...it's clear that the person blogging this has only really experienced things on one side of the fence. I used to Head TA some large intro CS classes for an Ivy school, and currently work in Instructional Technology. I think her complaints are valid, but don't really have a lot to do with PowerPoint - it's just a fact of life that some professors are bad lecturers. Using PowerPoint as a lecture tool can go pretty badly - but guess what, so can using a chalkboard! I've read a lot of student evaluations in my time, and for every student complaining that the class used too many slides, there's one who's upset we didn't have enough. Some students don't want to take notes, others do. This is part of the challenge of teaching - to find an even ground where every student is satisfied with the lecture style. For example, she says "what helps me most is doing problems step by step as a class". However, I've seen some students who *hate* this approach - so what about them? Do we just forget about them? Ignore them? I personally don't take notes very well, so I like having handouts to supplement lectures. Does this make me a bad student? Honestly, the blog post isn't all that different from some of the student evaluations I read for classes - one student's opinion about what his or her perfect class is. Unfortunately, other students might feel differently. A good professor can be engaging *regardless* of how they present. If you only lecture well with PowerPoint and the projector in your lecture hall breaks, what do you do? The student here is missing the much bigger picture, which is that bad teaching is just bad teaching - whether it be slides, chalk, or overheads.

The fact that you haven't thought of tape makes me question how well you know the industry you're in, or how well-connected you actually are. Why can't you put your video files onto DigiBeta or similar? Tape stores well, and with a format like DigiBeta you're pretty much guaranteed compatability for at least 50 years+ (since there's so much TV back catalogue stored on tape, and there will always be a need by broadcasters to get to that content). I don't want to come off as rude, but it just sound like you don't really know much about video production and archival, despite the fact you've chosen to produce video installations and artwork. You're not the first person in the world to do this kind of thing - there are established proceedures for dealing with and archiving video installation work. This still doesn't entirely solve your problem of storing your raw data, but since you specifically talk about .mov files I'm perplexed that you haven't already thought of tape. I suspect you're going to get a lot of answers here that are wildly impractical for a gallery or go well beyond your means - but the fact is this: if a museum or gallery is looking to purchase your work, they should already have a curator who knows the medium. If they don't have a curator who can discuss with you the formats he/she would like the work in, the gallery probably needs to rethink what it's doing in the business!

I know you're trolling, but I'll reply quickly anyway - Google make no promises about what kind of hardware you're going to get with an Android phone, making it impossible to develop these kind of games. There's no guarantee you'll have a touchscreen, a keyboard, hardware buttons, etc. There are also no promises about the CPU/GPU you'll have available, making it even harder. Just read the docs for both platforms and you'll soon see that iPhone OS allows for a great deal more, mainly because you can make certain assumptions about the hardware. Writing a game for Android is like writing a game for the PC, you don't know how much RAM you have, or what your CPU, your GPU, or your input devices are. Writing a game for iPhone is like writing for a console - you know exactly what's on the other end, so you can optimise your code to the nth degree.

And let's just remember here, this is a 6 year old kid. It's not like he's walking up to a counter and buying the game himself. His parents (or somebody) went out and actively bought a game where you deliver drugs and are free to have sex with prostitutes for him.

Actually, the SDK is quite specific that you *shouldn't* hardcode screen resolutions, and provides methods to call to get the current dimensions of the screen. Obviously more advanced programs will need a rewrite - particularly games and other graphic intensive apps - but many more mundane applications already scale between two resolutions (horizontal and vertical positioning).

Aside from the piece of crap that is this submission (watchman? really?).... This isn't really a chance to bash off one over copyright law, because the heart of this case is really about film options and rights. These contracts are *extremely* complicated, particularly when the studio that's optioning the work decides (as in the case of Fox) not to make it. In fact, this really isn't about copyright law at all - more contractual law. Options contracts allow studios to buy options on material that they may or may not produce. This is fairly standard practice, since promising books may turn out to be impossible to film, etc. The studio is basically buying the right to potentially make and distribute a motion picture at some future date. The studio then invests money in development, which doesn't always pan out. If development is successful, further contracts are signed and money paid to the author/rights holder to allow production. However, if the studio decides not the make the film there needs to be a get out clause for the original rights holder to take it to other studios and avenues. Thus, most options contracts have an expiry date - if you haven't produced the film by a certain point, the option reverts back. Of course, the studio can also choose to extend their option, or add a myriad of clauses to hold options over. What Fox are claiming (and what the judge agrees on) is that some part of their option never expired or wasn't bought out, meaning they still have an interest in this picture. This would really not, given precedent in entertainment law, be totally out of the question. It could well be that Fox genuinely still has some contractual interest as a result of previous rights options signed away that were never presented to Warners (the rights holder believing Fox to have given their options up). We shouldn't forget that Fox did spend a fair bit of money development their Watchmen project, and I could certainly understand them wanting to recoup that if it turns out they still have an interest in the picture. Whilst the case was arguing over who owned copyright and distribution rights it would have been decided on *contractual* law...who signed what. (IANAL, but I am involved in the entertainment industry and these types of contracts).

I'm not sure I agree with that...and I think the fact that there are people who *can* tell the difference between a 256kbs MP3 and CD-audio and those who *can't* perhaps shows that there's no easy way to map quality of audio onto something that matches human perception. There are plenty of technical ways however, both for audio and visual. I'm not sure where you're getting this from.