Jo, I'm surprised to hear you say you prefer(red) HD-DVD! The PS3 dream-machine alone makes me glad Blue won...though, the Xbox did have a HD-DVD addition, but I didn't hear great things about it.

Assuming fin keeps holding down the fort and MPB doesn't force me into depleting the treasury further, I badly wanna get AppleTV while revamping my prized DVD movies and series into Blue....Apple's HD selection plays pretty well (like a crisp 720p) -- not Blue but better than DVD, imo, and good enough with the exception of maybe some spectacular movies/shows that deserve Blue.

As for celeb HTs (or wigs)....I kinda marvel at how ridiculously covert some of these guys must be to not constantly draw the obsession and ridicule of the tabloids and public....especially younger, good-looking actors going the way of the wig....

__________________
-----------

*A Follicles Dying Wish To Clinics*

1 top-down, 1 portrait, 1 side-shot, 1 hairline....4 photos. No flash.

Follicles have asked for centuries, in ten languages, as many times so as to confuse a mathematician.

Enough is enough! Give me documentation or give me death!

Yeah Joe, I don't know why you would prefer HD-DVD to Blu-Ray. HD-DVD has a lot less memory on it. 30GB (dual layer) to Blu Ray's 50GB (dual layer). Also, Blu Ray was designed for future expandability. So I can already see in the future multi-layer DVDs with 25GB per layer with theoretically getting it to 200GB or so.

Don't misunderstand me, fellas. Blu-Ray rocks the house. Before the war ended though BD was not mature. Most players up till recently were not up to the 2.0 spec. It's taken over two years for BD to get network connectivity and interactive downloadable content on their players. HD-DVD had that from the beginning as the format was mature on release. The load times were faster and they were less buggy. The ONLY downside to HD-DVD was the difference in disk size as mentioned. BD now however is a mature format and is where it needs to be. I almost got a PS3 a while back for the BD drive but I wanted my receiver to decode the sound, not the player, and the PS3 does not send the sound out via bitstream as needed for the receiver to decode the lossless HD sound codec. I'm rocking the Panasonic BD-35 for that. Great player.

You'd be surprised how many actors wear wigs in various film and tv projects. Even a lot of actors with seemingly loads of hair will have a partial piece of some sort. Some parts call for specific requirements for appearance for the characters such as Ed Norton in The Illusionist. Yes, it is a partial piece.

__________________
I am employed by Hasson & Wong as a patient educator. My opinions are my own and might not be that of Dr. Hasson & Dr. Wong.

Hasson & Wong-The More You Look The Better We Look.

Dr. Hasson and Dr. Wong are members of the Coalition of Independent Hair Restoration Physicians

Joe, not to hijack this thread but PS3 DOES have HDMI output that you can easily plug into your receiver and let it decode the video and sound (just a food for a thought )

To be honest, I have both BD and HD-DVD (Im a tech junkie lol)...to the naked eye the quality look the same UNTIL you come and stand upclose to your TV. Then you get to see a HD DVD picture getting a little pixilated/bitmaped. On a second thought until they TV/Computer Monitor can catch up with the resolution of a nice video card you will not see anything mind blowing.

And to stay on the topic : I would never wear a hair piece. I just don't understand why actors do it. Partial piece maybe easy to conceal but a full hair piece is really hard to hide. They are on a big scree or TV....us people with balding problems: we always examine people's hair (I don't know about anyone else but I do all the time ever since it became MY problem)

Regular person has a lot better chances of hiding it. Most people don't even pay attention to other people if you are not in the "public eye". For example, I always knew that Brendan Frasier wore a hair piece even BEFORE I actually saw the footage of him not wearing it. All his movies since mid to late 90s up until now...his hair is ALWAYS the same

Is the question, "Why don't balding celebs. get transplants?"? Well, why should they, unless they personally feel very compelled to. You don't pursue surgery because you're rich and it's available; you pursue it because it's important to you. Hey, Connery never needed a head full of hair to be confident; he just put one on when his role demanded it. Of course, if you do care, I feel there's nothing wrong with getting the work done.

Thats a good point jungle Jim/George. You dont pursue a HT because its rich and available. But the above posts regarding how actors often must wear pieces or part pieces to secure a role and appear more adaptable. Then surely this is quite a motivational reason to research a HT. There are not too many actors that are openly "balding", that dont try to conceal in their real lives also. Bruce Willis and Billy Zane. I was somewhat shocked when I heard that Billy Zane wore a piece in Titanic. Not familiar with the actor or his head at the time. Obviously, knowing him, makes this obvious. Watching the film again, it is painfully obvious.
Although some guys are less effected mentally regarding hairloss, none find this pain and situation preferential. Therefore, surely celebs are made aware of modern HT results by their agents or whomever in "the business", and when money is no object, of course they would prefer a thicker head of hair.

When I first saw "that pic" of Brandan Frasier, I really felt for him. Its obviously been thrashed online and in the press. How must he feel about that, hes surely suffering like each of us!

__________________
Meds
1.25mg Finasteride
3000mg MSM
Vitamin C
Omega 3
Nizarol

My Hair Loss Website - Hair Transplant with Dr. Rahal