I get your point but I'm not really sure on that. Are the armed forces currently really protecting me in the Middle East right now? I know the politicians and the media say they are, and really I can't know if, had they not gone, if another 9/11 would have happened. There is also the humanitarian aspects to consider which don't really effect/protect me directly. Still though, sometimes I can't help but think the armed forces aren't protecting government/corporate interests more than mine. Not on an individual basis, mind you.. many join precisely to protect the freedoms of everyone... but on an organizational level.

I can't help but think I live in a different U.S. than you do.

They never said "here are five steps for operators of virtual worlds built for and targetting kids to take in order to...". Instead they said:

The above quote leads me to believe this is their recommendation for all virtual world operators. My belief is further backed up by their researching many virtual world types, many of which, I'm fairly certain, are not targeted towards children.

I specifically said "a good chunk" and not "all" because I realize not every parent is like this. Indeed, the ones that are may be in the minority, albeit a vocal one that is out there lobbying. There are also often other factors including the need for both parents to work so much these days just to make ends meet (which is a separate issue).

I was not trying to imply that you specifically or anyone else here necessarily fell into this group of parents I'm referring too.

Mod parent up.. beat me to the punch.

Parents should be the one who ultimately decide whether their kids are ready to join online worlds and, if they're not, prevent them from doing so.

We as a people should not need a government organization dictating what our children should or should not be exposed too. I realize it's politically incorrect to blame voting parents for anything these days but there is no government rules that will replace a good parenting. Furthermore, I'm starting to realize a good chunk of those pushing for things like this are parents who really don't want to put in the work to raise their children and instead would prefer the government or schools do it for them.

Valid point and it's a tricky argument. Obviously it is nice to be able to take care of your family in the event of a tragic situation occurring.

How about the estate gets the copyright for the duration of the original copyright? Lets use the 14 year copyright the GP mentioned.. if the artist dies ant there are still 9 years left on the copyright then the estate could retain the copyright for 9 years. If there is only 5 months left then the estate only gets the remaining 5 months.

This way, the copyright is honored to it's entirety and the estate benefits, assuming the copyright hasn't expired already. True, it would suck if the copyright only had a month left on it and the holder died and didn't leave much for his/her estate but that could be chalked up to bad planning (for emergencies) as the copyright has already payed out as much as it was ever going to.

Much of anything more, I'm afraid, could be easily abused (as it has been already). We could use the argument that there should be an extension so the family can continue being supported... but then what if a corporation gets the copyright.. just think of all the people working at the corporation and their families....

Copyright should not be a retirement plan.. not for the artist and not for their estates or corporations.

That is his first problem right there. They don't gather news, they gather entertainment and they present that entertainment with whatever spin they feel will best cause the effect they're looking for whether that be sympathy, outrage, shock, etc.

Don't get me wrong either, I'm not saying CNN is the only one like this and this isn't a political viewpoint where I'm categorizing news media into good, bad, left, or right. I'm saying all "news" programs are like this and have been this way for a while.

As for the public interaction via Twitter I don't see how that is a bad thing. In fact I think its a great way for them to keep in contact with their audience, live, and get the pulse of the public. I think it's great that someone at CNN is at least making an attempt at keeping up with some current technology trends and have found a way to use it as a possibly useful communication tool.

It seems like I've read previously somewhere a case where the record industry had claimed copyright on something they didn't actually own.

I'm starting to wonder if they don't train their watchdogs to send out DMCA notices for any music they see online thinking it's better to risk a simple apology later if they don't own it than it is to leave potentially copyright infringing music online.

I had a plan set up for several thousand text messages but was still getting charged for some of them. I think the ones I was getting charged for may have been international (which you have a to get a separate international plan to cover those apparently) but still. I'm pretty sure if I had an unlimited plan I'd still have the same issue.. its unlimited with certain limitations.

A friend mentioned to me the other day that he's read somewhere that AT&T is planning on forcing data plans on any account that has a SmartPhone/PDA. According to him, if you don't call them and put the data plan on there willingly, supposedly they're just going to add it on themselves.

A quick search on Google seems to back this information up although, according to these sources, it should have started in September:

AT&T to force data plans with all smartphones starting next month

AT&T to Require Data Plan for Smartphone Users

True, I'd say a lot of people that have smartphones probably use data, but I know people who have phones on their account that aren't even in use and are simply there to hold their phone number (they have it forwarded to another phone for instance) and don't use the data. They could probably try to switch the phones over to a simpler one for this functionality, but if they're stuck in the middle of a two year contract that can be problematic as well.

Which is exactly what AT&T and the other wireless providers want you to think. Hell, even the ISPs want you to think that for your cable/DSL.

Admittedly, I don't know the specifics completely nor do I know for sure if it extended to cellular providers, but sometime during the 90s the ISPs were provided money in some form or fashion to build up their infrastructure to support the growing userbase. They took the money but didn't use it the way they were supposed to. I'd be willing to bet most of these companies have the money now but they won't use it to do the upgrading needed.

Why should they? With heavily limited competition, they could give customers horrible service while increasing their rates and most would still use their service because there aren't any viable alternatives. Upgrading infrastructure and capacity does nothing to increase their profits as they've discovered they can simply oversell their existing capacity legally with the magic words "speeds up to". Profits go up with no extra cost to expand which makes their actual customers, the shareholders, happy.

Vista and up use the new control panel while XP still uses IE and the website.

At least not unless it's still being used on the back end somehow:

Windows Update

It seems to me that the people who are running for office now (or, I should say, the people who actually will win) are normally already independently rich. Moreover, campaign contributions are further pushing us into a two party system (although I might argue that we're already a one party system.. everyone has the same basic agenda but takes different routes to get there). When was the last time any political party other than the Democrats and Republicans had a snow ball's chance in Hell of winning? How many commercials do you see a night from one of those other parties versus the 2 or 3 every commercial break by our two leading parties?

Why do we really need all of those commercials in the first place? They don't add anything really to the campaign other than pushing voters around by using fear mongering, mudslinging, and misleading statements.

IMO the political parties all need to start on equal ground. Would it really be that bad to have a tax that went into a fund that got split up and given to all of the candidates at the beginning of the campaign? They'd each have a set amount to work with and they wouldn't be able to spend it frivolously.. once its gone its gone. Who cares if you give a little to an opposing party... they'd just be one of, hopefully, many and maybe we, as a people, could feel a bit better about who won knowing that they may have actually won on the issues and not on money. I think a system like this may actually give other parties a chance to flourish or at least make themselves a little more known to the general populace.

People may feel the same way you do about their money going towards other parties but has our current system really done that much better for us?

Again, the real reason I feel like campaign contributions are a problem is how they're negatively used. Why should a wealthy individual's or a corporation's point of view be more important than any other citizen's just because they can afford to dump a large sum of money into their favorite pocket-politician's war chest?

I thought about this more after I posted and that very point occurred to me since, as you stated, lobbying also serves as a way for citizens to influence government policy.

Honestly I don't have a good answer. Of course citizens should actively influence politics. However, I'd like to find out at least a ballpark figure on how many of the average citizens use this method of political change. From my point of view (which is admittedly probably limited) it seems like the entities that use it the most are corporations and special interest groups which always seem to be using it to push their rather self-serving agendas that aren't always for the public's good.

I suppose when I was talking about "legalized bribes" I was speaking more of things like campaign donations (which definitely need to be gotten rid of) and, in my mind, lobbying is connected because of the way they're both used by big business to inject their agendas into washington.

Just my two cents.

IMO, lobbying just needs to be completely gotten rid of as it has become simply a means to legally bribe publicly elected officials into corporate agendas into law.

Same for campaign donations.. every attempt, that I've seen, to put restrictions on either of these practices has been quickly circumvented.

Somehow, when I read that, it came out all different in my head... something more like:

"but has no plans to change it as the risk of angering the company's customers -- oh yeah, and you little people who buy their software might benefit from it too"

Remember when a company's customers were actually the people buying from them, and not their shareholders... or at least they pretended that was the case?