I made a post very critical of carbon emissions not long ago, think it ended up scoring (1, Troll). I was even trying to cite the numbers from other sources. Now is it worth severe economic consequences to lower the temperature (and this is just a maybe, and likely using the best model for the pro-carbon-emission-controllers out there) by ONE-TWENTIETH of ONE degree? (over the course of decades) I know I certainly believed most of this green crap when I was in school (not all of it is COMPLETELY crap). However the carbon dioxide aspect of it is the biggest fairy tale we seem to want to believe. Clouds and sunspots have more effect on climate than carbon dioxide ever will. Feel free to mod me down, but at least explain where I'm wrong before doing so. Once again please note I'm only talking about carbon dioxide, and I'm not saying things like smog, or other emissions that cause acid rain are not problems.

I know, how about all intelectual property is now public domain, until the company that owns it can prove it does own it in a special copyright court. Cases heard per year: 57 :) Waiting period: 621 years. Alright I'll stop being clinical about it. The loop where business takes off because of extra-ordinary protections via copyright law, said business donates to politicians to increase the viability of their business model needs to stop. Not because the business is viable, but because the business becomes successful at the expense of public domain.

You bring up some interesting points. Really any system would have to be unbelievably simple to correctly change how we handle copyright. The example I gave before was obviously a bit oversimplfied. The actual numbers that would be most effective would have to be researched. Perhaps a free period of 2 years could be included for all works. It might actually create an interesting market, when a work about to hit the next copyright cost 'tier' the artist or creative person would likely be looking for a buyer. If it's not worth it like I said though, it goes back out for the rest of us. If it is worth it, copyright is maintained, we provide unusual protections for the works; however there is a trade there as the works themselves help pay for these unusual protections. Personally, getting rid of copyright entirely might be preferable, but I'm just trying to come up with practical, workable solutions that are not the run-away Mickey Mouse laws we have now. [Disney will still pay to keep Mickey Mouse, which is part of the reason copyright has become such a large number of years before falling into public domain].

Copyright law does drive me nuts. I still remember, my scanner broke, I was tasked with just making simple copies of a collage of items on a piece of paper. One item included a photo of my brother who was going to graduate high school. Anyway, long story short, the person would not let me make copies of the collage, because she claimed the photograph was taken professionally, and it was protected by copyright. Obviously since this was just for a graduation party invitation, and was mostly other items, it should count as fair use. However Walgreens didn't seem to care that I thought it was fair use. A trip to Kinko's later and I got it done. [had to drive 30 miles since I'm in a fairly small down]. Regardless, copyright has become a 10 headed monster that's running out of control, and there is no end in sight.

My complaint is we are spending TAX DOLLARS on something that is not an issue. We are indoctrinating children into believing that greenhouse gases causes global warming... errr wait, we updated those textbooks to say climate change now. Either way, what I'm saying is that I don't care if you waste your time, your money, your efforts on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but don't involve public money in it. My complaint is the vast sums of money we are sinking into our 'green' ambitions. Not only that, but we're discouraging the most cost effective sources of energy [or at least we're about to with the cap and trade bogus law] which takes money from successful utility companies who have generated energy reliably for us, and gives it to these green wind farms which will have to built elaborate wires to transmit large amounts of energy long distances to where it's needed. I have many many many complaints regarding global warming and greenhouse gases, most of which come down to wasted money, and bad policies.
Cap and trade, United States fiscal policy, "Man made greenhouse gasses", energy subsidies, international treaties. Pick a topic, I could go all day.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7a/Atmosphere_gas_proportions.svg/180px-Atmosphere_gas_proportions.svg.png and of the greenhouse gases... http://theglobalhoax.com/science/greenhousegassource.gif [decidedly biases source... but you get the idea] Either way, I'm tired of all this global warming... nonsensical, non-scientific, love-fest. Greenhouse gases are not an issue. At least not one we can control beyond the .035% of .03%. Either way, the amount of influence we have on greenhouse gases is likely within the margin of error for test equipment anyway! Lets worry about particulate matter, smog, or at least something that is actual a problem we experience. I feel a little sick whenever I think about how much money has been spent on 'global warming' that could have been spent on so many other environmental pursuits that would actually benefit us. I guess I'll see if Al Gore has modpoints or not today!

Hell I'd go out of my way to protect everything and anything if there was a reasonable time before it fell into public domain. I keep thinking about this issue a lot, I think the solution needs to involve the copyright owner paying in money, very very small sums for the first few years, but leading to much larger sums as time moves forward. Hopefully until they opt to just let it fall into public domain because they have already made a profit on their works. (Anyone else sick of the current Mickey Mouse copyright laws we have now?)

Anyway, maybe something like years 1-4 $100 years 5-8 $1000 years 8-10 $40000 then we could just say something 1 million per year for every year there after. So either way, the work will benefit the general public (as was the original intention of copyright law). If the work is so wildly successful it will raise money. If the work isn't that great, it gets put into public domain sooner, so it can be built upon. Anyway, maybe I'm crazy, I don't like to see this kind of over-regulation of thought anyway. However if we WERE going to provide the protections that copyright holders want, I would greatly prefer a system based on this.

Get used to it. We have a Gov't now that will look for any loose scrap of spare change, and will be will to shake you by the ankles to find it. I find it relatively despicable, but not in any way surprising. Maybe if the Gov't took more of an interest in not impeding the trade of goods and services to the degree it does, high taxes, over-regulation [literally picking winners and losers, and running companies themselves at this point] that maybe, just maybe the recession we're in wouldn't be nearly as bad. That maybe we'd have a market where I can find work that actually relates to my 2 year degree, instead of just picking up the 'anything that is available' kind of work that I am doing now.

I'm not laying this on Obama in any way. We've been on this path of gov't overspending, and over-intervening for awhile now. Although Obama looks to maybe take these things to a whole new level, and he does have support in congress to do so. I just find it interesting that they're going after things that are quite small, and will end up investing likely more resources than they get out of it.

Stop sitting on quality games that have been released in Japan and release them elsewhere! I'm still waiting on fatal frame for the wii, and won't be buying another Nintendo game until I can purchase that! Tecmo hasn't had a problem releasing the other 3, and the sales have not been that bad in the states/Europe. UGH, I guess I'm still jaded that they're holding onto a shiny that I want, and am willing to part with money for.

Anyway, where are the good wii games anyway? I walk through the store and look at the Wii releases, and it feels like I'm in the kids section. Not that there is anything wrong with that, I guess. There is no reason not to offer them if that's what your consumers want, but why Nintendo (not Nintendo in Japan apparently) won't you release your high quality games over here? Will it ruin your family system image that for whatever reason you're doing your best to keep? It still makes no sense, there are already other more violent games out there!

Yeah yeah, the internationalization process... Tecmo has not had an issue, like I ranted earlier with the previous 3, and they were interested in having the 4th come out! Why is Nintendo sitting on it's hands? Why is Nintendo sitting on it's hands when people are willing to give them money? Especially when they have a couple of gems just sitting in their laps! They have so few 3rd party developers making quality games [most will max out their gfx capability on the PS3 or 360, at least when it comes to the AAA class titles, and many get exclusive with a certain console, Nintendo cannot afford not to support it's few quality 3rd party developers!

There's a petition to get the game moving forward [I guess to show there is potential for sales]. I guess I should go sign up for it.... actually I forgot which one I saw first, there's at least 6 going on out there! so I won't link any specific one...

Well I guess if they don't want to compete, and earn money, eventually economics will catch up with them. The NES/Super NES will remain the period in their legacy I guess. Minus the few gems out the 64 crowd, it has really gone downhill for Nintendo. I can't think of a spectacular game since the gamecube came out. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. Point being I think they should be marketing everything they have, unless they realize, that they are really just shoveling garbageware for the first few years, and only plan on releasing decent games after that phase has passed [if there were the must have games, people would not bother with the junk, at least most wouldn't.]

Final warning to Nintendo: Compete or die. It's the law of economics... Unless you're GM...