The Music industry did not learn that Apple was successful with its ITunes in large part for the simple pricing scheme of 99c each song what ever it was. That made the buying decision simpler and people started to buy music online and make their IPods worth a fortune fully loaded.

Now the Game industry does not seem to understand that the risk of buying a new game gets lower if there is a flourishing attractive secondary market. If I put down $49 for a new game and happen to not like it or my friends don't like it, and I can sell it easily for $35 at a place like GameStop, then I'm only $14 in the risk. If that risk gets larger I won't buy that often a new game just for try or kicks.

And if the original publisher wants a piece of the resale in the secondary market every time, then it means that the resale price for every non commercial owner is lower, because he has to pay the publisher on the original purchase and on the sale to the second market. Which means again it will dampen the new sales.

There is an easy solution: Sell only used games.

The Colbert = Sneeze
Flu = Sneeze
==>
The Colbert Flu = The Sneeze Sneeze

Cut "Flu", The Colbert is enough.

This kind of pre-filtered content is not news it is more of the old stuff that I'm already interested in.

Part of the appeal of a news paper or other news publication is to alert me to something that I'm not thinking of anyway. For example would you have thought of "swine flu" three weeks ago?

I also don't understand the appeal from the perspective of a search engine. News probably should be part of my search results for the keywords I'm, looking for. But in order for it to really be useful allow me to tell in my search if I want new answers over old established one's. One search of mine might be looking for news another might be for historic records. An automatic bias for news is rather hindering in the second search request. And pages don't add a keyword "old" or "historic" to themselves just because they have been published a few years ago. Hell, way to many online organizations (blogs, etc.) don't even feel it is appropriate to post a publishing date to their post.)

Not according to a recent speech of Barack Obama before the congress, the quasi state of the union

It's not you but the "traditional" news organizations (and the bloggers as well) missing the idea of hypertext.

Read almost any newsy article and it does not contain links. At best you get links to other stories from the same outlet. Why? Greed, and the resulting attempt to keep the reader/visitor on the site.

May be this is the business model to pursue, publish a premium version of the news that does include hypertext, to the institutions and documents (and people) mentioned, talked about or cited as sources. That is something worth paying for.

Wkipedia is not a place where anything that is not an established fact survives very long.

It's an encyclopedia, so a new invention is certainly not something that the community there will share to publish. Also it is a site the is community edited. Given for some reason the publication would stay around, how would it potentially look like be the time the "patent examiner" would read it there?

"they all have the same root-cause: someone was going too fast for the conditions." is not a root cause, but a simple fact of a crash has happened.

Because, no accident would have happened in the first place, if you were not too fast to stop before what eve you hit.

I don't try to justify reckless speed, but may be the investigators where not able (or too lazy) to find another, more specific cause.

Well, I'd like to add the following observation to the speeding discussion. "Excess Speed" is the default cause of an accident. If the police don't know any other reason that is always right.

Because, no accident would have happened in the first place, if you were not too fast to stop before what eve you hit.

I don't try to justify reckless speed, but driving too fast is the obvious cause if nothing more specific overwrites it.