Right, the Islamic Republic of Iran just wants to live their lives peacefully. And they do nothing bad.... like, sponsor Hezbollah or ship weapons or participate in kidnappings. Nope, if the US went away, everything would be right as rain in Iran. Right?
The Islamic Republic of Iran wouldn't exist without the US. Remember, we destroyed their democracy in 1953 because they were trying to nationalize their oil fields, and kick us out. British Petroleum began its life as Anglo-Iranian Oil, which was known as Anglo-Persian Oil before that. The company was literally founded on the outright theft of all of Iran's oil, along with a handful of American companies that got their cut after Operation Ajax was complete. We installed the Shah, he repressed and radicalized the population with our money and training, and then the people revolted, as they often do.
We helped Britain divide and administer their post-war winnings after WWII that largely has started all of this mess. (Do you think oil-rich Iraq was divided equally into Kurdish, Shiite, and Sunni populations by accident?) We backed Saddam to punish the newly independent Iran after they overthrew our Shah. We participated in the proxy wars which destroyed Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran in the 80s. We allowed Pakistan to develop nuclear weapons -- as in, we certified them as nuclear free every year -- during the 80s in exchange for helping us smuggle weapons into Afghanistan. We backed Mubarak. We were pals with Gaddafi while he was torturing and murdering people because he was selling oil to us, but that was all the way back in 2009. We allow Turkey to murder and suppress Kurds at their whim because they are an ally. We didn't say much about Syria at first because it was one of our blacksites. We're still watching Bahrainis get murdered because we like the sitting government that allows our fleet that we use to project power into that Middle East to have a massive billion dollar operations base.
The US isn't the root of all evil, but in the modern Middle East, it's the root of most of it.
"CAIRO -- Al Jazeera, the pan-Arab news network financed by Qatar, named a member of the Qatari royal family on Tuesday to replace its top news director after disclosures from the group WikiLeaks indicating that the news director had modified the network's coverage of the Iraq war in response to pressure from the United States...
In at least one instance, involving a report on the network's Web site, Mr. Khanfar said in the cable that he had changed coverage at the American official's request. He said he had removed two images depicting wounded children in a hospital and a woman with a badly wounded face."
The fact that American officials are censoring the media, including Al Jazeera, may not be news to you, but it does further explain why the Iraq War looked nothing like Vietnam as far as news coverage was concerned. It wasn't because it was a good war. It was because reporting was limited to what American officials wanted Americans to see.
This is not the same thing. It's the difference between trying to learn how to change an oil filter by looking at a series of pictures of an engine, versus looking at the engine itself.
To put it in another way, if a picture is worth a thousand words, a three dimensional moving model is worth a thousand pictures.
Their cause alone proves that they are violence-prone and violence-minded. I don't care how much karma this burns. Well-organized, peaceful, leftist -- pick any 2 of the 3, but you can't have all 3.
If you couldn't have all three, a black man wouldn't be the president. American history is full of occupations of public and private spaces for civil and worker rights, and they worked in the 30s as well as in the 60s. That's why you have a 40 hour workweek and the right to vote regardless of your gender or skin color.
But what would an uneducated crypto fascist like you know about that?
How many of the hundreds of thousands who have died were involved in the planning of 9/11?
It was bloodlust that changed our goal from finding out who committed these atrocities and punishing them to starting a larger war that caused more innocent bloodshed that the crime we wanted justice for.
If someone had given me a rifle and I believed the people telling me 'Those are the assholes who tried to kill your friends' I would have killed them without hesitation.
So some people told you that Americans in the Twin Towers were responsible for some tragedy in your life, you'd sign up in a heartbeat, huh?
Summarized excerpt from "Al Qeada's Strategy to the Year 2020":
1. Provoke the United States into invading a Muslim country.
2. Incite local resistance to occupying forces.
3. Expand the conflict to neighboring countries, and engage the U.S. in a long war of attrition.
4. Convert al-Qaeda into an ideology and set of operating principles that can be loosely franchised in other countries without requiring direct command and control, and via these franchises incite attacks against countries allied with the U.S. until they withdraw from the conflict, as happened with the 2004 Madrid train bombings, but which did not have the same effect with the July 7, 2005 London bombings.
5. The U.S. economy will finally collapse under the strain of multiple engagements in numerous places, making the worldwide economic system which is dependant on the U.S. also collapse leading to global political instability, which in turn leads to a global jihad led by Al-Qaeda and a Wahhabi Caliphate will then be installed across the world.
bin Laden's stated goal, before and after the terror attacks in Kenya and on the Cole, was to draw the West into an intractable war with the Middle East. He was an evil fuck, but like some evil fucks in the past, he wasn't crazy or stupid. He got the idea from us in the late 80s when the same policy bankrupted the Soviet Union.
"I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life." --October, 2001
"All we have to do is send two mujaheddin... to raise a small piece of cloth on which is written "al-Qaeda" in order to make the generals race there, to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses." --2004
Second, fuck you for joining out of bloodlust. Service is a duty, not an excuse to become a heathen. Our military doesn't exist to settle feuds. It exists to uphold principles and rules of law, and to protect our nation from existential threats. Do you honestly think terrorist attacks from a landlocked nation that hasn't had a stable central government in three decades is capable of destroying our national sovereignty? Our failure to use restraint and common sense has cost this country its principles, the lives of your fellow soldiers, and trillions of dollars, all without making the world any safer from terrorism.
In short, your ignorance is more dangerous and has done more damage to this country than fundamentalist Islam.
As a citizen who is paying your salary, I wish I could fire you. You don't represent me or my values.
I'm 6'6 and 270. I'm not poor, not rich, and I don't live with my mother. (Though, she's pretty cool and lives in the mountains, so I don't know why that would be an issue for someone I would want to date. Materialistic people are certainly not my type.) I do terribly with American girls, because they like pretty, skinny boys, just as most American boys like pretty, skinny girls. Culturally, I find non-American women more fun to hang out with. They are less paranoid, there's typically less drama, and they are not weighed by Puritan guilt. They also seem to be less vain, and more interested in ideas and personalities rather than style and status.* Women of the Enlightenment are hard to find, but damn, they are worth looking for.
In any case, if you're hitting on someone with 30% less BMI, you're probably wasting your time. There is an element of Darwinian attraction in any initial meeting, and the superficiality of internet communication makes your photo the only thing that matters, as the GP stated. The only couple of times I batted outside of my league is when I met someone by chance in meatspace, and they happened to be single and looking when I was.
(* This is a generalization, so of course there are exceptions. I think Americans in general are institutionally programmed to be materialistic, overly competitive, and totally upside down when it comes to putting important things like family, charity, and social betterment ahead of their own narrow self-centered aspirations. It's not something I blame on people individually, but I certainly avoid them when I can.)
Maybe you are happy with your life, and the internet is the only problem, so ignore this advice if that is the case.
However, if you decide you are stuck in a rut, I think you need to get out of your routine and cutting out the internet isn't going to help. If you are able, sell everything you own, pick a spot on the map you've always wanted to go, and get on a plane and see how long you can make it there. It's only until you let go of your comfort zone that you'll be able to change yourself.
That was my path, of course. Maybe yours is getting a teaching degree and moving to New Orleans, or moving to a shithole apartment in the Bronx and writing a novel, or getting a job on a farm collective somewhere in Utah and rediscovering your body's ability to work, or tending bar in a pub down the street instead of your current job.
In any case, if you are stuck in a series of safe routines that aren't providing you happiness, get out there. You only get one shot. Take it.
Just because you remove yourself from the equation with money -- just like a mafia don does when he hires a hitman -- doesn't mean you get a pass when they correctly interpret your winks and nods, even if you escape the legal ramifications on technical grounds. As Nick Fel and pmc point out, the participation of people within NotW seems to have been already proven in a court of law.
In a larger perspective, this perfectly supports the theory that News Corp doesn't give a shit about news, but it pretends to for money. Take the American side of his empire, for instance. Roger Ailes founded Fox to push his political agenda, and Murdoch bankrolled it because he thought it would make money. That's not a conspiracy. That's just a common sense understanding of known facts. The idea that a Nixon aide and a capitalist would lie and cheat and hire people of questionable character to achieve their objectives shouldn't surprise anyone at all.
The only thing online games offer over real life is the opportunity to be someone you are not. WoW is successful because people can be rich and famous without actually being rich or famous. Once you allow people with more money to have cooler items in-game, you are destroying the reason people play it.
That doesn't mean it won't be profitable, but I think it will certainly turn many people off.
You poor man. Do you think other countries are prosecutable under US law? The issue here is one of hypocrisy: many of the actors involved in funding Iran, Iraq, and the proto-Taliban are still alive in the United States. If we can prosecute someone for supporting terrorism through ransom payments -- remember, not knowing they were terrorists isn't a sufficient legal excuse -- that would open up every US administration official who helped fund any of those terrorist groups.
Hell, the Reagan Administration removed Iraq from the State Sponsors of Terror list in 1982. The cronies (most of whom served in the Bush Administrations) would have to do some terrific tap dancing around that fact.
And while most of the weapons were not manufactured in the United States, most of the money came through deals explicitly approved and supported by the State Department and the CIA. They helped arrange funding through loans from the Gulf States, ironically including Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. The Reagan Administration was afraid Iran would run over Iraq and upset regional stability near all of the oil, so they played both sides, even providing military intelligence to Iraq even though they claimed to be officially neutral. (A little reading would probably be helpful for you.)
When when our war machine spun out of control, our weak-kneed response opened up the invasion of Kuwait. According to official transcripts, our diplomat said the following:
We can see that you have deployed massive numbers of troops in the south. Normally that would be none of our business, but when this happens in the context of your threats against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned. For this reason, I have received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship — not confrontation — regarding your intentions: Why are your troops massed so very close to Kuwait's borders?...We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America.
Later, the same diplomat said, "Obviously, I didn't think, and nobody else did, that the Iraqis were going to take all of Kuwait."
With the savings your friend could hire some real security experts to keep their systems online.
As for the terrorism bit, it makes me wonder when we can sue members of Reagan Administration for arming the proto-Taliban, Saddam Hussein, and Iran. Clinton and Obama owe us a few bucks for Pakistan too, when they inevitably start arming terrorist in the near future. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?
You do realize that linking to the patent response (which isn't your work) reinforces my point, don't you? Amazon is not defending their particular methods, because they are not particular. They are defending the idea of one less click within the spectrum of e-commerce. That's why they sued Barnes and Noble, even though Barnes and Noble used their own code to achieve the same end result. You plagiarized the patent reviewer in your support of claims 1, 6, 9, and 11 because you don't have any ideas that are your own. The only thing you could scrape up was a veiled argument from authority, and you even did poorly at representing that.
One less click is not a particular method. It's the end result of a suite of programs, just as two clicks are. Making superficial end results patentable is killing innovation, because they are not innovation. They are weak permutations of existing technology. Imagine if someone had patented the spreadsheet or the word processor or "a process by which a computer system returns the time to the upper right hand corner of a computer screen in one less click". How long would we have suffered with a weak product because there was no legal competition?
As I have said constantly, if you have specific ideas to support your original thesis that one less click is a particular method, I'm ready to hear it. Next time, I would suggest an attempt not to provide more evidence for my argument. Your stupidity has made me too demoralized about the future of our society to make fun of you, and that's really something I had enjoyed. Thanks for ruining what little value our conversations had.
This is an assertion with no evidence to support it. For instance, I could say "Theaetetus a fucking idiot." That's an assertion. Then I could provide a link to this thread, which would make it an unassailable argument. Thankfully, you make more specific arguments later among the normal backwash which typically fills out the fetid and preposterous string of words you think are worth typing out.
Claim #1 is a prime piece of shit. After deleting the items that are a requirement of every single e-commerce transaction that has ever occurred, we are left with one statement:
in response to only a single action being performed, sending a request to order the item along with an identifier of a purchaser of the item to a server system
The key phrase being "only a single action performed." So, nothing new, just performing the same action as every other e-commerce transaction in less clicks.
Claim #6 is more oblong and orange hued, but still excrement. After deleting items common to all e-commerce transactions, we are left with nothing. If you disagree, provide an example.
Claim #9 is the server side of this nothingness they would like to patent, and holds nothing uncommon with all other e-commerce transactions. Again, if you disagree, provide an example.
Claim #11 is another restatement of common e-commerce actions with the only change: the phrase "a single action."
In essence, in that bucket of misery you call a head, you believe that if a car company invented a way to navigate to a radio station with one press of a button intead of two, they should be awarded a patent, and allowed to sue other automakers who make the same function available in the same number of button presses. How ordinarily pathetic.
The only assertion you made in your first response was that "The title is not the patent, nor is the colloquial description of it. Go look at the claims - it's a particular method, not just an end result." You quoted it again a few days later.
I have looked at all of the claims. None of them are a particular method worthy of a patent. I have asked you to provide me with the claim that you believe merits the patent. This is a sound, falsifiable argument: I assert that there are zero claims worthy of a patent. You say at least one claim does, so it's up to you to present it.
Since then, you have failed to provide me with the claim, because you don't have it, and saying so will reveal your stupidity. Continually denying this simple fact makes you an idiot of the Republican variety, whereby denial -- turning into a different argument some days later -- seems to be preferable to admitting that you were full of shit.
So please, support your original argument, or get back to whatever lighted box is running your life these days. Since I'm such a nice guy, and you're so obviously in need, let me help you further. Complete the following sentence by filling in the blanks:
I assert that claim number _____ from the Amazon filing is a particular method worthy of a patent because _______________________________.
Feel free to use your notes, and of course, I'll expect more than "because I said so" in that second blank. Good luck!
...they never patented "one click shopping". The title is not the patent, nor is the colloquial description of it. Go look at the claims - it's a particular method, not just an end result.
to
Go back to the document you cited. Go down to where it says "claims". Read those. Then present some prior art that invalidates them.
Holy pathetic rhetoric, Batman. You just graduated to the Tea Party Express of Credulity. Are you prepared to admit that you have abandoned your first statement so we can address the second?
Nothing about your nationality prevents you from being as stupid as a Republican. Your failure to grasp this concept is proof in and of itself.
Also, thank you for not providing a claim representing a particular method that you feel is worthy of a patent. You are learning a lot from your mentor, which is to say, you're learning to be proud of very little. I'm sure Theaetetus is reveling in his new-found protégé's ability to say jack shit and feel great about it.
No, you're a fucking idiot. And you have the stupidity of a Republican. I have made the (very) easily falsifiable claim that the patent holds no claims that merit a patent based on any particular method. For illustration, I used the abstract and the summary as provided by Amazon, because it would be a huge waste of my time, and that of anyone whose opinion I care about, to list each claim and refute them individually.
So, if you can present one of these claims as a particular method that you think warrants a patent, the burden is on you to do so. I'm going to bet you'll again focus on imaginary semantics instead of substance because you made a bad argument, and you're too much of a pussy to admit it.
An embodiment of the present invention provides a method and system for ordering an item from a client system. The client system is provided with an identifier that identifies a customer. The client system displays information that identifies the item and displays an indication of an action (e.g., a single action such as clicking a mouse button) that a purchaser is to perform to order the identified item. In response to the indicated action being performed, the client system sends to a server system the provided identifier and a request to order the identified item. The server system uses the identifier to identify additional information needed to generate an order for the item and then generates the order.
The server system receives and stores the additional information for customers using various computer systems so that the server system can generate such orders. The server system stores the received additional information in association with an identifier of the customer and provides the identifier to the client system. When requested by the client system, the server system provides information describing the item to the requesting client system. When the server system receives a request from a client system, the server system combines the additional information stored in association with the identifier included in the request to effect the ordering of the item.
Slashdot Mirror
The Islamic Republic of Iran wouldn't exist without the US. Remember, we destroyed their democracy in 1953 because they were trying to nationalize their oil fields, and kick us out. British Petroleum began its life as Anglo-Iranian Oil, which was known as Anglo-Persian Oil before that. The company was literally founded on the outright theft of all of Iran's oil, along with a handful of American companies that got their cut after Operation Ajax was complete. We installed the Shah, he repressed and radicalized the population with our money and training, and then the people revolted, as they often do.
We helped Britain divide and administer their post-war winnings after WWII that largely has started all of this mess. (Do you think oil-rich Iraq was divided equally into Kurdish, Shiite, and Sunni populations by accident?) We backed Saddam to punish the newly independent Iran after they overthrew our Shah. We participated in the proxy wars which destroyed Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran in the 80s. We allowed Pakistan to develop nuclear weapons -- as in, we certified them as nuclear free every year -- during the 80s in exchange for helping us smuggle weapons into Afghanistan. We backed Mubarak. We were pals with Gaddafi while he was torturing and murdering people because he was selling oil to us, but that was all the way back in 2009. We allow Turkey to murder and suppress Kurds at their whim because they are an ally. We didn't say much about Syria at first because it was one of our blacksites. We're still watching Bahrainis get murdered because we like the sitting government that allows our fleet that we use to project power into that Middle East to have a massive billion dollar operations base.
The US isn't the root of all evil, but in the modern Middle East, it's the root of most of it.
After Disclosures by WikiLeaks, Al Jazeera Replaces Its Top News Director
"CAIRO -- Al Jazeera, the pan-Arab news network financed by Qatar, named a member of the Qatari royal family on Tuesday to replace its top news director after disclosures from the group WikiLeaks indicating that the news director had modified the network's coverage of the Iraq war in response to pressure from the United States...
In at least one instance, involving a report on the network's Web site, Mr. Khanfar said in the cable that he had changed coverage at the American official's request. He said he had removed two images depicting wounded children in a hospital and a woman with a badly wounded face."
The fact that American officials are censoring the media, including Al Jazeera, may not be news to you, but it does further explain why the Iraq War looked nothing like Vietnam as far as news coverage was concerned. It wasn't because it was a good war. It was because reporting was limited to what American officials wanted Americans to see.
This is not the same thing. It's the difference between trying to learn how to change an oil filter by looking at a series of pictures of an engine, versus looking at the engine itself.
To put it in another way, if a picture is worth a thousand words, a three dimensional moving model is worth a thousand pictures.
If you couldn't have all three, a black man wouldn't be the president. American history is full of occupations of public and private spaces for civil and worker rights, and they worked in the 30s as well as in the 60s. That's why you have a 40 hour workweek and the right to vote regardless of your gender or skin color.
But what would an uneducated crypto fascist like you know about that?
How many of the hundreds of thousands who have died were involved in the planning of 9/11?
It was bloodlust that changed our goal from finding out who committed these atrocities and punishing them to starting a larger war that caused more innocent bloodshed that the crime we wanted justice for.
So some people told you that Americans in the Twin Towers were responsible for some tragedy in your life, you'd sign up in a heartbeat, huh?
You've got a fucking brain. Please use it.
Homophobia and senseless violence? You should see if the Taliban is still hiring.
Summarized excerpt from "Al Qeada's Strategy to the Year 2020":
bin Laden's stated goal, before and after the terror attacks in Kenya and on the Cole, was to draw the West into an intractable war with the Middle East. He was an evil fuck, but like some evil fucks in the past, he wasn't crazy or stupid. He got the idea from us in the late 80s when the same policy bankrupted the Soviet Union.
"I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life." --October, 2001
"All we have to do is send two mujaheddin... to raise a small piece of cloth on which is written "al-Qaeda" in order to make the generals race there, to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses." --2004
First, thank you for your service to our country.
Second, fuck you for joining out of bloodlust. Service is a duty, not an excuse to become a heathen. Our military doesn't exist to settle feuds. It exists to uphold principles and rules of law, and to protect our nation from existential threats. Do you honestly think terrorist attacks from a landlocked nation that hasn't had a stable central government in three decades is capable of destroying our national sovereignty? Our failure to use restraint and common sense has cost this country its principles, the lives of your fellow soldiers, and trillions of dollars, all without making the world any safer from terrorism.
In short, your ignorance is more dangerous and has done more damage to this country than fundamentalist Islam.
As a citizen who is paying your salary, I wish I could fire you. You don't represent me or my values.
I'm 6'6 and 270. I'm not poor, not rich, and I don't live with my mother. (Though, she's pretty cool and lives in the mountains, so I don't know why that would be an issue for someone I would want to date. Materialistic people are certainly not my type.) I do terribly with American girls, because they like pretty, skinny boys, just as most American boys like pretty, skinny girls. Culturally, I find non-American women more fun to hang out with. They are less paranoid, there's typically less drama, and they are not weighed by Puritan guilt. They also seem to be less vain, and more interested in ideas and personalities rather than style and status.* Women of the Enlightenment are hard to find, but damn, they are worth looking for.
In any case, if you're hitting on someone with 30% less BMI, you're probably wasting your time. There is an element of Darwinian attraction in any initial meeting, and the superficiality of internet communication makes your photo the only thing that matters, as the GP stated. The only couple of times I batted outside of my league is when I met someone by chance in meatspace, and they happened to be single and looking when I was.
(* This is a generalization, so of course there are exceptions. I think Americans in general are institutionally programmed to be materialistic, overly competitive, and totally upside down when it comes to putting important things like family, charity, and social betterment ahead of their own narrow self-centered aspirations. It's not something I blame on people individually, but I certainly avoid them when I can.)
Maybe you are happy with your life, and the internet is the only problem, so ignore this advice if that is the case.
However, if you decide you are stuck in a rut, I think you need to get out of your routine and cutting out the internet isn't going to help. If you are able, sell everything you own, pick a spot on the map you've always wanted to go, and get on a plane and see how long you can make it there. It's only until you let go of your comfort zone that you'll be able to change yourself.
That was my path, of course. Maybe yours is getting a teaching degree and moving to New Orleans, or moving to a shithole apartment in the Bronx and writing a novel, or getting a job on a farm collective somewhere in Utah and rediscovering your body's ability to work, or tending bar in a pub down the street instead of your current job.
In any case, if you are stuck in a series of safe routines that aren't providing you happiness, get out there. You only get one shot. Take it.
You can't buy sex or drugs and keep it a secret without cash. Good luck.
Just because you remove yourself from the equation with money -- just like a mafia don does when he hires a hitman -- doesn't mean you get a pass when they correctly interpret your winks and nods, even if you escape the legal ramifications on technical grounds. As Nick Fel and pmc point out, the participation of people within NotW seems to have been already proven in a court of law.
In a larger perspective, this perfectly supports the theory that News Corp doesn't give a shit about news, but it pretends to for money. Take the American side of his empire, for instance. Roger Ailes founded Fox to push his political agenda, and Murdoch bankrolled it because he thought it would make money. That's not a conspiracy. That's just a common sense understanding of known facts. The idea that a Nixon aide and a capitalist would lie and cheat and hire people of questionable character to achieve their objectives shouldn't surprise anyone at all.
The only thing online games offer over real life is the opportunity to be someone you are not. WoW is successful because people can be rich and famous without actually being rich or famous. Once you allow people with more money to have cooler items in-game, you are destroying the reason people play it.
That doesn't mean it won't be profitable, but I think it will certainly turn many people off.
You poor man. Do you think other countries are prosecutable under US law? The issue here is one of hypocrisy: many of the actors involved in funding Iran, Iraq, and the proto-Taliban are still alive in the United States. If we can prosecute someone for supporting terrorism through ransom payments -- remember, not knowing they were terrorists isn't a sufficient legal excuse -- that would open up every US administration official who helped fund any of those terrorist groups.
Hell, the Reagan Administration removed Iraq from the State Sponsors of Terror list in 1982. The cronies (most of whom served in the Bush Administrations) would have to do some terrific tap dancing around that fact.
And while most of the weapons were not manufactured in the United States, most of the money came through deals explicitly approved and supported by the State Department and the CIA. They helped arrange funding through loans from the Gulf States, ironically including Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. The Reagan Administration was afraid Iran would run over Iraq and upset regional stability near all of the oil, so they played both sides, even providing military intelligence to Iraq even though they claimed to be officially neutral. (A little reading would probably be helpful for you.)
When when our war machine spun out of control, our weak-kneed response opened up the invasion of Kuwait. According to official transcripts, our diplomat said the following:
We can see that you have deployed massive numbers of troops in the south. Normally that would be none of our business, but when this happens in the context of your threats against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned. For this reason, I have received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship — not confrontation — regarding your intentions: Why are your troops massed so very close to Kuwait's borders? ...We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America.
Later, the same diplomat said, "Obviously, I didn't think, and nobody else did, that the Iraqis were going to take all of Kuwait."
Damn that was easy.
Doesn't gander mean a group of geese?
With the savings your friend could hire some real security experts to keep their systems online.
As for the terrorism bit, it makes me wonder when we can sue members of Reagan Administration for arming the proto-Taliban, Saddam Hussein, and Iran. Clinton and Obama owe us a few bucks for Pakistan too, when they inevitably start arming terrorist in the near future. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?
You do realize that linking to the patent response (which isn't your work) reinforces my point, don't you? Amazon is not defending their particular methods, because they are not particular. They are defending the idea of one less click within the spectrum of e-commerce. That's why they sued Barnes and Noble, even though Barnes and Noble used their own code to achieve the same end result. You plagiarized the patent reviewer in your support of claims 1, 6, 9, and 11 because you don't have any ideas that are your own. The only thing you could scrape up was a veiled argument from authority, and you even did poorly at representing that.
One less click is not a particular method. It's the end result of a suite of programs, just as two clicks are. Making superficial end results patentable is killing innovation, because they are not innovation. They are weak permutations of existing technology. Imagine if someone had patented the spreadsheet or the word processor or "a process by which a computer system returns the time to the upper right hand corner of a computer screen in one less click". How long would we have suffered with a weak product because there was no legal competition?
As I have said constantly, if you have specific ideas to support your original thesis that one less click is a particular method, I'm ready to hear it. Next time, I would suggest an attempt not to provide more evidence for my argument. Your stupidity has made me too demoralized about the future of our society to make fun of you, and that's really something I had enjoyed. Thanks for ruining what little value our conversations had.
Claim 1 is worthy.
This is an assertion with no evidence to support it. For instance, I could say "Theaetetus a fucking idiot." That's an assertion. Then I could provide a link to this thread, which would make it an unassailable argument. Thankfully, you make more specific arguments later among the normal backwash which typically fills out the fetid and preposterous string of words you think are worth typing out.
I assert that claim numbers 1, 6, 9 and 11, and all of the dependent claims from the Amazon filing are particular methods worthy of a patent because the prior art fails to show or suggest an ordering system, or method of placing an order that utilizes a system, which includes the single action ordering system or component and a shopping cart model or component as recited by the claims.
Claim #1 is a prime piece of shit. After deleting the items that are a requirement of every single e-commerce transaction that has ever occurred, we are left with one statement:
The key phrase being "only a single action performed." So, nothing new, just performing the same action as every other e-commerce transaction in less clicks.
Claim #6 is more oblong and orange hued, but still excrement. After deleting items common to all e-commerce transactions, we are left with nothing. If you disagree, provide an example.
Claim #9 is the server side of this nothingness they would like to patent, and holds nothing uncommon with all other e-commerce transactions. Again, if you disagree, provide an example.
Claim #11 is another restatement of common e-commerce actions with the only change: the phrase "a single action."
In essence, in that bucket of misery you call a head, you believe that if a car company invented a way to navigate to a radio station with one press of a button intead of two, they should be awarded a patent, and allowed to sue other automakers who make the same function available in the same number of button presses. How ordinarily pathetic.
you are no better than a member of the KKK spouting pure-opinion.
That was actually quite funny. It's unfortunate that you don't know why.
The only assertion you made in your first response was that "The title is not the patent, nor is the colloquial description of it. Go look at the claims - it's a particular method, not just an end result." You quoted it again a few days later.
I have looked at all of the claims. None of them are a particular method worthy of a patent. I have asked you to provide me with the claim that you believe merits the patent. This is a sound, falsifiable argument: I assert that there are zero claims worthy of a patent. You say at least one claim does, so it's up to you to present it.
Since then, you have failed to provide me with the claim, because you don't have it, and saying so will reveal your stupidity. Continually denying this simple fact makes you an idiot of the Republican variety, whereby denial -- turning into a different argument some days later -- seems to be preferable to admitting that you were full of shit.
So please, support your original argument, or get back to whatever lighted box is running your life these days. Since I'm such a nice guy, and you're so obviously in need, let me help you further. Complete the following sentence by filling in the blanks:
I assert that claim number _____ from the Amazon filing is a particular method worthy of a patent because _______________________________.
Feel free to use your notes, and of course, I'll expect more than "because I said so" in that second blank. Good luck!
So you're changing your argument from
...they never patented "one click shopping". The title is not the patent, nor is the colloquial description of it. Go look at the claims - it's a particular method, not just an end result.
to
Go back to the document you cited. Go down to where it says "claims". Read those. Then present some prior art that invalidates them.
Holy pathetic rhetoric, Batman. You just graduated to the Tea Party Express of Credulity. Are you prepared to admit that you have abandoned your first statement so we can address the second?
Nothing about your nationality prevents you from being as stupid as a Republican. Your failure to grasp this concept is proof in and of itself.
Also, thank you for not providing a claim representing a particular method that you feel is worthy of a patent. You are learning a lot from your mentor, which is to say, you're learning to be proud of very little. I'm sure Theaetetus is reveling in his new-found protégé's ability to say jack shit and feel great about it.
No, you're a fucking idiot. And you have the stupidity of a Republican. I have made the (very) easily falsifiable claim that the patent holds no claims that merit a patent based on any particular method. For illustration, I used the abstract and the summary as provided by Amazon, because it would be a huge waste of my time, and that of anyone whose opinion I care about, to list each claim and refute them individually.
So, if you can present one of these claims as a particular method that you think warrants a patent, the burden is on you to do so. I'm going to bet you'll again focus on imaginary semantics instead of substance because you made a bad argument, and you're too much of a pussy to admit it.
Here's the summary from the claims:
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
An embodiment of the present invention provides a method and system for ordering an item from a client system. The client system is provided with an identifier that identifies a customer. The client system displays information that identifies the item and displays an indication of an action (e.g., a single action such as clicking a mouse button) that a purchaser is to perform to order the identified item. In response to the indicated action being performed, the client system sends to a server system the provided identifier and a request to order the identified item. The server system uses the identifier to identify additional information needed to generate an order for the item and then generates the order.
The server system receives and stores the additional information for customers using various computer systems so that the server system can generate such orders. The server system stores the received additional information in association with an identifier of the customer and provides the identifier to the client system. When requested by the client system, the server system provides information describing the item to the requesting client system. When the server system receives a request from a client system, the server system combines the additional information stored in association with the identifier included in the request to effect the ordering of the item.
Here's a list of the claims. Tell me which ones are particular.
I know you're a fucking idiot... but are you Republican stupid? Can you ignore facts? Let's see.