, goes the way of the buggy whip.

Everybody (that's anybody) will have some sort of digital connection/subscription service. Rentals will become a niche market for the nobodies.

[HarryKeogh]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Only in terms of brick and mortar, which I guess is your whole point. If so, I agree.



absolutely, I edited my post just before you replied to make that clear.

Thanks goodness for the rental industry. I used to buy DVDs until I wised up and realized I have a closet full of DVDs that I have no desire to watch over and over again.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by tkingdoll
Yes, I buy milk online. Duchy Originals free-range organic milk, to be specific. It's delicious! I do my grocery shopping at www.ocado.co.uk but I have also been known to use Sainsburys online service.

Internet grocery shopping is huge where I live, the only downside being they generally can't deliver immediately, so the net will never replace the corner shop. Also, it's not worth paying a £5 delivery charge just to get a Mars Bar delivered.

I think that the idea of 'touch before you buy' is slowly changing, and a lot of people just aren't as bothered. It's a personal preference. I bought a new washing machine from a website, with only a photo to guide me. My mother was amazed that I wasn't bothered about seeing it in the flesh (metal?) first, to test the 'action' of the door etc. Perhaps it's a generation thing, I don't know.

I will admit that there are some items I do like to buy 'in person', as it were. Artichokes (when they're in season), for example. You can tell a good fresh artichoke by the sound it makes when you squeeze it, and I like to be the squeezer.

"Many" people may be being abducted by aliens, but can they get a copy of the new Harry Potter book delivered overnight by special courier to the mothership? I doubt it.

Nothings impossible for aliens!!

You've explained my point for me: Why would you trust the store to select your perishable goods for you? I wouldn't even trust them with selecting canned goods - some cans might be damaged, even slightly. If you wouldn't take the damaged can instead of a intact can when you are at the store, why accept it when it is delivered to you?

[tkingdoll]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


You've explained my point for me: Why would you trust the store to select your perishable goods for you? I wouldn't even trust them with selecting canned goods - some cans might be damaged, even slightly. If you wouldn't take the damaged can instead of a intact can when you are at the store, why accept it when it is delivered to you?

I have no trust issue about most perishables, I get most of my fruit and veg from an online organic supplier who deliver once a week and their stuff is fantastic quality, but I'm lucky in that regard I suppose.

But yes, you are right, I wouldn't trust the supermarket guys to pick a decent tomato. I know a guy who used to be a 'personal grocery shopper' for Tesco, he got minimum wage to push a trolley (sorry, cart) around and frankly, he didn't give a damn. They're supposed to be trained to choose nice goods but mostly it's summer-job teenagers or the almost-unemployable and they don't care about bruising your bananas. Let's be honest though, it's a pretty crappy job.

Funnily enough, bent cans don't bother me unless the contents are crushable (e.g. palm hearts). My husband gets funny about bent cans that contain soup. I'm like "what the hell difference does it make? It's soup!"

So are there any online grocery services in Denmark? If so, maybe you should give it a go. You never know! ;)

Footnote: I'm really not as middle-class at this post makes me sound, honest.

[Vagabond]

I think people in rural areas have probably been ordering from the sears and montgomery ward catalogues for decades. People in big cities are much more likely to buy things in person I think. I have about 8 movie rental places within 5 miles of my house.

I personally never could go with a service like netflix were they send me one of my however many choices. When I want to watch a movie I might feel like a comedy, something serious. I don't really know what I feel like watching until I feel like watching it. Nothing like running up to blockbuster at 11 PM and getting a movie I might not have even thought about wanting but just saw on the shelf. There are many movies I have rented and enjoyed I have never heard of until I saw them on the shelf. This is not something that can be completely replaced by online service. As long as the prices are inline I will continue to go to blockbuster/family video for my movies and games.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by tkingdoll
So are there any online grocery services in Denmark? If so, maybe you should give it a go. You never know! ;)

A few. But, no, I won't try them. I want to choose my own food.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
A few. But, no, I won't try them. I want to choose my own food.

As much as I wanted to respond to tkingdoll regarding her implied preference of organic, I'll skip that for the obvious reasons. Your posts are more interesting.

When you say you 'want to choose' your own, have you considered that what you're really choosing is what they, the market you visit, choose to allow you to choose from? (whew!)

Okay, that was more complicated but I'm thinking you get my point and the implications of it. If not, I'll elaborate as to why I think your market chooses and alternative market forces choices pretty much negate any real difference in the context of actual 'choice', except perhaps as to the manner each handles their own version of the illusion of choice.

Not saying you're wrong, just that other POV are just as right.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
As much as I wanted to respond to tkingdoll regarding her implied preference of organic, I'll skip that for the obvious reasons. Your posts are more interesting.

Thank you.

Originally posted by Rob Lister
When you say you 'want to choose' your own, have you considered that what you're really choosing is what they, the market you visit, choose to allow you to choose from? (whew!)

Okay, that was more complicated but I'm thinking you get my point and the implications of it. If not, I'll elaborate as to why I think your market chooses and alternative market forces choices pretty much negate any real difference in the context of actual 'choice', except perhaps as to the manner each handles their own version of the illusion of choice.

I am talking about what bananas I can get at the supermarket. Some have brown spots, others have not. I want to choose for myself, not let some other do it.

[HarryKeogh]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I am talking about what bananas I can get at the supermarket. Some have brown spots, others have not. I want to choose for myself, not let some other do it.

Well you can go to FreshDirect (http://www.freshdirect.com/product.jsp?productId=ban_yllw&catId=ban&trk=cpage) and buy bananas for $0.49/lb or organic ones for $0.89/lb.

.89 a pound? One born every minute, eh?

[tkingdoll]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
As much as I wanted to respond to tkingdoll regarding her implied preference of organic, I'll skip that for the obvious reasons. Your posts are more interesting.



Hey! I'm interesting too! Bah.

You reasons for skipping the subject are more obvious than my reasons for choosing some organic suppliers. It's not about pesticides, if that's what you were thinking. It's about supporting local businesses, and quality (by which I mean taste and texture).

Nyah nyah nyah :crazy:

[HarryKeogh]

Originally posted by tkingdoll
You reasons for skipping the subject are more obvious than my reasons for choosing some organic suppliers. It's not about pesticides, if that's what you were thinking. It's about supporting local businesses, and quality (by which I mean taste and texture).


I'm all for supporting local businesses but are you implying a quality piece of organic produce tastes better or has a different texture than a quality piece of conventional produce?

and by quality I mean ripe, not bruised, etc.

[bruto]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh
I'm all for supporting local businesses but are you implying a quality piece of organic produce tastes better or has a different texture than a quality piece of conventional produce?

and by quality I mean ripe, not bruised, etc.

It may not be a direct consequence of the "organic" versus non-orgainic nature of the produce, but the former is often grown with more care, locally, and picked nearer to optimum ripeness than the conventional produce, and often includes varieties that are less optimized for quick or mechanized picking. So in my experience, although the exact nature of the fertilizers and pesticides used may be irrelevant, the organic produce is often better. This is not saying it has to be. It isn't always the case, but it's often a better bet.

In the case of eggs, as a former eater of raw eggs, I can state with sure conviction that the eggs from "organic free range chickens" taste different from the commercial battery-hen-house ones. You may not notice if you scramble it with onions etc., but if you suck it down raw, and let it linger long enough to taste it, it's no contest. This may be irrelevant to the case of vegetables, but the taste of an egg is influenced by what the chicken eats, and a healthy outdoor chicken that eats grain and bugs makes a nicer egg than a sedentary chicken that eats fish meal.

[HarryKeogh]

Originally posted by bruto
In the case of eggs, as a former eater of raw eggs, I can state with sure conviction that the eggs from "organic free range chickens" taste different from the commercial battery-hen-house ones. You may not notice if you scramble it with onions etc., but if you suck it down raw, and let it linger long enough to taste it, it's no contest. This may be irrelevant to the case of vegetables, but the taste of an egg is influenced by what the chicken eats, and a healthy outdoor chicken that eats grain and bugs makes a nicer egg than a sedentary chicken that eats fish meal.

fortunately I don't eat raw eggs. Ugh.

as for the idea of a "healthy outdoor chicken":

The USDA requires that “free-range� animals have access to outdoor areas, but there is no provision for how long they must spend or how much room they must have outside. The Associated Press reported that the USDA’s regulations don’t “require the birds to actually spend time outdoors, only to have access.� An eyewitness revealed that on a farm advertising that its hens were raised in a “natural setting,� the birds were actually crammed “wall to wall—6,800 chickens with one rooster for every hundred hens. They never set foot outside.�

One farm expert explains that chickens raised for meat in the United States are “not bred for mobility. They’re bred for hogging down food� and adds that because they simply cannot walk, the birds will rarely venture far from the feed trough. A study of about 800,000 chickens kept on free-range farms in the United Kingdom found that even though U.K. regulations require birds to have access to outdoor areas for at least 8 hours a day, “the maximum number observed outside during daylight hours at any one time was less than 15% of the total flock.� The study explained that “chickens prefer ranging areas with trees [and] they avoid bright sun� and that “[a] wide open field is simply not a preferred habitat.� The researchers explained that domesticated chickens, much like their wild ancestors, need a habitat that provides shelter from wind, sun, and predators and that free-range operations should provide birds with more protection if they want to entice them to roam outside the barns.

from those wacky folks atPETA (http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=96)

[bruto]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh
fortunately I don't eat raw eggs. Ugh.

as for the idea of a "healthy outdoor chicken":

The USDA requires that “free-range� animals have access to outdoor areas, but there is no provision for how long they must spend or how much room they must have outside. The Associated Press reported that the USDA’s regulations don’t “require the birds to actually spend time outdoors, only to have access.� An eyewitness revealed that on a farm advertising that its hens were raised in a “natural setting,� the birds were actually crammed “wall to wall—6,800 chickens with one rooster for every hundred hens. They never set foot outside.�

One farm expert explains that chickens raised for meat in the United States are “not bred for mobility. They’re bred for hogging down food� and adds that because they simply cannot walk, the birds will rarely venture far from the feed trough. A study of about 800,000 chickens kept on free-range farms in the United Kingdom found that even though U.K. regulations require birds to have access to outdoor areas for at least 8 hours a day, “the maximum number observed outside during daylight hours at any one time was less than 15% of the total flock.� The study explained that “chickens prefer ranging areas with trees [and] they avoid bright sun� and that “[a] wide open field is simply not a preferred habitat.� The researchers explained that domesticated chickens, much like their wild ancestors, need a habitat that provides shelter from wind, sun, and predators and that free-range operations should provide birds with more protection if they want to entice them to roam outside the barns.

from those wacky folks atPETA (http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=96)

I can't argue with your post, but I guess I should clarify that the "healthy outdoor chickens" I was referring to were indeed, healthy, free range barnyard birds living in and about a small, organic (well, actually biodynamic) dairy farm. They had hen houses in which they spent, I'm sure, as much of their time as chickens are wont, but they were as free ranging as they cared to be, except at night, when they were shut in, or rather the foxes and raccoons were shut out.

I should mention here that I think biodynamic farming and gardening is a whole lot of hooey, but underneath that nonsense lies a pretty ordinary practice of basic organic gardening principles and an attention to detail that often result in very well grown, tasty food. The eggs are a case in point. I am a raging skeptic when it comes to mystical nonsense, and always was, but those eggs were just plain delicious, raw, boiled, fried, scrambled or whatever.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by bruto
I should mention here that I think biodynamic farming and gardening is a whole lot of hooey, but underneath that nonsense lies a pretty ordinary practice of basic organic gardening principles and an attention to detail that often result in very well grown, tasty food. The eggs are a case in point. I am a raging skeptic when it comes to mystical nonsense, and always was, but those eggs were just plain delicious, raw, boiled, fried, scrambled or whatever.

I tend to agree with you when it comes to produce and dairy (but not so much poultry, beef, pork and even fish). The local farmer's market offers a far better selection of produce than does the grocery. I'm not sure it has much to do with the care taken in growing the product as I am the variety of the product being grown. Corporate farms with national distribution networks have to focus on the longer shelf-life but less tasty varieties and can't afford the losses associated with their shorter shelf-life, more tasty cousins. Plus, they have to pick-it-green whereas the local (smaller) farmer can pick it off the vine. Tomatoes are an excellent example of this. Potatoes are a poor example. String beans, lettuce, carrots, etc, fall somewhere in the middle.

[tkingdoll]

Free-range really doesn't mean much, agreed. But organically reared animals, on the other hand, are subject to some very strict laws (at least here in Europe, I don't know about elsewhere).

This website has some fairly spin-free info http://www.organicfarmers.org.uk/aboutorganics/index.php

For instance, the FAQ like:

Q. Are ‘organic’ animals ‘free range’?

A. Yes, but with even more benefits. All animals raised organically are automatically free-range because the rules demand it. They must have access to the outdoors (weather permitting) and be held below certain stocking densities. In addition, there are all the other benefits of the organic system, explained throughout this document.

Interesting stuff if you're a 'foodie' like wot I am!

I agree about the eggs, organic eggs are markedly different. But taste is so subjective, it's a moot point. I did see a taste test once, with chicken, carrots and potatoes prepared very simply then given to an "unbiased panel" to taste. They proclaimed the organic carrots tastier, but didn't find a difference in the rest.

It wasn't a very scientific test though, so I took it with a pinch of salt.

Pinch of salt! Geddit?! :D

Sorry. I was serious about the taste test, I think it was part of a BBC programme called Food and Drink, about 6 years ago.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by tkingdoll
Free-range really doesn't mean much, agreed. But organically reared animals, on the other hand, are subject to some very strict laws (at least here in Europe, I don't know about elsewhere).

This website has some fairly spin-free info http://www.organicfarmers.org.uk/aboutorganics/index.php

For instance, the FAQ like:

Q. Are ‘organic’ animals ‘free range’?

A. Yes, but with even more benefits. All animals raised organically are automatically free-range because the rules demand it. They must have access to the outdoors (weather permitting) and be held below certain stocking densities. In addition, there are all the other benefits of the organic system, explained throughout this document.

Interesting stuff if you're a 'foodie' like wot I am!

I agree about the eggs, organic eggs are markedly different. But taste is so subjective, it's a moot point. I did see a taste test once, with chicken, carrots and potatoes prepared very simply then given to an "unbiased panel" to taste. They proclaimed the organic carrots tastier, but didn't find a difference in the rest.

It wasn't a very scientific test though, so I took it with a pinch of salt.

Pinch of salt! Geddit?! :D

Sorry. I was serious about the taste test, I think it was part of a BBC programme called Food and Drink, about 6 years ago.

But how many movies can you rent with the money you save by simply buying standard produce instead of organic? That's what the thread is all about so I figured I bring it full circle.

[bruto]

Originally posted by tkingdoll
Free-range really doesn't mean much, agreed. But organically reared animals, on the other hand, are subject to some very strict laws (at least here in Europe, I don't know about elsewhere).

This website has some fairly spin-free info http://www.organicfarmers.org.uk/aboutorganics/index.php

For instance, the FAQ like:

Q. Are ‘organic’ animals ‘free range’?

A. Yes, but with even more benefits. All animals raised organically are automatically free-range because the rules demand it. They must have access to the outdoors (weather permitting) and be held below certain stocking densities. In addition, there are all the other benefits of the organic system, explained throughout this document.

Interesting stuff if you're a 'foodie' like wot I am!

I agree about the eggs, organic eggs are markedly different. But taste is so subjective, it's a moot point. I did see a taste test once, with chicken, carrots and potatoes prepared very simply then given to an "unbiased panel" to taste. They proclaimed the organic carrots tastier, but didn't find a difference in the rest.

It wasn't a very scientific test though, so I took it with a pinch of salt.

Pinch of salt! Geddit?! :D

Sorry. I was serious about the taste test, I think it was part of a BBC programme called Food and Drink, about 6 years ago.

Oddly enough, as a current large consumer of raw carrots (my favorite snack these days - less cholesterol than eggs), this is one of the vegetables I would rank as not benefiting greatly from the "organic" label. I might go organic if I juiced them skin and all, just because of the pesticides, but peeled, I've found the big cheap commercial bags of carrots at least as good as the more expensive organic ones, and often better.

So indeed, taste isn't very scientific.

I would tend to agree that there's little difference in potatoes, except that it's hard to find a bulk commercial potato that's really really fresh, and of course the commercial types are relatively limited, whereas small growers can come up with more interesting breeds. If you've ever grown your own potatoes, you'll understand when I say it's a diffrerent veggie if you dig it up and mash it skin and all the same day.

edited note: how did we get so far into eggs and potatoes from video rentals?

[tkingdoll]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
But how many movies can you rent with the money you save by simply buying standard produce instead of organic? That's what the thread is all about so I figured I bring it full circle.

Ah! Sorry, you're right, this thread has become a bit of a train wreck. This'll be my last point about food, I promise!

The answer to your question is, the supplier I use for veg etc actually works out about £2.50 per week more expensive than non-organic. My local Blockbuster charges £3.95 per movie, so I could get two extra films a month. BUT, BBs usually only carry dross like Spanglish or things starring JLo, so I'd have to go to the little independent place which is car ride away, at an additional cost. My online rentals cost £9.99 per month, which would be paid for by eliminating the organic stuff, but I'd have to do more trips, in the car, to the recycling place because of all the supermarket packaging.

All in all, I reckon I've got the balance just right as it is. I can have my carrots AND eat them!

Whaddya mean, you're sorry you asked? :p

[PhxHorn]

All these posts, and no one has mentioned Netflix.com, the rent-by-mail business?

Been a subscriber for two years now, and it's great. If you can't stand driving to the store and you want to get rid of late fees, it's got your name all over it.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by PhxHorn
All these posts, and no one has mentioned Netflix.com, the rent-by-mail business?

Been a subscriber for two years now, and it's great. If you can't stand driving to the store and you want to get rid of late fees, it's got your name all over it.

I thought about subscribing but it's like a never ending stream of movies that you forget about and never mail back. I still might do it.

How does it work out for you? What's the max turnaround time (mail out to get back)? Can you get any movie that's out or do you have to submit a list? How much does it end up costing you in the end?

[tkingdoll]

I use screenselect.com, I think they're UK only. It costs me £9.99 a month for one DVD at a time, or you can have more sent out at once for more money. There is no monthly limit to the amount of films you can have in a month, but if you take 4 days to be the average turnaround time (you post it back, they send the next one, minus weekends), you can comfortably watch 4 or 5 movies in a month. Not bad for a tenner.

You pick a minimum of 20 films from a list of about a zillion, and they send you whichever one they feel like, so you don't get complete control. If you want to see a new release tonight, you still end up going down to Blockbusters and paying through the nose.

We have a happy medium, the movies on our rental list are those we've never seen and always meant to, or obscure foreign arthouse movies you can't get anywhere else. If we want to see the latest Nicholas Cage (unlikely) then we rent it the traditional way. Although we go to the cinema at least once a week so most new releases are covered that way.

I recommend it if you really love film and aren't bothered what order you get things in.

[joobie]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
How does it work out for you? What's the max turnaround time (mail out to get back)? Can you get any movie that's out or do you have to submit a list? How much does it end up costing you in the end?

it [netflix] works out great for me.

it takes me about 3 days turnaround time, with the caveat that i live pretty close to one of their distribution centers.

you can get pretty much anything non-porn available on dvd. you submit a queue that you can reorder at any time (there are various 3rd party tools that do this better than the website itself allows you to).

it costs me 17.95/mo. i can have 3 dvds out at a time. there are other plans which allow more/less. i average watching a little more than 2 movies per week. you can also have more than one profile per plan; for example my 3 movies are split 2/1 between household members and we maintain separate queues.

if you have the time and inclination to watch as many movies as you need to make you feel like you're getting your money's worth i think it's quite an excellent service. personally for me it's worth it to never have to step foot in a movie chain and have a pretentious 17 year old movie expert criticize my selections.

the one complaint i do have about the service is that if you rent certain multi disc releases (a la ken burns baseball) they will only mail you as many dvds as your plan is good for.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by joobie
it [netflix] works out great for me.

...it costs me 17.95/mo....

Assuming that is dollars, I shall seriously consider your recommendation. tx.

[joobie]

indeed it is dollars.

[PhxHorn]

I thought about subscribing but it's like a never ending stream of movies that you forget about and never mail back. I still might do it.

How does it work out for you? What's the max turnaround time (mail out to get back)? Can you get any movie that's out or do you have to submit a list? How much does it end up costing you in the end?

I've found it very convenient. When we'd walk into a video store, neither me nor my wife could remember what movies we'd recently heard about and were planning to rent. Plus, it's such a pain to return the things before they hit you with a late fee.

With Netflix, you keep an online list, called a queue, of movies that you want to watch. You can reorder it at will. If you have a 3-DVD plan, they send you the first 3, and then as you return one, they send you the next. Turnaround for us is 2 or 3 days. If you're really cranking through them, they reportedly slow things down a bit, but we've had no serious issues. Again, we pay about $18 a month for 3 at a time, and you can keep a given DVD as long as you want. You can pay more to have more DVDs out at a time if you want. I'd think a family with kids would want the 5-DVD plan, maybe.

We watch less movies and more episodic TV shows, like Star Trek, The Shield, Sopranos, etc because we don't have cable and it's nice to be able to watch several episodes in the right order. There's a lot of great british comedies that we like, such as Coupling, The Office, Absolutely Fabulous, etc.

[ungoliant]

speaking of old records and their longevity, has anyone seen this?

http://video.google.com/videopreviewbig?q=techtv&time=0&page=1&docid=-3183539623248899921&urlcreated=1120868767&chan=Uploaded&prog=Tech+TV+Blooper+-+Man+Breaks+Precious+Item&date=Tue+Jun+28+2005+at+1%3A01+AM+PDT