A person familiar with the talks said that money has never been discussed. Other reports on the issue have estimated that iPods and iPhones would cost an additional $100 for lifetime access to the iTunes library or a monthly subscription fee of $7.
Wow… life time access to the iTunes library for $100…sign me up!
I was taking a look at the newsfeed for Wikipedia and happened upon this:
Talk:Code of non-infringement
Today, March 18, 2008, 12:11:04 AM | 24.23.37.62
General
← Older revision Revision as of 05:11, March 18, 2008
Line 1: Line 1:
==General== ==General==
Would a retiring clown be able to legitimately grant his makeup scheme etc to his child, apprentice, or other designated successor? [[User:Scott Sanchez|knoodelhed]] 6 July 2005 10:16 (UTC) Would a retiring clown be able to legitimately grant his makeup scheme etc to his child, apprentice, or other designated successor? [[User:Scott Sanchez|knoodelhed]] 6 July 2005 10:16 (UTC)
+ :An individual trained by a clown may, with the clown’s permission, use parts of the clown’s bits. This includes a part of the face design, sometimes worn to show that one comes from a certain “school” or was trained by a certain clown. However, one does not ever copy a clown’s face…even if that clown is retiring. Generally speaking, one creates a unique clown. Certain exceptions are made if, for example, an individual is undertaking a whole clown. That is to say that the clown can be seperate from the performer and a man may take over a clown from his retired father. But in this case (which is rare) the entire clown’s act (name, bit, etc) and not just his face is used.
If you can sort through the code parts of this… you will see some of the not-so-important side of the wiki world.
The New York Times reports:
“Thousands of people responded,” Ms. Thurman said. “We spent the weekend reviewing your messages, and while your reasons vary widely, the consensus is clear: Florida doesn’t want to vote again. So we won’t.”
I have been thinking about this issue a lot as it has appeared in the news, especially on Meet the Press. It seems the DNC has dug a whole for itself on this issue. When talk of getting the votes counted first began, people seemed convinced that you could just alot the delegates from the first primary. To me that seemed glaringly unfair. First of all, Obama was not even on the ballot in Michigan. Second, you cannot change the rules of the game after the fact. The DNC set this up in a way that disenfranchised the voters of Michigan and Florida, but the state parties knew the consequences. It would be unfair to count the results of an election that people participted in as if it did not count.
The new solution is to redo the whole thing. Now the DNC is really questioning their initial decision. Early in this thought process people decide that the a mail in ballot is a no go. Now Florida decides $10 million is too much to redo something that was already done once. Moreover, it seems people just do not want it to happen. Michigan, on the other hand, is pushing through legislation to try to do just the opposite – put on a new primary.
Whether or not Florida or Michigan have new primaries or Obama or Clinton is the nominee, I think this exposes a problem for the future of party primaries. Is it fair that New Hampshire and Iowa always come first? Two small states that do not accurately represent the U.S. as a whole. I think that you either have to have a consistent beginning or something completely random. Even if it is randomized some states will continue to be put at the end by chance. The optimal solution to me is to organize it regionally. Each region chooses a state to have a primary early in the season. This would encourage more accurate representation of the country and states that do not get much face time from candidates would start getting more attention. Or maybe this primary process is too long and a Super-Duper-Duper Tuesday is in order. That is a little extreme, but shortening the process might give each state a more fair representation.
But who says this process needs to be fair? Well, I think a fair process would result in a more healthy election cycle.
Somehow, yet again, I have fallen out of the blogosphere. It is interesting how life has a way of doing that to everyone I know who has a blog that does not make their living (or some of it) from blogging.
Anyway, the last post considered how law will intervene in virtual worlds, specifically video game based worlds. Initially, to me it seemed that the game should just be a game and work itself out. If anything, as financial incentives enter the picture that will be a check on people’s actions.
I started thinking about how many games require a monthly fee be paid to participate. This financial investment month after month is justified by the constantly changing and updating nature of the game. Maintaing the virtual world and the server it runs on is paramount to having a gaming experience at all. More over, it seems that part of this fee is to set up a healthy gaming experience. That is why there are corporate employees playing the position (adopted from paper and pencil RPGs) ‘Game Master’. If people are experiencing detrimental effects as a result of playing the game, should the Game Master be responsible to intervene? I think the month to month investment necessitates an affirmative answer. I am fairly certain that it is not part of the Terms of Agreement, but I think the results speak to this. Abusive character names, guilds/clans, and offensive language all result in a ban on one’s account. This tells me that it is an issue taken seriously as a result of companies wanting to provide a high quality and healthy experience.
As video games have become more popular it seems like the government has always wanted to intervene at some point. Now the ESRB rating system is fairly widespread and some retailers are preventing the sales of certain games to minors. As content becomes increasingly interactive the future role of government may be a guiding force the same way it has been for ratings and retailers. Demanding game providers take proactive actions to foster a healthy gaming experience may be the future. It seems like they are already doing that now, but I am certain some politicians will want to add their stamp of approval and pass a bill with their name on it.
Recent Comments