You know, what if it were more than an anti-piracy measure? What if they actually did design a game that was so stupidly complex, that it couldn't be contained in our mere mortal quad-core rigs with some general-purpose calculations offloaded to the GPU?
You know what then?
Then it would still be a completely unsustainable product design.
Uh, speak for yourself, Andrew. A lot of us are abolitionists. I mean, I wouldn't mind copyright reform if it happened tomorrow, but in the long-term my work's not done until the whole thing's either gone or so radically altered that it's not even recognizably "copyright" anymore. So maybe your Pirate Party doesn't have a problem with copyright, but New York's certainly does.
Also, I've never quite found the opportunity to ask this, but what the hell is the NC clause doing in the NSH's license? Really? Do we seriously expect we'd be losing out on licensing fees without that? Or that somebody's going to release knock-off copies? Or that we'd actually have the resources to take somebody to court for doing anything we disapproved of? Nina, if you're reading this, back me up here.
So what? The progress of technology will go on if one is unable to hire 3000 engineers instantaneously. The world will not end if we slow shit down just a tiny, tiny bit to make sure people aren't killing themselves.
They're not even saying you can torrent it. They're implying it, but not saying it. It's like getting around a gag order by saying, for example, "I'm not allowed to talk about my settlement with Acme Inc., so on a completely unrelated note, once upon a time there was a big corporation called Shmacme Shmincorporated, and (etc.)"
You're buying the experience of going to the movies. Or the ability to have the convenience of a DVD. Or the convenience of being able to listen to a song on your iPod. And, in many cases, it's not just one thing, but a bundle of things: the convenience of being able to hear a song in any CD player, combined with a nice set of liner notes and the opportunity to hear a set of songs the way a band wants you to hear.
The problem is, piracy can handily compete with three out of four of these. Convenience of access is a losing battle, because pirates will always be able to make their services more convenient. They don't even need to be more convenient than the creator's option, they just have to be as convenient and free. (Also, theoretically you could have a movie theater which torrents everything that they screen and doesn't share revenue with the creators, but that's a bit of a stretch.)
So, convenience is a problematic way to look at it. But the experience of going to the movies is where you hit the nail on the head. Maybe not the experience in its current form, which is — hypothetically — just another fragile convenience service. A truly resilient model is one which only the original artist can possibly provide, which is an experience.
This is easy for performing artists; they don't have to change what they're doing. The challenge is for traditionally absentee entertainers — filmmakers, authors, visual artists, etc. — to come up with ways to turn their works into performances, which they and only they can execute.
What about the students' mental health? The rate at which students learn, as measured by test scores, grades, etc. is hardly the whole picture. If a student gets through school with straight A's and anxiety issues, that's hardly prepared them for the real world.
I struggled in large class sizes throughout middle and high school, until finally transferring to a smaller school for my junior and senior years. Instantly, the more intimate environment helped me succeed, because the teachers and staff actually had the time and resources to give a crap about me.
It's just a shame that such things are only considered when they start affecting a student's grades. Just because somebody's testing well doesn't mean they're doing okay.
My beef isn't with Apple copying Android; it's with the press ejaculating all over the place about it (in both senses of the word) as if it were the most magical and revolutionary and magical and paradigm-shifting and magical new development in the world.
Every inconsequential thing Apple ever announces is an earth-shattering, cancer-curing event to an enormous swath of the tech press. It's getting really, really tiring.
Mobile phones output non-ionizing radiation. This is the type of radiation which has been found, time and time again, to not cause DNA damage, and therefore not cancer.
So, why is it that we're hearing that cell phones may have been found to be carcinogenic, but not about the fundamental new development in particle physics that non-ionizing radiation behaves differently than we thought? That's kind of a big deal.
If cell phones cause cancer, that would imply that perhaps a particularly intense shade of blue might also cause cancer. However, no such theories are being discussed in light of this news.