Notice Of Representation Letter Sample: Fill & Download for Free

Whatever thing you wish to represent in a computer, you need to find a way of converting it into numbers. This conversion process is sometimes completely faithful, meaning you can recover the original object precisely from the numbers, or it can be an approximation. In the latter case, the digital representation of your original object is incomplete in some ways, and the trick is to make it close enough in the areas that matter, meaning close enough so that under ordinary circumstances, we can hardly tell the difference, or not at all.TextText files are a simple example of an object that can generally be represented faithfully. A text file is just a sequence of letters in some language and other characters (spaces, punctuation marks, maybe a few special characters). The first order of business is to agree, once and for all, on a numerical representation for those characters - what number we use to represent 'A', what represents 'j', what is the number for space ' ' and so on.One of the most common such schemes is called ASCII. This is just a simple table that lists 256 more-or-less useful characters including the English alphabet, the digits 0-9, symbols like '@' or '=' and so on. Most text files actually utilize a good deal less than 256 different symbols, and ASCII is really mostly used for the values between 0 and 127.For example, in ASCII, 'A' is 65, 'B' is 66, 'C' is 67 and so on. The lower case letters start at 'a' (97) and end at 'z' (122). The digits 0-9 span the numbers 48 through 57. Space is 32. A line breakliketheseis actually represented by two symbols in ASCII, one called "line feed" or LF (10) and one called "carriage return" CR (13). This is a carry-over from old typewriter systems and is a well-known nuisance when dealing with text files; some systems insist on having a CR/LF combo at any line break, some don't, and hilarity ensues.Anyway, if you have a text file and you wish to encode it in binary data, you first scan it from beginning to end, converting each character to its ASCII code. Now you have a sequence of numbers; each such number takes no more than 3 decimal digits to write down (like 122), and if you write it in base 2 instead of base 10 (which is what "binary" means) you need at most 8 digits (called "bits"). Thus every character in a text file requires 8 bits. Computer people like uniformity, so all numbers are represented using all 8 bits, even those which could be written with less. For example, CR is 13 which in binary is 1101 (eight plus four plus (skip the twos column, so zero) plus one), but when storing a text file we would store this character as 00001101. This is just like we had used 013 instead of 13 for the decimal representation. The advantage is that you don't need to have any sort of separator between numbers: every 8 bits is a number, and then comes the next one.A short piece of text like 'Quora' becomes the sequence 81, 117, 111, 114, 97 which in binary is 0101000101110101011011110111001001100001. So here's a binary encoding of a tiny text file.Of course, once you enlarge the scope of "text files" to cover things with a higher variety of characters, letter sizes, tables and stuff, you'll need more elaborate representation schemes. Let's stop here for now and move on to more exciting objects.ImagesImages begin as physical objects in our physical world: patterns of color and light hitting our retinae. The first order of business is to capture those patterns somehow, which is what cameras do. Older, "analog" cameras capture the light and imprint it on various kinds of film; newer, "digital" cameras employ A/D converters in the body of the camera to transform the real-life color signal into numbers.The way this happens is, roughly, this. Imagine your field of view is divided into a fine grid of little squares.Every tiny square on the grid has a color which is more or less uniform across the entire square. The tinier the squares, the more accurate this is. If the squares are large, you may see a shift from dark to light or from red to lighter red inside of a square, so if anyone asks you "what is the color in that square" you'd be hard pressed to give a definite answer. But if the grid is very very fine, most of the time a square will be close enough to having just one single color; in fact, if you replace the real image with one where each square has precisely that one color, a person won't be able to tell the difference.This apple isn't really an apple: It's just an array of 256 rows and 256 columns of little squares, and each square has a specific, uniform color. Can you see the little squares? Not really, but if we used a much coarser grid, we would have gotten something like this:This looks a lot less like an apple and a lot more like an array of squares. We call those squares "pixels", for "picture elements".Ok. So now we have lots of pixels and each pixel has a color. We need to represent each pixel as a number (or a few numbers), and then we can store those numbers as bits just as we did before.There are various ways of doing that. A common way uses a color scheme relying on Red, Green and Blue, and measures how much of each are in each square (this is done with color filters, following which the intensity of the light is captured with a sensor). Each color is measured on a scale of 0 to 255, say (which is 8 bits), so you get 24 bits in all for each pixel. Once you've done this, you have an array of 24-bit numbers instead of an array of squares. You arrange those numbers in sequence, add some extra information to explain how the file is structured (for instance, how many rows and how many columns it has), and that's it.The process of converting the original image into numbers can be seen as a sequence of "sampling" or "making something discrete". ("Discrete" means that it has a definite number of possible values, instead of a continuum of infinitely many). We divided the image both horizontally and vertically into strips and pixels, and then we divided "color space" into a finite number of possible values. This process of sampling is what lies behind most analog-to-digital conversion schemes.In practice, most image file formats employ an additional step called compression. The reasons is this: the relatively small apple image we started with has 256 x 256 = 65,536 pixels. Each such pixel needs 24 bits, so just this apple would require 1,572,864 bits. That's quite a lot, if you think about the number of photos you have on your computer or Facebook account. It therefore behooves us to find ways of using less bits per image, and this is achieved via compression. JPEG, GIF and PNG files utilize various such compression schemes. That's a whole other can of worms which we should save for a separate answer.Audio and MusicOur audio perception is based on sensing changes in air pressure inside of our ears. We have two ears, so we hear things in "stereo"; the main issue here is how to represent what we hear in one ear (a "mono" file) and then we can take care of our two ears just by using two such representations.An audio signal (in one ear) is, therefore, merely "air pressure as a function of time". A microphone converts those changing pressures into an analog electric signal, and we now need to convert those analog signals into - as always - a sequence of numbers. We need, again, to sample.A good way to visualize the process is like this:We have a continuously-varying signal (time pressure, or electric current), represented here as a graph with time flowing to the right and magnitude going up. We now divvy up time into a finite but dense sequence of sample points, and at each such point we take a reading of the magnitude and store its value - approximately - as a number.The rapidness in which we sample is called sampling frequency. A typical sampling frequency for audio signals is 48,000 samples per second (44,100 was the standard for audio CDs). Why 48,000 and not 100 or 1,000,000? Well, humans hear sound frequencies up to 20kHz, which is when the air pressure vibrates 20,000 times per second (most people are less sensitive, but it's good to be safe). It turns out that if you wish to catch something that goes up and down X times per second, you had better sample it at 2X times per second. This is kind of intuitive: if you only sampled at X times per second, you'd always catch the signal at its peak or trough and you wouldn't even notice it's oscillating. Mathematically this is known as the Nyquist–Shannon theorem.So, we sample 48,000 times per second. The vertical range of magnitudes is sampled into 256 levels (8 bit) or 65536 levels (16 bit) or, most accurately, about 16 million levels (24 bit). For each sample point we now have a number, and the whole audio signal is no more than a sequence of numbers. Take two sequences for a stereo signal (or more for a spatial signal, like we sometimes do in home theater systems), convert them to binary, add metadata to delineate the structure of the file, and you're done.Once again, compression is often used to make the files more manageable: mp3 files, for example, use a common compression scheme.VideoThe audio track of a movie or YouTube clip is an audio file, which we've covered, so let's focus on the "moving image" part (I'm suppressing for now the messy issue of synchronizing the video with the audio. Trust me, it's messy. Google "drop frame" or "29.97" for the gory details.)By now you've gotten the hang of sampling, so you can guess what happens next: a video is just an image with an added dimension of time. In the physical world time is continuous, but for the benefit of our computer we need to sample time, much like we did with audio.So we take our moving images as seen through the video camera, and snap them every once in a while. How frequently? It turns out that in this respect, our eyes are a lot less finicky than our ears. Capturing a still image 20-30 times per second and then playing it back at the same pace yields a fairly convincing illusion of continuous movement. This was known to the early filmmakers, although to save clutter they sometimes opted for even slower rates (The Lumière brothers made do with 16 frames per second).Modern, popular video formats capture images at 24fps or 30fps (fps = frames per second). Your HDTV does 50 or 60fps, which is quite a bit more than the minimum necessary but helps create even more fluid, crisp images (side note: the fact that multiple standards exist for the frame rate, including 24fps, 25fps, 29.97fps, 30fps, 60fps and others is another source of serious trouble - resampling one of these into another is a terrible mess).So, the basics are simple: capture lots of images at a sufficiently high rate, convert each image into numbers as covered above, add the necessary metadata and you have your video file.Video files provide an opportunity to discuss another cool nuance: the file format may leave room for the encoder to make clever decisions. Here's how it works with video files.Remember how we said that image files may need to get compressed? Well obviously, video provides ample motivation for us to compress even more diligently. Let's do the math for a standard definition, 90-minute movie:90 minutes60 seconds per minute30 frames per second480 rows per image640 pixels per row3 bytes (24 bits) per pixelUncompressed, this would take up 150 gigabytes (GB) of disk space, and that's just standard def; go HD and you're looking at 8 times that (double rows, double columns and double fps). More than a terabyte per movie isn't going to fly, and we didn't even consider the audio portion.So we've already mentioned that individual images can be compressed, but for video we can (and need to) do better. It should be clear that most frames in a video are very similar to the ones that came just before them. Every once in a while there'll be a "cut" where the frame changes completely, but most of the time, what you see in front of you is very similar to what you see 1/30 of a second later.How can we utilize this? One approach which I will describe just roughly (this answer is long enough) is to hunt for blocks inside frame N+1 that are almost identical to those in frame N, only shifted a little bit (think of a panning shot, or a still room with some people walking). Then, frame N is stored in full, but frame N+1 stores just the block locations, the vertical and horizontal shifts of each block, and the in-block changes which are mostly 0's. Chunks of digits that are mostly 0 can be efficiently compressed, so frame N+1 will take up a lot less space than it otherwise would have.What this means is that the file format needs to specify how those blocks are arranged, how the shifts are stored, etc., but it doesn't say anything about how to actually compress. A dumb video encoder can simply not use this feature at all, or use it only rarely, and that yields a perfectly valid video file - albeit a very large one. A smarter encoder would work hard to optimize the division into blocks, the correct matching of the next block and the previous block, and the differences, and would create a much smaller file that could be opened by the same video decoder and would look almost exactly the same.(this image demonstrates how the block-finding algorithm of H.265, aka High Efficiency Video Coding, is more flexible than that of H.264, making it significantly more effective in achieving high image quality at low bandwidth).Those are the very basics - there are of course lots of variations, lots of details I had omitted and many other types of information we learned to digitize effectively. I'm leaving room for future (or past) questions.

Here’s a couple of good ones that were banned in the UK:Tenebrae (1982) (aka Unsane)-Passed 18 in cinema after 4 seconds were cut. This was the version released to video in 1983 before video censorship was a thing. But it wound up banned anyway as a video nasty, 1984–2000. When re-released, 5 seconds were cut. It wasn’t passed uncut until 2003, in a version that was missing some scenes due to print damage (this is the version on Youtube). A complete print was passed without cuts in 2011.-It’s nothing worse than many slashers and giallos at the time, in fact it’s a lot less sleazier. The most graphic part of the movie had been cut when it was banned - a gruesome arm lopping with a LOT of blood spray. Chalk this one up to video nasty hysteria.Freaks (1932)-Banned from UK cinemas 1932–63. Objections over use of real circus freaks and disturbing content. While hardly excessive stuff today, it is still a tad exploitative of it’s cast.The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974)-Banned from cinema in 1975. The Greater London Council allowed a limited release the same year. It came out on video in 1981, and contrary to what some think - this was not an official “video nasty” when that panic flared up. This was pulled for two reasons - the Director of Public Prosecutions banned a number of titles under Section 3 of the Obscene Law/Act whatever they were using. The films banned under this legislation were simply handed in, the people selling/renting them admitted they were obscene, and that was that - no need for it to go further than that. When the BBFC took over video censorship, because this film was still technically banned by them, they ensured it stayed that way. Camden allowed a limited theatrical release in 1998. It was finally passed by the BBFC in 1999. Reasons for the ban:“Tobe Hooper's seminal horror film was first seen informally by the BBFC's Secretary, Stephen Murphy, on 27 February 1975. Murphy regarded it as a good, well-made film but felt strongly that the level of terrorisation, particularly towards the end of the film, and the film's focus on abnormal psychology was unsuitable for a BBFC X certificate to be issued. The distributor reacted to this advice by making some minor reductions in the final scenes of terrorisation, formally submitting a slightly truncated version on 12 March 1975. ““Most questions about THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE (and sequels) assume that the problem is one of violence or horror. In fact the reason that the film was refused certification was the result of the perceived degree of terrorisation of women and threat to defenceless women. The Board has for many years operated a very strict policy with regard to sexual violence, based on the incidence of this sort of behaviour in real life and the fact that a great deal of research does indicate that this is the one area where media representations do seem to have quite direct effects on attitudes and behaviour. The film was rejected by the Board on film and is most unlikely to be classified on video, where the law demands a stricter test, under amendments to the Video Recording Act 1984 contained in the Criminal Justice & Public Order Act 1994. “Straw Dogs (1971)-Before it’s theatrical release, the BBFC had already advised them on scenes that might not make it past them. So, the full uncut version has never been released over here. This version had been available on video from 1980–85. When the BBFC took over censorship, the head decided it was not suitable for a home release following the video nasties hysteria due to the sexual violence in the film. Several attempts were made to get both uncut and R-rated versions released from 1986–99 (during which, the R-rated version did see a brief re-release in cinemas only in 1995). The film was finally released - albeit in the standard R-rated cut - in 2002.“When Straw Dogs was previously considered by the BBFC for video release in 1999, it was refused a classification certificate. This was because its distributor at the time declined to make the cuts requested by the Board to the film's rape scene. The version on which the Board then based its judgement was a pre-cut American print of the film.In the central scene, Amy, played by Susan George, is raped by her former boyfriend and then by another man. The pre-cut American version deleted most of the second rape in which Amy is clearly demonstrated not to enjoy the act of violation. The cuts made for American distribution, which were made to reduce the duration of the sequence, therefore tended paradoxically to compound the difficulty with the first rape, leaving the audience with the impression that Amy enjoyed the experience. The Board took the view in 1999 that the pre-cut version eroticised the rape and therefore conflicted with the concerns expressed in the Video Recordings Act about promoting harmful activity.The version considered in 2002 is substantially the original uncut version of the film, restoring much of the unambiguously unpleasant second rape. The ambiguity of the first rape is given context by the second rape, which now makes it quite clear that sexual assault is not something that Amy ultimately welcomes.For the current submission, the Board showed the video to leading clinical psychologists specialising in work with sex offenders and to a panel of members of the public. The response of the clinical psychologists was that the present version of Straw Dogs was not harmful and was not likely to encourage an interest in rape or abusive behaviour towards women. The psychologists agreed that the ambiguous first rape was in fact a fairly realistic depiction of a quite complex situation. They also agreed that, by the end of the second rape, any general messages reinforcing 'rape myths' were undermined by the lack of ambivalence shown in Amy's reaction to the second attack. It was also noted that Amy's flashbacks later in the film further undermined any impression that she might welcome rape or that it has no serious effect on its victims. The psychologists commented that the scene was filmed in a relatively discreet manner, with limited potential today for titillation.The issue of context was also important to the members of the public to whom the video was shown as part of a research exercise into the acceptability of images of sexual violence. A focus group of 26 people viewed Straw Dogs , with 20 people accepting '18' uncut as the most appropriate category, 5 suggesting only minor cuts, and only one favouring rejection. No respondent asked for major cuts of the kind required by the Board in 1999.Significantly, respondents saw the manner in which Amy copes with her experience as essentially positive and concluded that the present version of the scene - as well as the flashbacks shown afterwards - reinforced the idea that rape is not to be taken lightly because of the serious effect it can have on individuals. No concerns about possible harmful effects were identified.The Board recognises that the rape scene in Straw Dogs has lost only part of its power over the years, despite the age of the film. Nonetheless, in this restored version, and in the light of the evidence of expert opinion, our own conclusion now is that the film has no significant potential to cause harm to viewers or, through their actions, to society as a whole. We have also taken account of the evidence of the public acceptability of the work.The Board maintains a strict position on depictions of sexual violence that endorse or eroticise harmful behaviour, and will continue to do so. The Board does not believe that the present version of Straw Dogs is in breach of that policy.The film had previously been passed 'X' uncut for cinema release in 1971 and '18' in the pre-cut version for cinema reissue in 1995. “The Evil Dead (1981)-The BBFC have never had that much of a problem with this, much of its’ controversy was pretty much stirred up by the usual whiners. It was passed X after 49 seconds of cuts when released to cinema in 1983. This was the version that was released to video the same year. And even though it was already becoming a cult hit thanks to it’s wider exposure, of all the official video nasties, this one seemed to draw the most vitriol, even though it’s not even close to the more explicit titles that were being pulled. It was banned as a video nasty October 1983–85, it had actually been dropped from the banned list when cleared of obscenity charges. It wasn’t until 1990 the BBFC decided enough time had passed since the initial controversy, but as with other titles on the nasties list, they felt it safer to re-release it in a cut version - this version was missing 1 minute 55 seconds. It was finally passed uncut in 2001.Possession (1981)-Different cuts of this have been released over the years (most infamously a butchered re-edited version in the US that tried to pass it off as a straightforward horror movie). It was passed uncut, with an X rating for theatrical release in 1981. After a few trims by the director himself, a slightly shorter version was released to video in 1982. One of the things that kicked off the video nasty panic were the covers of the videos themselves, in fact it seemed like they were banned at times just for the covers alone (a fate that befell the somewhat tame Driller Killer, and the tasteless Nazi sexploitation film SS Experiment Camp which is positively restrained compared to others of its ilk). VTC released this film on video, and the cover showed a still from the most infamous moment in the film when Isabelle Adjani has sex with a tentacled creature. Dubbed “octopus sex” by the press, it soon lead to it winding up on the video nasties list. A film that won a French Cesar (French version of Oscars), an arthouse film, was banned as a “video nasty” 1983–84. It was re-released with an alternate cover. It wasn’t seen again until it was passed 18 for video in 1999.A Clockwork Orange (1971)-The script was actually submitted to the BBFC for advice, as there was uncertainty about it’s content. The censors responded that it would likely get banned if shot as scripted. So a few changes were made, and when it was finally released, the BBFC had no issue with it - they passed it uncut in 1971. The director had the film withdrawn from UK distribution in 1973 - the most popular theory being he and his family were getting death threats over it. Funny eh? People objecting to fake depictions of violence threatening to use real violence. So, it was not available in the UK again until after the director’s death, re-released in 1999.The Exorcist (1973)-Passed uncut in 1974 for a theatrical release. However, some councils objected and over-ruled the BBFC - Bradford, Worthing and Tobay among the places that banned it. It was released to video in 1980. When the BBFC took over video regulation in the mid-80s, it was decided in 1988, some time after the film had been unavaiable while waiting for classification, to delay it’s release, and keep it in limbo, leading to an unofficial ban. The film saw a re-release, passed 18 in 1990. Sky TV had attempted to get rights for a TV showing, and they were close to getting it, when the former BBFC director James Ferman pressured them into cancelling, feeling it shouldn’t be passed for a TV viewing if it was effectively banned from video. It would not be available for home viewing until it was finally passed for video and DVD in 1999.“The film version was originally given an 'X' certificate in 1974 and has been widely shown since then. In the 1970s, however, incidents of hysteria involving young women led to some concern that the film might cause severe emotional problems particularly among those who believed in the reality of demonic possession. It was with this concern in mind that the BBFC in the 1980s and early 1990s concluded that a video classification - even with an '18' rating (which could not entirely exclude the possibility of the work being seen by younger and susceptible viewers) - was inappropriate.It must be acknowledged, however, that there is little if any hard evidence known to the BBFC that The Exorcist has, in its video form, caused actual harm to its viewers. The video version was in fact widely available for many years before the Video Recordings Act 1984 introduced the requirement of BBFC classification. The recent re-release of the film version by Warner Brothers has, moreover, been accompanied by none of the hysteria or audience disturbance which occurred in the mid-1970s.The Exorcist has been available on video uncut for many years in other European countries, notably Germany (rated for 16 year olds) and Sweden (rated for 14 year olds) where the protection of the young is considered particularly important.The Video Recordings Act places on the BBFC a duty to have special regard (among other relevant factors) to any harm that may be caused to potential viewers or, through their behaviour, to society by the manner in which the work deals with, for example, violent or horrific behaviour or incidents or human sexual activity. The Board must consider as a potential viewer any person (including a child or young person) who is likely to view the video.The BBFC must also apply the requirements of Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights, now accepted as British law. Inter alia, these impose a duty to preserve freedom of expression, with the relevant restrictions being "for the prevention of disorder or crime (or) for the protection of health or morals". Alongside these, there is a duty to observe the principle of proportionality: any restriction on the basic duty of freedom of expression should have a proportional justification.The BBFC concluded that The Exorcist , while still a powerful and compelling work, no longer has the same impact as it did 25 years ago. Film technique and special effects have moved on a long way since then, and audiences - including (or especially) teenagers brought up on a range of modern multi- media output - are less likely to be affected. Correspondingly, the potential of The Exorcist to disturb a small, impressionable minority must be significantly diminished.The BBFC has also considered the likely effects of The Exorcist 's current reputation. We cannot discount the possibility that, however restrictive its classification, under-age persons may seek ways to view it. On the other hand, both the name and the nature of this film are familiar to most people: its reputation should prompt many parents and guardians to be more alert to that possibility than would normally be the case.On balance, therefore, and after careful consideration, the Board has concluded that the video version of The Exorcist should be classified - but at a level which minimises the likelihood of the work being viewed by young and impressionable persons. ““The film itself still shows quite regularly in cinemas but we have not yet classified the video, nor has it ever been shown on television, including subscription television. The problem is not the frightening nature of the story but the combination of the themes with which it deals and the very powerful treatment it is given in this version.Showings of this film have resulted in severe emotional problems among a small but worrying number of adults who do believe in the reality of demonic possession and satanic practices. A video or television showing would inevitably attract many young teenagers, some of whom would be, more even than adults, susceptible to this sort of material, since they might well identify with the central character, a 12-year-old girl. Newspaper reports and letters in our files indicate the very real and serious disturbance that can result and we feel uneasy about being a party to this sort of psychological damage. It is partly because the film is so convincing and effective that it can be so disturbing for some.It is hard for those of us who do not give credence to the possibility of possession to appreciate how powerful an influence this can evidently exert on those who do. At a time when charges of satanic abuse appear fairly regularly in the press and alleged instances have been reported and when an Act was passed in Parliament, the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (1994), which specifically requires the Board "to have special regard to any harm that may be caused to potential viewers, or, through their behaviour, to society by the manner in which the work deals with, for example, horrific incidents", there are added reasons to be cautious. Eventually, perhaps the time will come to release THE EXORCIST on video, but we are not convinced that this is that moment, particularly at a time when many parents allow their children to see videos unsupervised, according to the latest research. “Death Wish (1974)-After a bit of weighing up whether it should be cut, the BBFC were persuaded it would be OK to release it uncut for cinemas in 1974. It was released to video in 1982. After the BBFC took over video censorship, it was submitted in 1987, but they felt at first it should be cut. But then they felt, the cuts they wanted would likely mess the film up too much, so they delayed its release, leading to an unofficial ban. There was also some issues about releasing it after a shooting spree in Hungerford (for which the trashy tabloids tried scapegoating First Blood for).“It was felt that it would be impossible to allow this kind of exploitative sexual violence to be released on video under the terms of the video recordings act and the company CIC felt it best in the wake of Hungerford not to distribute it in any form. “It was finally available again in 2000, after 29 seconds had been cut.“On this occasion the Board was inclined to grant a video certificate on the understanding that a few brief cuts, totalling 29 seconds, were made to remove elements of nudity, including the spray painting of the buttocks, that had been problematic in the past and which were felt to raise concerns under the Board's strict sexual violence guidelines. “It was finally passed uncut in 2006.These ones not many know were at one point pulled from video stores in the UK in the early-mid-80s, and placed on a list of films considered obscene, but weren’t prosecuted. These were put on a list of “Section 3” Video Nasties (the official ones were banned under the more severe Section 2). Because the BBFC took over video regulation, most of the Section 3 titles began turning up again with official certificates, and in some cases, so briefly they were gone, not many noticed…The Thing (1982)-They certainly were sneaky pulling this one, as it’s not widely known it was at one point banned in the UK. It has been passed uncut in 1982, was out on video not long after, was pulled from shelves during the nasties panic under “Section 3” laws, but was back on shelves - without cuts - in 1987.Night of the Living Dead (1968)-George A Romero’s zombie class was passed after cuts for a 1969 cinema release. The uncut version was passed for a re-release in 1980. This was available on video pre-cert days, and unbelievably, and again - sneakily - was pulled from shelves. You will note when glancing through a list of the video nasties, and the Section 3 titles, a disproportionate number of films about zombies. For some reason, zombies got knickers in a twist. But this was back out on shelves in 1987. And is now rated 15.Dawn of the Dead (1978)-This one has quite the history in Britain. The BBFC were concerned with the amount of violence, and were scared it would “desensitize” people. Because a film about flesh-eating zombies is clearly transgressive. It was passed X for cinema after 3 minutes 46 seconds were cut out. This was the version first released to video, not long after. And was pulled under the Section 3 Act. Fortunately, this one didn’t suffer the same fate as Straw Dogs, Death Wish, Exorcist. When the BBFC got round to reclassifying everything, this got passed for video in 1989 - only now it was cut by 3 minutes 58 seconds. When the Director’s Cut was submitted for a 1997 video release, the BBFC were a lot more lenient, cutting only 6 seconds out. The Director’s Cut was the first edition to finally be passed uncut, in 2003. The standard version followed in 2004. The Argento Cut has been available since 2010, but there’s no record of that version ever being submitted to the BBFC. (Sky TV has at one point aired the Argento version)Deep Red (1975)-This is another film that’s been released in different versions. The version released to video in 1982 was pulled from shelves, Section 3 nonsense. A version in Italian was submitted in 1993, and was released after 11 seconds were cut (for animal cruelty). The same version was submitted for DVD in 2005, this time with 7 seconds cut, with formerly cut moments reframed to avoid showing animal cruelty. Two versions - Director’s Cut (in Italian), and the Export version - were passed uncut in 2011 (the censors were persuaded the animal cruelty was fake).Suspiria (1977)-Passed X for cinema in 1977 after 1 minute 13 seconds were cut. Thorn EMI released the uncut version on video, but chickened out when the video nasties scare was getting underway, and in 1982 replaced it with the censored version. It still got pulled under Section 3. It was available again in 1990 after 34 seconds were cut. A mostly uncut version was finally released in 1998 (this was not cut for censorship, it may have been due to print damage as had happened with Tenebrae from the same director). The full restored version has been out since 2017, though the BBFC have not released details about it on their website.Shogun Assassin (1980)-Passed X for cinema 1981 after 2 seconds of cuts. An uncut version was released to video in 1981, but got caught up in the video nasties panic, with police even seizing copies and distributors facing prosecution. However, that failed, and copies were returned. It was later pulled anyway as a Section 3 nasty. The BBFC-censored version was released to video in 1992. It was finally passed uncut for home release in 1999.Martin (1978)-Romero again, bad boy! BBFC never had a problem with this, but the video - released 1982 - was seized as a Section 3 nasty. It was re-released 1994.Honourable mentions:Scanners (a Section 3 nasty, along with another Cronenberg movie Rabid, it was back on shelves in 1987)Phantasm (a Section 3 nasty, back on shelves in 1989 with no cuts, now rated 15)Friday the 13th (both this and Part 2 were Section 3 Nasties. Both put back out in 1987, although the first was only allowed back out in the R-rated version. First one passed uncut finally in 2003. Second one now rated 15)Zombie Flesh Eaters (banned 1983–92, was first passed uncut in 2005)The Beyond (banned 1983–85, re-released 1987, passed uncut in 2001)The Living Dead at Manchester Morgue (banned 1983–85, re-released 1985, first passed uncut in 2002)Inferno (banned 1984–85, re-released 1987, passed uncut 2010)Dead and Buried (banned 1983–85, re-released 1990 in a version cut by 30 seconds. It was not uncut again until 1999)A Bay of Blood (banned 1972, released to video 1983 which was banned 1984–94, passed uncut 2010)Class of 1984 (a heavily cut version was released to cinema in 1983. It was banned from video in 1987 until the director’s cut, an R-rated version still missing some footage, was passed in 2005)Maniac (banned 1981–2002, versions available cut by 58 seconds)

As John Greathouse noted, in a Series Seed round made up of Accredited Investors, you are not legally required to provide a prospectus or any specific disclosure schedules. As a matter of fact, I actually can't recall (at least recently) seeing a Disclosure Schedule in any of the [many] deals that I have done.Where these schedules and lists do appear, however, is in the due diligence requests from serious investors, which they will undertake prior to the closing. Depending on the size of the round and the size and professionalism of the investors (and the budget of their lawyers) the requested information may range from practically nothing more than a business plan and a slide deck (for an informal seed round), all the way up to a voluminous amount of material for a later stage venture round from a top tier fund.The closing documents will then generally include a representations and warranties clause, in which you swear on a stack of bibles (backed up by some severe economic penalties) that everything you've previously told your investors is actually true...particularly such teeny little issues as "we own all our code" and "we are operating perfectly legally".But if you want an idea as to how far the disclosure issue can go, Entrepreneur Magazine has posted a sample Due Diligence checklist (http://www.entrepreneur.com/formnet/form/774) that includes the following items (but be sure to check out their link for their terms of use and attribution):"Due Diligence" Investigation Check ListCORPORATE MATTERSa. Articles of Incorporation and by-laws of the Company and Seller.b. Corporate minute books and stock transfer records of the Company.c. Federal and state tax returns and related reports of the Company including:i. income tax returns,ii. audit reports of taxing authorities including descriptions of any open issues,iii. real estate tax bills and payment records,iv. personal property tax bills and payment records,v. franchise, license, capital stock, doing business, and similar tax reports, andvi. any other material documents.d. Agreements and arrangements between the Company and Seller or any affiliate of the Company or Seller, including:i. stock subscription agreements,ii. loan, line of credit or other financing arrangements,iii. tax sharing agreements or arrangements,iv. overhead allocation agreements or arrangements,v. management services or personnel loan agreements or arrangements,vi. guarantees or keep-well arrangements for the benefit of creditors or other third parties, andvii. any others.e. Shareholder agreements relating to stock of the Company or stock owned by the Company.f. Documents imposing restrictions or conditions on stock transfer or merger, including any arrangements granting rights of first refusal or other preferential purchase rights.g. Third-party or governmental consent or authorizations required for merger or acquisition.FINANCIAL MATTERSa. Financial statements, including:i. audited financial statements for all periods beginning on or after ^, 19^, consisting, in each case, of at least a balance sheet and income statement,ii. interim monthly unaudited financial statements for periods after the latest audited statements, andiii. working papers relating to the foregoing.b. Bank accounts and depositary arrangements.c. Credit agreements and credit instruments including loan agreements, notes, debentures and bonds, and files relating thereto.d. Performance and financial bonds.e. Letters of credit.f. Instruments or arrangements creating liens, encumbrances, mortgages, or other charges (including mechanics and materialmens' liens) on any real or personal property of the Company, including property held indirectly through joint ventures, partnerships, subsidiaries or otherwise.g. Receivables analysis including aging, turnover and bad debt experience.MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONSa. Internal management reports and memoranda.b. Policy and procedures manuals including those concerning personnel policy, internal controls and legal and regulatory compliance.c. Budgets, financial projections, business plans and capital expenditure plans.d. Contracts and arrangements for supplies or services, including the following which were entered into or under which work was done during the past ^ years:i. contracts for the sale or purchase of real estate,ii. contracts for the purchase or sale of materials, equipment or other personal property or fixtures,iii. contracts or other arrangements for legal, accounting, consulting, brokerage, banking or other services, andiv. construction and engineering contracts or subcontracts.e. Proprietary information and documents, including:i. patents and patent applications,ii. copyrights,iii. trademarks, service marks, logos and trade or assumed names,iv. nonpatentable proprietary know-how,v. federal and state filings relating to any of the foregoing,vi. licensing agreements relating to any of the foregoing (whether the Company is a licensor or licensee), andvii. confidentiality agreements relating to any of the foregoing.f. Partnership or joint venture agreements to which the Company is a party and any other arrangements with third parties concerning the management or operation of properties, facilities or investments of the Company.g. Reports to management, board of directors or shareholders prepared by outside consultants, engineers or analysts.h. Closing documentation and related files for each prior sale of Company stock and each material asset purchase or sale by the Company during the past ^ years.i. Leases, deeds and related instruments, including without limitation, office premises leases, equipment or vehicle leases, and any such instruments held indirectly through joint ventures, partnerships, subsidiaries or otherwise.j. Agreements or arrangements granting rights of first refusal or other preferential purchase rights to any property of the Company.k. Other material agreements or arrangements.EMPLOYEE MATTERSa. Corporate policies concerning hiring, compensation, advancement and termination.b. Labor contracts together with a list of all labor unions that have represented or attempted to represent employees of the Company during the past ^ years.c. Agreements with individual employees, including:i. executive employment agreements,ii. bonus, profit-sharing and similar arrangements,iii. postemployment agreements including "salary continuation" and "golden parachute" arrangements, andiv. covenants not to compete by present or former employees.d. Names of any officers or key employees who have left the Company during the past years.e. Each of the following which the Company maintains or contributes to, together with filings with the Internal Revenue Service, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), Securities and Exchange Commission and Department of Labor, including without limitation Forms 5500 and 5310, summary plan descriptions, summary annual reports, IRS determination letters (for qualified plans), and PBGC reportable events:i. Union-sponsored multiemployer plans,ii. Defined benefit plans,iii. Defined contribution plans including:1. money purchase pension plans,2. profit-sharing plans,3. stock bonus plans,4. employee stock ownership plans, and5. savings or thrift plans,iv. Health and welfare plans, including:1. medical, surgical, hospital or other health care plans or insurance programs including HMOs,2. dental plans,3. short-term disability or sick pay plans or arrangements,4. long-term disability insurance or uninsured arrangements,5. group term or other life or accident insurance,6. unemployment or vacation benefit plans, and7. other welfare plans,v. Nonqualified deferred compensation arrangements including:1. director or officer deferred fee plans,2. excess benefit plans (providing benefits in excess of internal revenue code limitations for qualified plans), and3. severance pay plans,vi. Incentive or bonus plans including:1. stock option plans,2. stock bonus plans,3. stock purchase plans, and4. cash bonus or incentive plans.INSURANCEa. Insurance policies including those covering:i. fire,ii. liability,iii. casualty,iv. life,v. title,vi. workers' compensation,vii. directors' and officers' liability, andviii. any other insured events or matters.b. Claim and loss histories, correspondence with insurance carriers and names of all insurance representatives relating to the foregoing.REAL ESTATE AND EQUIPMENT AND OTHER PERSONAL PROPERTYa. List of real estate (with legal descriptions), equipment and other personal property owned, leased or in the process of being acquired or sold by the Company, with the cost and book value of each item.b. Real estate, equipment and other personal property leases and conditional sale agreements.c. Information relating to title on all property listed in the items above, including motor vehicle title documents.d. Appraisals of real estate, personal property and equipment.GOVERNMENTAL REGULATIONa. Licenses, permits, filings or authorizations obtained from, made with or required by any governmental entity.b. Correspondence with any governmental regulatory authority.c. Accident or injury reports to federal, state, local and foreign governmental entities.LITIGATION AND CLAIMSa. Pending or threatened litigation, regulatory investigations, governmental actions, arbitrations, or notices of violation or possible violation, including proceedings in which the Company is a plaintiff or claimant, and the names and addresses of legal counsel advising or representing the Company in each matter.b. Files and records relating to the foregoing including opinions and evaluations.