In the case of "virtual porno" there's something I haven't seen considered yet. Supreme Court cases set a precedent. When I think of what's at stake in this case, I think hentai or two CG characters of questionable age getting their groove on. What happens down the road, then, when technology allows quick and dirty photorealism?
The question, at that point, becomes why is it illegal? Is it because of what it depicts, or because of how it was created? What is at stake isn't freedoms to see child porno, but in what manner it can be created.
The time when photorealistic CG is easily created is fast approaching, and a Supreme Court ruling will be the final word on how that technology can be used in many situations. I'm not exactly sure I like the idea of rendered kiddie porn, but I know I like the idea of how a ruling forbidding it can be applied as precedence even less.
As a student who received a 5 on the APCS test in 1999, I can say that my score was in no way due to the teacher. Indeed, the woman chosen to teach APCS held about six months of programming experience and obviously taught the class for an increase in salary. Knowing this, I can't help but wonder how high schools will provide the necessary instructors for the course. It is a safe bet in today's industry that anyone who knows java can do better money than a teacher's salary.
I worry this move by the APCS committee to use an even more recent language will further limit the pool of capable instructors. In the end, something's gotta go. For all the opportunity for higher education the AP board provides, it'll only be as good as the teachers found to teach it. --------
Slashdot Mirror
In the case of "virtual porno" there's something I haven't seen considered yet. Supreme Court cases set a precedent. When I think of what's at stake in this case, I think hentai or two CG characters of questionable age getting their groove on. What happens down the road, then, when technology allows quick and dirty photorealism?
The question, at that point, becomes why is it illegal? Is it because of what it depicts, or because of how it was created? What is at stake isn't freedoms to see child porno, but in what manner it can be created.
The time when photorealistic CG is easily created is fast approaching, and a Supreme Court ruling will be the final word on how that technology can be used in many situations. I'm not exactly sure I like the idea of rendered kiddie porn, but I know I like the idea of how a ruling forbidding it can be applied as precedence even less.
I worry this move by the APCS committee to use an even more recent language will further limit the pool of capable instructors. In the end, something's gotta go. For all the opportunity for higher education the AP board provides, it'll only be as good as the teachers found to teach it.
--------