Given that a lot of people seem to show up with this sort of opinion every time the multiplayer/online gaming discussion comes up,
Indeed. Seems I have heard "singleplayer is dead" (or for that matter "adventure/rpg/rts/whatever games are dead") more times than I can shake a big stick at now. First time I read that singleplayer was dead must have been back at the end of the nineties.
And "as opposed to fire-and-forget, packaged goods only, single-player, 25-hours-and you’re out." while I certainly believe that there are people happy with a 25 hour singleplayer campaign I would tend towards thinking that 25 hours is so short I hesitate to pay full price for that. It would have to be as amazing as Bioshock for that to be worth it.
Its a privilege not a right. Copyright is a bad term. Ideas do not belong to the first being to hold them in their mind.
We grant the privilege of profit for a period of time as a robust method of rewarding people for their efforts in proportion to how much people like the results of their mental labor. We made this law in the hope that it would encourage more such effort.
Well written. Personally I am tending towards the idea that, at least in the case of literature, authors should retain rights to their works throughout their lives (and that this right could not be sold or transferred). And that those rights transferred, upon the authors death, to their beneficiaries for a period of thirty years. That would allow the author to provide for their children, and family, after they are gone. The rights to publish, or in anyway profit, from their work should be by license from the author.
Maybe this would be the wrong way to go about it, but it is my belief that laws and regulation should reward effort and stimulate the continued creation of new works. HOWEVER, these laws and regulation should always balance in the favor of individual authors rather than corporate entities.
Scientists analyzing it in labs; check.
Cue horrific mutating space monsters.
The only obvious one is population growth exceeding the capacity of their world
Or possibly that their world/sun/system is about to undergo changes that will make their world uninhabitable for their type of life. And that they have enough time to construct and launch a ship before this takes place.
However many of us understand the usage of the throttle and by actually using it we don't fill the pipes to bursting.
Indeed. Though I would argue that for distributing a large amount of data through a mechanic such as torrent, or really any large amount of data that has to be moved from A to B with any regularity, what is needed is a fundamentally sound infrastructure. Some ISP's around the world seems content not upgrading their networks, but rather trying to make bandwidth artificially scare to charge more per bit and byte.
Personally I am happy that the Norwegian government is taking an active hand in ensuring broadband coverage across the entire country, and have now an increased focus on adopting fiber as the next step in increasing capacity. Maybe these goals aren't always implemented as quickly, or as well, as they should have, but at least the government have recognized the importance of such an undertaking. Reports and research referenced by the ministers seem to indicate (though no surprise that material referenced support the argument they are trying to make) that for the districts broadband is good for businesses and the local economy.
Personally the one good thing about this format is that if people LIKE the damned show they won't just cancel it because some asshat made a political move on another producer.
One example of asshatery is the story of Warren Beatty's fight for the rights to Dick Tracy. While I do not know enough of this case to make a judgement about who is in the right, the legal battle has in effect kept any film based upon the license from being made since the original film was released in 1990.
Unfortunately it is not uncommon that a studio will sit on a license, not making an effort to use it, but ensuring that no one else does either.
In LA a significant slice of the population owns equipment that can shoot 720p and has production equipment -- every other house in the Valley seems to have a garage converted into a studio of one type or another, so in some places it's definitely easier than others.
The real limiting factor, as you indicate, is the human talent, particularly in the acting and writing.
With the increased quality and affordability of equipment (how many had even a half decent camera ten-fifteen years ago compared with today?), and many setting up their own small scale home studio; the possibility of the right person walking in front of the right camera goes up. As far as a game of number goes the increased growth of material from amateurs and industry outsiders ensures that there is also an increased chance of a true talent being noticed. While also making it possible to test the market for new concepts and ideas that established studios might not want to gamble a big budget on.
Personally I hope, and expect, that donation based productions will find its niche; and with that perhaps we might get something truly good to watch that is not had its soul destroyed by a studio bureaucrat.
Its a dangerous tool. In some respects, in the earlier days, its enabled me to push my personal boundaries, but if youre not careful, it can lead to reliance. Its like an addiction, with all the negatives that a narcotic might have.
First of all there are negatives that some narcotics have that internet usage does not; like actually physical dependency. But besides that; yes you can get addicted to "the internet" just like you can get addicted to anything. An unsatisfied mind looks for distraction.
However IF internet use automatically leads to procrastination is something I highly doubt. But no doubt for those without a clear idea of what they want do can easily fall into a loop of, most often, mediocre entertainment clips, games, and debates.