In all fairness, anyone that downloads music illegally will have the belief "it wouldn't ever happen to me". The RIAA needs to make an example of extreme cases that puts fear into the other illegal uses of p2p. If she didn't want to get caught, she shouldn't have downloaded illegally, and that makes sense since in the end, it is the law. I feel bad for the student, and I don't support these extreme cases, but if anyone is going to download music illegally, they have to be willing to accept the penalties.
I don't think this is a very fair evaluation in either argument here. I mean, I've first started watching porn at the age of 13, when I first started browsing the net via AOL (primarily from spam).
I wouldn't be so concerned about how they get it because regardless of the parental restrictions because the fact of the matter is, pornography is so common to us as adults. All you have to do is merely google 'porn', and you'll have porn. Aside from that, if children want access to porn, they'll find a way to get it just like pot or alcohol.
So, if pornography is viewed more these days in households than any other time in history, and even by parental figures, how could you say that this is a biased statistic if there is more of it readily available for anyone, including minors?
Furthermore, people in America work way too many hours, so how can we further burden parents in technology (parental control) they don't have time to learn, and then blame them for it?
I say we need better control over the pornographic industry as a whole in order to help educate minors.
I'm worried about a few things that the article discusses. Yes, it sounds exciting that LucasArts and ILM are doing collaborating in the future. What I'm afraid of however, is that in the CG industry, there seems to be a technological 'progression' that trivializes the purpose of the traditional (ie. concept artists, storyboard artists, etc.)
Sullivan discusses that pre-viz is a good and modern solution, but he doesn't mention that pre-viz can also be slower and less fine tuned than the work of a storyboard artist. Illustrators can offer style, better/faster continuity, and the ability to develop an entire shot rather than developing rough 3D-geometry. If it were up to me, I'd keep both around.
So sure, the technology and tools get better, but it doesn't necessarily make a better film.
Disney made that mistake with their cel animation department, and they all got laid off (thank god for Lassater).
Square did it with Final Fantasy and threw away the storyline.
ILM seems to be a very traditional studio in the sense that they follow a typical pipeline for production. I just hope they clearly understand the benefits of keeping these illustrators around.
I'm a little curious to know why no one on this thread has mentioned the guy who first started implementing it the way it is used now in the first place. We might as well just forward a link to his site and Siggraph papers.
HDRI has been around for a long time --since the late '90's. I don't understand why this is considered new, especially since Paul Debevec introduced this at Siggraph in '99 (?) in Fiat Lux. It's been in almost all the latest big VFX movies to date.
HDRI is not a "a lighting process that's been designed to emulate in-game or artificially generated lighting". It is a method of lighting scenes using real-world lighting scenarios.
I suppose this is new to the video game industry, but this has been around for quite awhile, so the article is a bit misleading.
For more info about HDRI, go to Paul Debevec's site: http://debevec.org/
Cartoon Network is the only network I enjoy, aside from my HD National Geographic channel. I think this is a great thing, and it certainly shows that CN has always been a network of the younger generation. With Toonami, and Adult Swim, I feel as if they made a network entirely for me.
Great work CN!!
I wonder if any of us customers will be receiving any of that credit on our bills....
In all seriousness, Verizon has the worst customer service I have ever seen. Not only do they sometimes lie or "forget", but they also charge you extra in the hopes that you don't notice it in your bills.
I suppose they're not the only company guilty of this, but the only reason why I stick with them is because they have the best wireless service in New York.
But getting back to the point, I think we deserve a little credit here, and not entirely the company.
Well, the only reason why I raised that question was because people seem to be blaming Christianity, and not the Church itself, which are two totally different things.
Christianity is essentially the teachings of Christ. True, that most accounts may not be first-hand, however, who can argue against the three unmarried women (in a society where gender was in a hierarchical state) and the hundreds of eyewitnesses to Christ's resurrection (who Paul claimed were still alive at the time the book was written)? In those cases, I don't think a first-hand account is necessary, but this is all sort of drifting away from the topic.
What I'm trying to say is, when people talk about how Christianity is hindering science, what they should really say is that specific Christians and Christian sects are doing so.
Saying that Christianity and Christians are hindering science would generalize them, and would contradict me (a Christian), and other Christians. That doesn't stray very far from the concept of racism --wouldn't you agree?
I can't really agree with that. To be technical, wouldn't the Church itself be the institution, and not Christianity (which is the teachings of Christ/Yeshua)?
"The people working on implementing those classes are the ones who are pretty much in charge of the current class layouts."
President Bush is in charge of the current class layout?
Again, I am not for implementing religion into our schools. However, I would like to know about alternative concepts.
"There is a decided different between apathy about science, and apathy that most Americans posses because they are ignorant of other cultures and people. One is brought on through a lack of material in the school, where there would otherwise be a will to learn science. And the other is brought on through a lack of information in the home and in the media about other places which gives people a sense that they shouldn't care about what goes on around them."
You cannot say there is a difference. I am not a racist because I was raised in a completely ethnically mixed school, not because my parents or some television program told me to.
I never had a huge passion for science, not because I was ignorant or apathetic in school, but because I had more of an interest elsewhere.
The point is, you have to distinguish a difference between Religion, and an instituition with flawed human nature.
Wait a minute. You can't say it's a contributing factor, when the factor itself isn't there. I have never taken an "ID" class in primary or secondary school -have you?
Of course I will agree that our education has gotten poorer, but I also think that many people in our workforce have just gotten incompetent.
We are at an age where we are far more independent than any other time in history. While you make the argument that the US will decline because of religious people, others can make the argument that it is because we are just too apathetic and independent to care.
First of all, it isn't wrong or necessarily a Bush agenda to put 'ID' into the classrooms as an empirical science. We know it isn't, and so it should be presented that way.
Furthermore, I think a lot of people here are starting to blame Bush for a lot of things that have no connection.
For example, a decline in R&D in the US blamed entirely on religion? Give me a break!
I became an Athiest in High School, and will say that I have never heard of any kind of religious ideologies in school. This does not mean it has not occurred elsewhere. I simply just mean that this doesn't occur everywhere, all the time!
Yes, I am a Christian, but I do believe heavily for a separation between the Church and State, and I do not believe it should be in our classrooms, nor should it interfere with any scientific affairs.
But the fact that numberous people here are saying Christianity has declined science is fallacious and does not have enough evidence to prove itself.
I don't think Disney has much of a future in the cel-animation market anymore. I think with the recent wave of anime being imported to the States, Disney will stick with their best investment, Pixar.
They already knocked off their entire cel-animation department, and hired a few 3D animators to make a new feature. It's obvious that they feel that 3D is the wave of the future, when it really wasn't that.
The answer was obvious. Their stories sucked.
I feel for the cel-animators who lost their jobs.
However, I also feel that because anime has been imported like mad recently (Adult Swim, Miyazaki, Ghost in the Shell 2, etc.) that Disney, or some other distributor will take the golden reigns in marketing a new era in 2D animation.
I'm a 3D artist/animator, so I really hope that these animators have just as much job security as I do.
I disagree. I felt that Hayden Christensen was one of the better actors this time around. Again, you have to blame a lot of the dialogue on the writing. After watching it the second time around, I was paying very close attention to his acting ability, and I really have to say, that this was his best performance yet, and it is up to par with a lot of other actors in Hollywood.
Obviously, it wasn't quite as good as McGregor, however, it wasn't as terrible as Natalie Portman's (I felt she really made the movie terrible for me).
Being a VFX artist myself, I felt the movie was extremely lacking in certain respects. The first battle scene was amazing, without any doubt. However, Lucas, for some reason, put way too many blue screen shots towards the middle and end, where he relied heavily on CG imagery to back landscape shots.
For example, Palpatine's room had a backplate entirely out of CG, and at times, the room itself changed from a live action plate to a CG plate when him and Yoda were fighting.
I felt a lot of it was just too synthetic. I hate to say this as a VFX artist. It would have been nice to see more sets and a more hands-on approach towards the overall look and feel --It was just too clean.
As another example, when Obi-wan and Anakin are fighting Count Dooku in that room, it was a in a movie set where everything was constructed except the back drop of the space battle. This was a similar set up that they had on Return of the Jedi during the fight between Luke and Anakin.
CG has to have a job of supporting the movie, not making an integration between CG scenes and live action scenes.
Don't get me wrong, I've seen great CG/live integration pieces. However, they were great because they were subtle and supported the concepts and ideas.
To be honest, I don't think you can be more 'professional' without the practice. I used to be a programmer and the only way to make the shift over is to constantly be busy with new projects that would help you develop your creative sensibilities.
I went to art school for starters, and that helped tremendously.
If you don't necessarily want to do something on a graphic level, you can also be a coder for 3D applications. You can learn 'mel', or 'maxscript' for instance.
But if you are aiming for a professional aesthetic, then again, you have to do a lot of personal projects, experiment a lot, and push limits for clients.
Clients will often limit your creativity, but to be honest, a lot of the clients keep coming to us only after they realize that you are pushing their creative boundaries as well.
Don't be a downer about this. For 3D, isit creative portals such as: CGChannel, CGNetworks, CGTalk, InsideCG, Deathfall, Rendernode.
Or if you are looking for more design-oriented aesthetics, visit: Design is Kinky, Three.oh, Newstoday, Surfstation, etc.
I work at a studio called Tronic in NYC, and the only way to push yourself is to stay busy, look at other studios and their work and try to push limits.
Good luck.
shader coding has become a lot different and has progressed a lot since '95 IMHO.
i mean, you can't really go out of a tangent of research from what has already been done, at least in this case, right?
light bounces and refracts/raytraces just like in real life. the purpose is to simulate this as close as possible to reality, which machines are incapable of doing right now.
5 years ago you couldn't achieve renders we have today. the technology was barely there and in its birth stages. for example, GI research has existed for a long time but was never implemented to depths like today simply because its gotten better and faster.
the only real constraint is the hardware here.
i guess i could agree with you here. but to me, Gollum was pretty damn impressive and i hardly saw any faults, with few exceptions obviously.
the work is definitely painstaking and i think there wasn't much room for 'creative freedom' simply because if you're going for realism, there really isn't much room for error or personal input, especially if you're working with a team of animators, coders, compositors, lighters, etc., who must all have the same output and feel.
i don't know, as a striving 3d artist, i felt the work done at Weta is currently unbeatable right above ILM, in terms of realism (praise 'Hulk' here).
what's great about this community is that there's always room for improvement and that's how it should always be because that's what keeps those paychecks coming in.
if you're in the 3D or design field like i am, there is no time to get out of the house, especially because i live in NYC.
and you pretty much put my life on the spot already. pretty sad, but it's the life i choose to follow.
I don't think this will be better than LOTR, and I certainly don't think it will beat it in terms of effects. There were a lot of great discoveries as a result of research and development at Weta, and although 'CASSHERN' looks aesthetically beautiful, it doesn't seem like it even comes close to the capacity of work done at Weta.
It's not to say that it indefinitely isn't, but so far it doesn't seem to be as impressive.
It does look beautiful though. I've really never seen this sort of aesthetic in a live action film. Again, the Japanese are a whole different culture than most of us Americans.
If 'CASSHERN' had a completely CG animated character from scratch like Gollum with details like sub-surface scattering and HDRI (High-Dynamic Range Imaging) scenarios, then maybe, but from the looks of it, it seems like a lower production value.
you're an ass.
within 25 years of practising, my father has been in court 5 times, and lost only once.
1% my ass. you have a paper that says it? list the source here.
on top of that, it has been researched by my father's lawyers that many of these people who have been suing, have a bad history of suing other doctors and taking them to courts for ridiculous claims that have always ended up with these people lacking the logic of what suing does to a doctor.
doctors have evidence. my father has evidence.
you're talking out of your ass with no proof.
my father and 2 other doctors that i know personally within my family are living proof.
do your own research and get a degree kid.
thanks.
at the same time, this doesn't mean ALL malpractice suits are wrong. in the end however, doctors essentially have no rights and no protection other than their insurances.
doctors are busy helping people as it is, but to know that you are not protected from such stupid lawsuits only means that the certain aspects of the law in relation to medical practices are being overlooked.
my father shouldn't be doing research for his own lawsuit at 4AM.
lawyers do not care about their clients and will often have a lot of apathy as to whether they win or lose because in the end, they get paid the same defending their client nevertheless.
doctors need more protection and this is definitely one of the only solutions available to them.
Slashdot Mirror
In all fairness, anyone that downloads music illegally will have the belief "it wouldn't ever happen to me". The RIAA needs to make an example of extreme cases that puts fear into the other illegal uses of p2p. If she didn't want to get caught, she shouldn't have downloaded illegally, and that makes sense since in the end, it is the law. I feel bad for the student, and I don't support these extreme cases, but if anyone is going to download music illegally, they have to be willing to accept the penalties.
I don't think this is a very fair evaluation in either argument here. I mean, I've first started watching porn at the age of 13, when I first started browsing the net via AOL (primarily from spam).
I wouldn't be so concerned about how they get it because regardless of the parental restrictions because the fact of the matter is, pornography is so common to us as adults. All you have to do is merely google 'porn', and you'll have porn. Aside from that, if children want access to porn, they'll find a way to get it just like pot or alcohol.
So, if pornography is viewed more these days in households than any other time in history, and even by parental figures, how could you say that this is a biased statistic if there is more of it readily available for anyone, including minors?
Furthermore, people in America work way too many hours, so how can we further burden parents in technology (parental control) they don't have time to learn, and then blame them for it? I say we need better control over the pornographic industry as a whole in order to help educate minors.
What's with this hostility? How could you say Lucas can't direct? Have you seen Electronic Labyrinth/THX 1138? The guy is a genius.
Secondly, you don't call Star Wars III,IV,V a 'on-hit-wonder' when they were three films, not one.
Also, Indiana Jones, Willow, THX 1138, Star Wars, and American Graffiti, were all good movies (albeit IMHO, episode 1+2 were terrible).
And no, the goal of CG is NOT to make it look realistic. The goal of CG is to SUPPORT the story.
I'm worried about a few things that the article discusses. Yes, it sounds exciting that LucasArts and ILM are doing collaborating in the future. What I'm afraid of however, is that in the CG industry, there seems to be a technological 'progression' that trivializes the purpose of the traditional (ie. concept artists, storyboard artists, etc.)
Sullivan discusses that pre-viz is a good and modern solution, but he doesn't mention that pre-viz can also be slower and less fine tuned than the work of a storyboard artist. Illustrators can offer style, better/faster continuity, and the ability to develop an entire shot rather than developing rough 3D-geometry. If it were up to me, I'd keep both around.
So sure, the technology and tools get better, but it doesn't necessarily make a better film.
Disney made that mistake with their cel animation department, and they all got laid off (thank god for Lassater).
Square did it with Final Fantasy and threw away the storyline.
ILM seems to be a very traditional studio in the sense that they follow a typical pipeline for production. I just hope they clearly understand the benefits of keeping these illustrators around.
I'm a little curious to know why no one on this thread has mentioned the guy who first started implementing it the way it is used now in the first place. We might as well just forward a link to his site and Siggraph papers.
Paul Debevec's homepage
HDRI has been around for a long time --since the late '90's. I don't understand why this is considered new, especially since Paul Debevec introduced this at Siggraph in '99 (?) in Fiat Lux. It's been in almost all the latest big VFX movies to date. HDRI is not a "a lighting process that's been designed to emulate in-game or artificially generated lighting". It is a method of lighting scenes using real-world lighting scenarios. I suppose this is new to the video game industry, but this has been around for quite awhile, so the article is a bit misleading. For more info about HDRI, go to Paul Debevec's site: http://debevec.org/
Cartoon Network is the only network I enjoy, aside from my HD National Geographic channel. I think this is a great thing, and it certainly shows that CN has always been a network of the younger generation. With Toonami, and Adult Swim, I feel as if they made a network entirely for me. Great work CN!!
I wonder if any of us customers will be receiving any of that credit on our bills.... In all seriousness, Verizon has the worst customer service I have ever seen. Not only do they sometimes lie or "forget", but they also charge you extra in the hopes that you don't notice it in your bills. I suppose they're not the only company guilty of this, but the only reason why I stick with them is because they have the best wireless service in New York. But getting back to the point, I think we deserve a little credit here, and not entirely the company.
Well, the only reason why I raised that question was because people seem to be blaming Christianity, and not the Church itself, which are two totally different things.
Christianity is essentially the teachings of Christ. True, that most accounts may not be first-hand, however, who can argue against the three unmarried women (in a society where gender was in a hierarchical state) and the hundreds of eyewitnesses to Christ's resurrection (who Paul claimed were still alive at the time the book was written)? In those cases, I don't think a first-hand account is necessary, but this is all sort of drifting away from the topic.
What I'm trying to say is, when people talk about how Christianity is hindering science, what they should really say is that specific Christians and Christian sects are doing so.
Saying that Christianity and Christians are hindering science would generalize them, and would contradict me (a Christian), and other Christians. That doesn't stray very far from the concept of racism --wouldn't you agree?
I can't really agree with that. To be technical, wouldn't the Church itself be the institution, and not Christianity (which is the teachings of Christ/Yeshua)?
"The people working on implementing those classes are the ones who are pretty much in charge of the current class layouts."
President Bush is in charge of the current class layout?
Again, I am not for implementing religion into our schools. However, I would like to know about alternative concepts.
"There is a decided different between apathy about science, and apathy that most Americans posses because they are ignorant of other cultures and people. One is brought on through a lack of material in the school, where there would otherwise be a will to learn science. And the other is brought on through a lack of information in the home and in the media about other places which gives people a sense that they shouldn't care about what goes on around them." You cannot say there is a difference. I am not a racist because I was raised in a completely ethnically mixed school, not because my parents or some television program told me to.
I never had a huge passion for science, not because I was ignorant or apathetic in school, but because I had more of an interest elsewhere.
The point is, you have to distinguish a difference between Religion, and an instituition with flawed human nature.
Are you talking about Christianity, or about an man-made instituition flawed by human nature?
Wait a minute. You can't say it's a contributing factor, when the factor itself isn't there. I have never taken an "ID" class in primary or secondary school -have you?
Of course I will agree that our education has gotten poorer, but I also think that many people in our workforce have just gotten incompetent.
We are at an age where we are far more independent than any other time in history. While you make the argument that the US will decline because of religious people, others can make the argument that it is because we are just too apathetic and independent to care.
First of all, it isn't wrong or necessarily a Bush agenda to put 'ID' into the classrooms as an empirical science. We know it isn't, and so it should be presented that way. Furthermore, I think a lot of people here are starting to blame Bush for a lot of things that have no connection. For example, a decline in R&D in the US blamed entirely on religion? Give me a break! I became an Athiest in High School, and will say that I have never heard of any kind of religious ideologies in school. This does not mean it has not occurred elsewhere. I simply just mean that this doesn't occur everywhere, all the time! Yes, I am a Christian, but I do believe heavily for a separation between the Church and State, and I do not believe it should be in our classrooms, nor should it interfere with any scientific affairs. But the fact that numberous people here are saying Christianity has declined science is fallacious and does not have enough evidence to prove itself.
I don't think Disney has much of a future in the cel-animation market anymore. I think with the recent wave of anime being imported to the States, Disney will stick with their best investment, Pixar.
They already knocked off their entire cel-animation department, and hired a few 3D animators to make a new feature. It's obvious that they feel that 3D is the wave of the future, when it really wasn't that.
The answer was obvious. Their stories sucked.
I feel for the cel-animators who lost their jobs.
However, I also feel that because anime has been imported like mad recently (Adult Swim, Miyazaki, Ghost in the Shell 2, etc.) that Disney, or some other distributor will take the golden reigns in marketing a new era in 2D animation.
I'm a 3D artist/animator, so I really hope that these animators have just as much job security as I do.
What he really meant was, why spend all that money when you can give me the job for cheaper!!
I disagree. I felt that Hayden Christensen was one of the better actors this time around. Again, you have to blame a lot of the dialogue on the writing. After watching it the second time around, I was paying very close attention to his acting ability, and I really have to say, that this was his best performance yet, and it is up to par with a lot of other actors in Hollywood. Obviously, it wasn't quite as good as McGregor, however, it wasn't as terrible as Natalie Portman's (I felt she really made the movie terrible for me).
Being a VFX artist myself, I felt the movie was extremely lacking in certain respects. The first battle scene was amazing, without any doubt. However, Lucas, for some reason, put way too many blue screen shots towards the middle and end, where he relied heavily on CG imagery to back landscape shots.
For example, Palpatine's room had a backplate entirely out of CG, and at times, the room itself changed from a live action plate to a CG plate when him and Yoda were fighting.
I felt a lot of it was just too synthetic. I hate to say this as a VFX artist. It would have been nice to see more sets and a more hands-on approach towards the overall look and feel --It was just too clean.
As another example, when Obi-wan and Anakin are fighting Count Dooku in that room, it was a in a movie set where everything was constructed except the back drop of the space battle. This was a similar set up that they had on Return of the Jedi during the fight between Luke and Anakin.
CG has to have a job of supporting the movie, not making an integration between CG scenes and live action scenes.
Don't get me wrong, I've seen great CG/live integration pieces. However, they were great because they were subtle and supported the concepts and ideas.
To be honest, I don't think you can be more 'professional' without the practice. I used to be a programmer and the only way to make the shift over is to constantly be busy with new projects that would help you develop your creative sensibilities. I went to art school for starters, and that helped tremendously. If you don't necessarily want to do something on a graphic level, you can also be a coder for 3D applications. You can learn 'mel', or 'maxscript' for instance. But if you are aiming for a professional aesthetic, then again, you have to do a lot of personal projects, experiment a lot, and push limits for clients. Clients will often limit your creativity, but to be honest, a lot of the clients keep coming to us only after they realize that you are pushing their creative boundaries as well. Don't be a downer about this. For 3D, isit creative portals such as: CGChannel, CGNetworks, CGTalk, InsideCG, Deathfall, Rendernode. Or if you are looking for more design-oriented aesthetics, visit: Design is Kinky, Three.oh, Newstoday, Surfstation, etc. I work at a studio called Tronic in NYC, and the only way to push yourself is to stay busy, look at other studios and their work and try to push limits. Good luck.
shader coding has become a lot different and has progressed a lot since '95 IMHO. i mean, you can't really go out of a tangent of research from what has already been done, at least in this case, right? light bounces and refracts/raytraces just like in real life. the purpose is to simulate this as close as possible to reality, which machines are incapable of doing right now. 5 years ago you couldn't achieve renders we have today. the technology was barely there and in its birth stages. for example, GI research has existed for a long time but was never implemented to depths like today simply because its gotten better and faster. the only real constraint is the hardware here.
i guess i could agree with you here. but to me, Gollum was pretty damn impressive and i hardly saw any faults, with few exceptions obviously. the work is definitely painstaking and i think there wasn't much room for 'creative freedom' simply because if you're going for realism, there really isn't much room for error or personal input, especially if you're working with a team of animators, coders, compositors, lighters, etc., who must all have the same output and feel. i don't know, as a striving 3d artist, i felt the work done at Weta is currently unbeatable right above ILM, in terms of realism (praise 'Hulk' here). what's great about this community is that there's always room for improvement and that's how it should always be because that's what keeps those paychecks coming in.
if you're in the 3D or design field like i am, there is no time to get out of the house, especially because i live in NYC. and you pretty much put my life on the spot already. pretty sad, but it's the life i choose to follow.
I don't think this will be better than LOTR, and I certainly don't think it will beat it in terms of effects. There were a lot of great discoveries as a result of research and development at Weta, and although 'CASSHERN' looks aesthetically beautiful, it doesn't seem like it even comes close to the capacity of work done at Weta. It's not to say that it indefinitely isn't, but so far it doesn't seem to be as impressive. It does look beautiful though. I've really never seen this sort of aesthetic in a live action film. Again, the Japanese are a whole different culture than most of us Americans. If 'CASSHERN' had a completely CG animated character from scratch like Gollum with details like sub-surface scattering and HDRI (High-Dynamic Range Imaging) scenarios, then maybe, but from the looks of it, it seems like a lower production value.
you're an ass. within 25 years of practising, my father has been in court 5 times, and lost only once. 1% my ass. you have a paper that says it? list the source here. on top of that, it has been researched by my father's lawyers that many of these people who have been suing, have a bad history of suing other doctors and taking them to courts for ridiculous claims that have always ended up with these people lacking the logic of what suing does to a doctor. doctors have evidence. my father has evidence. you're talking out of your ass with no proof. my father and 2 other doctors that i know personally within my family are living proof. do your own research and get a degree kid.
thanks. at the same time, this doesn't mean ALL malpractice suits are wrong. in the end however, doctors essentially have no rights and no protection other than their insurances. doctors are busy helping people as it is, but to know that you are not protected from such stupid lawsuits only means that the certain aspects of the law in relation to medical practices are being overlooked. my father shouldn't be doing research for his own lawsuit at 4AM. lawyers do not care about their clients and will often have a lot of apathy as to whether they win or lose because in the end, they get paid the same defending their client nevertheless. doctors need more protection and this is definitely one of the only solutions available to them.